On Saturday, the father carried his son who had just been born in a hospital. The doctor discovered that the child needed a quick blood transfusion. However, the doctor was surprised by the refusal of the father of the patient to transfer the blood categorically because he belonged to one of the Jewish denominations that forbade That is "Jehovah's Witnesses".
Despite the doctor's efforts to explain the serious effects on the health of the child, and his death is certain, and his prayers to his father, but the latter insisted on rejection ..
The doctor found himself in an unenviable position. He called the hospital administration, which did not give him a specific answer. He advised him to contact the police department, who contacted him in turn. The latter informed him that the prosecution can not prevent medical work or order. with it".
In this case, the doctor had only to choose between four solutions:
1 - to comply with the father's objection, the transfer is not carried out .. This solution is a shock to the conscience of the medical conscience, especially when one thinks of its terrible consequences. Moreover, such a position can be explained by eliminating it as a default in treatment.
2 - to carry out the blood transfusion without telling the father of the child, or even assure him not to do .. It is a solution that is a violent shock to morality. Moreover, any mistake that may occur during blood transfusion - albeit rare - can lead to the doctor being blamed for doing the work despite parental objections.
3 - to see the seriousness of not transferring blood to his son, and leave him to go if he wanted. However, this father can still sue the doctor for not providing assistance to a person at risk.
4 - report the procedure of blood transfusion, and declare it officially, or notice to the administration .. And the willingness to oppose the father of the child by force if he tried to take him .. This is the solution that he liked, although he had received opposition from the administration ..
Finally, the doctor asked Professor Kornbroust, who published numerous articles on the patient's right to refuse treatment, about his views on what could be done in this case, which could be encountered by the doctor anywhere and at any time.
After admitting the difficulty of this problem, which puts the doctor in a very embarrassing position, he acknowledged that the law must stop before the medical literature. This decision, which was taken consciously and conscientiously by the doctor or surgeon, must be free from any criticism by the judiciary, As long as it is justified decision from the scientific point of view.
The French law - in this case - the opinion of the doctor not to tell the child's parents that he will carry out the blood transfusion, but to confirm that he will not do it .. And although this attitude of the doctor, a market shocked the literature of the profession.
In a situation where there is no risk of death, the doctor must refrain from performing the surgery in respect of the patient's will.
In the case of a child whose parents refused to transfer blood to him, the choice is for the doctor, since the matter is only a remedy. If the parents insist on resorting to the Attorney General or the Children's Judge, if the time permits the asylum To them.
If all attempts by the doctor fail, it is inevitable that the doctor has every right to follow the only remedy that will heal him, God willing, in the context of the match with the will of the parents of the child, the match that occurred just handed over the child For his treatment.
However, the question remains whether this right, which has been proven to the doctor, allows him to object by force, the desire of the child's father to recover or take him out of his hands?
Undoubtedly, a doctor who has done his duty in this way is not considered to be in breach of wisdom and reason, if he is to leave the child to the fate he has struggled to keep away from. And who worked on his failure a harsh will of the father ..
However, some jurists refused to hand over to parental authority the right to death on the child, describing it as a destructive power, and therefore must be resisted. They referred to a similar case in the European judiciary, where the ruling had aroused the admiration of all. It was related to the mother of four children who refused to undergo urgent surgery because of religious belief.
And the court did not listen to the judge, and the court controlled the mind and logic, and said: This woman is not free to die for a religious belief .. She must live for her four children and her husband !!.
Despite the doctor's efforts to explain the serious effects on the health of the child, and his death is certain, and his prayers to his father, but the latter insisted on rejection ..
The doctor found himself in an unenviable position. He called the hospital administration, which did not give him a specific answer. He advised him to contact the police department, who contacted him in turn. The latter informed him that the prosecution can not prevent medical work or order. with it".
In this case, the doctor had only to choose between four solutions:
1 - to comply with the father's objection, the transfer is not carried out .. This solution is a shock to the conscience of the medical conscience, especially when one thinks of its terrible consequences. Moreover, such a position can be explained by eliminating it as a default in treatment.
2 - to carry out the blood transfusion without telling the father of the child, or even assure him not to do .. It is a solution that is a violent shock to morality. Moreover, any mistake that may occur during blood transfusion - albeit rare - can lead to the doctor being blamed for doing the work despite parental objections.
3 - to see the seriousness of not transferring blood to his son, and leave him to go if he wanted. However, this father can still sue the doctor for not providing assistance to a person at risk.
4 - report the procedure of blood transfusion, and declare it officially, or notice to the administration .. And the willingness to oppose the father of the child by force if he tried to take him .. This is the solution that he liked, although he had received opposition from the administration ..
Finally, the doctor asked Professor Kornbroust, who published numerous articles on the patient's right to refuse treatment, about his views on what could be done in this case, which could be encountered by the doctor anywhere and at any time.
After admitting the difficulty of this problem, which puts the doctor in a very embarrassing position, he acknowledged that the law must stop before the medical literature. This decision, which was taken consciously and conscientiously by the doctor or surgeon, must be free from any criticism by the judiciary, As long as it is justified decision from the scientific point of view.
The French law - in this case - the opinion of the doctor not to tell the child's parents that he will carry out the blood transfusion, but to confirm that he will not do it .. And although this attitude of the doctor, a market shocked the literature of the profession.
In a situation where there is no risk of death, the doctor must refrain from performing the surgery in respect of the patient's will.
In the case of a child whose parents refused to transfer blood to him, the choice is for the doctor, since the matter is only a remedy. If the parents insist on resorting to the Attorney General or the Children's Judge, if the time permits the asylum To them.
If all attempts by the doctor fail, it is inevitable that the doctor has every right to follow the only remedy that will heal him, God willing, in the context of the match with the will of the parents of the child, the match that occurred just handed over the child For his treatment.
However, the question remains whether this right, which has been proven to the doctor, allows him to object by force, the desire of the child's father to recover or take him out of his hands?
Undoubtedly, a doctor who has done his duty in this way is not considered to be in breach of wisdom and reason, if he is to leave the child to the fate he has struggled to keep away from. And who worked on his failure a harsh will of the father ..
However, some jurists refused to hand over to parental authority the right to death on the child, describing it as a destructive power, and therefore must be resisted. They referred to a similar case in the European judiciary, where the ruling had aroused the admiration of all. It was related to the mother of four children who refused to undergo urgent surgery because of religious belief.
And the court did not listen to the judge, and the court controlled the mind and logic, and said: This woman is not free to die for a religious belief .. She must live for her four children and her husband !!.
Labels
Medical responsibility