i would like to know the legal side of these scenarios. if a person rejects a blood transfusion, knowing he/she will die then,isnt it suicide somehow?
and if parents wont let their kids have a blood transfusion,knowing the child will die without it,isnt that manslaughter?
2007-11-10 20:59:22 · 18 answers · asked by kc 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
presumably you are talking about jehovahs witnesses or christain scientists here. Legally in the UK, it is only suicide if a person intentionally commits an act with the intention of killing themselves. It is not suicide if a person refuses treatment for whatever reason. In some jurisdictions courts have ruled that parents refusing to allow their children treatment on such grounds would be manslaughter, but I dont think this is the case in the UK
2007-11-10 21:46:31 · answer #1 · answered by vdv_desantnik 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No - - - it is choice. No one 'knows' they are about to die. A person ought to have the choice of a transfusion. If they feel for whatever reason they do not need it then it is up to 'fate' if they live or die. IT would likely spook you to learn how many people die from botched transfusuions.. The wrong blood type, strange complications all work into the equation. But above all an individual must have the right to live or die by their own choice.
As for children that is a tricky gray area. If one buys into the argument than a child is their parent's property, responsibilty and all that, then it is the parent's right and they can fight their own conscience for all of eternity for whatever the results might be. Whatever may be the individual ought to be free to say yea or nay to a transfusion.
Peace.......................ppppppppppppppffffffffttttzzzzzzzzz! (ah)
2007-11-11 05:09:43 · answer #2 · answered by JVHawai'i 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if it's for religious reasons. A person has the right in the US to deny any kind of medical treatment for any reason, and they are protected by law. There are moral issues that will always be debated, like abortion or euthanasia, but refusing a blood transfusion is a religious right.
2007-11-11 05:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by still waiting 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
legally no but some people might feel so.
its not suicide as the person doesnt have the intention to die. but if you see it in a way that a person choses rather to die than having a transfusion,well then it is sort of thing.
i dont think its right that parents can refuse life saving treatment,especially if the child wants it! a parent is supposed to support their child. if my parents would do that to me (and even though i would survive) i would NEVER forgive them for it. my life should be more important than their beliefs
2007-11-11 06:30:22 · answer #4 · answered by christina 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have every right to refuse medical treatment. Refusing wouldn't be suicide because you have to actually take your life. In order to need a transfusion there is probably already a fatal injury/medical problem. As a parent, I know I would do whatever was in my child's best interest.
I had a friend in HS who was a hemophiliac. He got in a car accident when he was young (in the 80's) In order for him to survive, his parents said YES to a blood transfusion. My friend Chris died when he was 16 from complications of the AIDS virus that he'd been infected with after he was given tainted blood in the transfusion.
Would you call that manslaughter?
It's all a what if, circumstantial, case by case kind of thing. Sometimes it sucks, but people are going to do what they are going to do.
su·i·cide [soo-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -cid·ed, -cid·ing.
–noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects: Buying that house was financial suicide.
3. a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
–verb (used without object)
4. to commit suicide.
–verb (used with object)
5. to kill (oneself).
[Origin: 1645–55; < NL suÄ«cÄ«dium, -cÄ«da, equiv. to L suÄ« of oneself, gen. sing. of reflexive pron. + -cÄ«dium, -cÄ«da -cide]
2007-11-11 05:14:43 · answer #5 · answered by BayleeMarie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doctors are legally obliged to treat all patients to whom they have a contractual duty, and this includes patients who impose conditions on treatment. A doctor can refuse to treat such a patient only when no harm results to the patient or a colleague takes over care. We agreed not to give blood, although we thought that both patients would die without it. The survival of our first patient shows that aggressive resuscitation and, if necessary, intensive care must be offered to trauma victims who refuse blood transfusion as it is possible to survive extreme haemodilution. However, both patients had a predicted survival of 99%, and the early death of our second patient must be attributed to his refusal to accept blood transfusion.
Because our first patient refused a blood transfusion he required admission to intensive care and additional expensive treatment. Our legal duty to treat him according to his wishes conflicted with our moral duty to use our finite resources efficiently.
When patients with severe injuries refuse blood transfusion active treatment is medically justified and may result in unexpected survival. Doctors are legally obliged to respect a patient's wish to avoid blood transfusion and may thus deny scarce resources to other patients.
2007-11-11 05:08:16 · answer #6 · answered by Psycho Dude 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a matter of intent, of rights to privacy, of the right of a person to raise their child as they see fit.
Criminalizing a person's religious beliefs, because they do not believe in transfusion, is a dangerous area to tread, and I hesitate to give the state the power to do so. IMO, it's a violation of the 1st Amendment.
2007-11-11 05:09:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Choosing death over a blood transfusion I think is no different than suicide.
I'm not sure parents should be able to choose death for their children instead of a transfusion. They are not looking to the childs well being and should have that right taken from them.
2007-11-11 05:09:27 · answer #8 · answered by G Y 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No because theparents have the right to decide if they want there kids to have it, that is definitly not manslaughter because sometimes parents think that there kids will survive and they have the right to refuse anything. even if the kid wants it.
No it is not suicide because they do not have to do something they do not want to do, They cant force someome to do something because it is a violation of rights
2007-11-11 05:09:16 · answer #9 · answered by bee bee boo 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you can reject medical treatment, but in the case of a child the Doctors can apply to the Courts to administer treatment.
2007-11-11 09:25:49 · answer #10 · answered by flint 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋