raydan raydan:
The problem is not when adults decide not to accept transfusions, it's when adults decide to refuse transfusions for their children.
Should we, as a society, let parents decide if a child will live or die?
The parents are the legal guardians of their own children and thus hold authority on these sort of decisions. Whether or not they are from their own reasoning, ignorance or religious beliefs.... them's the breaks.
Children don't get a say if they don't want to goto the dentist, or have an operation, or goto school, or goto church... the parents make these decisions for them.
In this case, if I remember correctly, the parents' didn't refuse any and all treatments, they simply refused the blood transfusion treatment and were seeking other alternative treatments.
Docotrs are supposed to present you with the options, tell you which one's stand the best chance of success, you pick which one you or your loved ones will be put under and they do their job.
They are not there to decide what's best and do it without your approval. They shouldn't be allowed to simply think that because one thing has a better success rate then other treatments, they should default to that treatment for all their cases, regardless of the various differences in cases, personal, mental and physical.
Doctors are supposed to do their jobs, they're not supposed to be the final say in what's more morally accepted.... regardless if their own personal feelings don't match your own.
If people want to believe it's wrong to accept human organs, blood, tissue due to some old religious belief, so be it..... if they die, one less human on the planet.
And in most of these cases I have come accross, the children believe the same way as their parents in regards to blood transfusions. Add it up to life long brain washing and pressure, it matters not, because usually once they hit 18 years of age, they'll still believe exactly as they do now.... that it's wrong. They're adults at that time, they can make their own decisions and come to the same conclusions... being adult or not, their religious teachings don't change, thus why would their thinking change?
Until then, the parents hold responsibility over such decisions, and if the child dies because of those decisions, then they should be held responsible. Since in this case they were seeking alternative treatments, rather then out right refusal of all treatments (thus resulting in the child's actual death) then there'd be a case..... but seeking other treatments, whether their success rates are 4% or 80% was still something people were allowed to do last I checked.
Heck it's been done for a long time in many other medical cases.... why should the hospitals and such be able to over step their authority on this? Emotional appeal? Me thinks not.
And last I checked, Hospitals wern't a dictatorship over our health. If they don't have the authority to force medical procedures apon adults, where do they get the right to do the same on children, when their parent's are responsible for those decisions?
Added:
But back to your question:
"Should we, as a society, let parents decide if a child will live or die?"^ That's a bit skewed as the parents wern't deciding apon the child's death, but deciding apon which procedures to use to save the child's life without going against their beliefs. Just because parents don't opt for the most suggested treatment by doctors and goes for another one that shows a success rate, doesn't automatically mean they want their child to die.
If society as you put it is allowed to make all the parenting decisions over the actual parents, then how about everybody just pass their children off to the government/society to take care of if they want to do it so badly?
CKA Elite 
Forum Elite 
