Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's really common sense that you seem to be lacking. If the physicians give a prognosis for a quick and full recovery, but the patient is temporarily on life support, are you saying the parents or next of kin can override that? I'm saying they can't. That choice (to cut life support) wouldn't even be presented to them at that point.
You can say it all you want, but that makes no difference. Take Jehovah witnesses as an example. A simple blood transfusion can save a life in two shakes, but parents say no and that's that. Don't confuse what you consider to be common sense for the reality that we live in. If my husband says no life support, then it's no life support for me. Period. I'm amazed that you are so unaware. How old are you?
You can say it all you want, but that makes no difference. Take Jehovah witnesses as an example. A simple blood transfusion can safe a life in two shakes, but parents say no and that's that. Don't confuse what you consider to be common sense for the reality that we live in. If my husband says no life support, then it's no life support for me. Period. I'm amazed that you are so unaware. How old are you?
There have been cases where the child has become the ward of the state when parents tried to make such irresponsible decisions. I suggest you read up.
However, our society does not extend this same level of respect of adult religious beliefs to the minor children of Jehovah's Witnesses when they are likely to die without blood transfusions. We do not presume that minor children share the same belief system as their parents in adhering to a religious doctrine that may produce their death rather than to receive a blood transfusion. In these cases, the parens patriae (“parent of the nation”) function of the state is invoked to protect vulnerable children from preventable harm when one knows they are at risk. This is the same legal doctrine that authorizes state agencies to remove children from abusive or neglectful parents to protect them from known harm at home.
I didn't know that, so I stand corrected in this case. Still, I think you will be hard pressed to find this as a precedent across the board for life saving measures.
I didn't know that, so I stand corrected in this case. Still, I think you will be hard pressed to find this as a precedent across the board for life saving measures.
In 99% of cases the parents would be more aggressive seeking treatment than doctors. In that 1% case where the doctors believe a full recovery is possible and the parents attempt to pull support, they will make the kid ward of the state.
Which is how it's supposed to be, don't you agree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
