Choosing no treatment
A friend asked me how we balance our belief and faith against our understanding of the advances of modern medicine in a situation like the one described in this article involving a 14 year old boy who refused life saving treatment because of his religious belief.
Devout boy dies after refusing transfusion - Health care- msnbc.com
I do believe every patient has the right to decline medical treatment or interventions that may or may not save their life.
I, on the other hand, do not believe patients have the right to actively take treatments they know will terminate their life specifically for that purpose.
I think there is a big difference between letting the natural consequences of an illness take its course compared to actively expediting a death by artificial means.
This case is interesting in the fact the parents did not have custody. There must be more to the underlying story as it is unusual for neither parent to have custody of a sick child. An aunt having custody would typically mean the parents had some issues of their own and their challenge in this case would probably have been futile.
Weighing the beliefs of patients with current advances in medicine is a daunting challenge but is specifically why religious beliefs need to be part of an overall history when talking with patients and families.
Devout boy dies after refusing transfusion - Health care- msnbc.com
I do believe every patient has the right to decline medical treatment or interventions that may or may not save their life.
I, on the other hand, do not believe patients have the right to actively take treatments they know will terminate their life specifically for that purpose.
I think there is a big difference between letting the natural consequences of an illness take its course compared to actively expediting a death by artificial means.
This case is interesting in the fact the parents did not have custody. There must be more to the underlying story as it is unusual for neither parent to have custody of a sick child. An aunt having custody would typically mean the parents had some issues of their own and their challenge in this case would probably have been futile.
Weighing the beliefs of patients with current advances in medicine is a daunting challenge but is specifically why religious beliefs need to be part of an overall history when talking with patients and families.
posted by Anonymous at 6:05 AM
3 Comments:
I know this will be of no surprise but, again, your belief trumps my belief. Why?
If I want help to end my life, why should your belief keep me from getting this help? You should not be legally required to assist, I would agree. That would cause you "harm". If another physician agreed with my belief, why should he be prevented from assisting me--with certain controls and laws regulating the practice. This scenario causes you no harm and the patient gets the desired result. In many instances, a better result than allowing nature to take it's course.
As you have said, death is 100% certain, 100% of the time.
Mark
Well first off, it is currently illegal. Not that legality and morality have anything in common necessarily.
But more importantly, it does come down to beliefs and morality.
Actively taking a life is morally wrong.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up.
Then don't do it, for which you have my permission. It's okay for me to rot away with something like ALS(which I don't have) because of your moral belief?
Sorry for the late response, was getting my physical this morning. Aren't you proud of me?
Post a Comment
<< Home