In the blood

[Gob]

A 17-year-old Jehovah's Witness suffering from a lethal form of blood cancer and refusing treatment threatened to rip the IV needle out of his arm if doctors attempted a blood transfusion.

But the NSW Supreme Court has overruled the wishes of the patient, known only as ''X'', and his parents, ordering him to undergo the potentially lifesaving procedure.

The case is unusual because at the time of the court's ruling on March 28, X was just 10 months away from turning 18 - by which time he would be considered an adult and entitled to refuse blood products.

Usually, such court cases involve much younger children whose parents have refused to allow lifesaving treatment.

In his judgment, Supreme Court Justice Ian Gzell said X had been ''cocooned in faith''.

Professor Glenn Marshall, who is treating X for Hodgkin's lymphoma at Sydney Children's Hospital, was told by the patient being sedated for a blood transfusion would be akin to being raped.

On a whiteboard in his hospital room, X's father wrote a scripture reference to abstaining from blood, which is forbidden for Jehovah's Witnesses.

X was admitted to the hospital in January last year, and he and his parents consented to chemotherapy which continued for seven months. The treatment resulted in remission, but in November Professor Marshall found cancer in the patient's lungs, spleen and lymph nodes. He recommended X receive more intense chemotherapy but, because that treatment was likely to lead to a blood transfusion, X and his parents refused.

Instead X had two cycles of chemotherapy at the lower dose, but scans in February showed only a 25 per cent to 50 per cent reduction in his tumours.

''Professor Marshall was disappointed with these results,'' Justice Gzell's said in his judgment.

''Based on his experience treating patients of similar age with similar disease type, he would normally expect no tumour to be present after treatment with higher doses of different cytotoxic chemotherapy agents.''

By March, X developed severe anaemia and chemotherapy had to be stopped. Professor Marshall feared that once it was restarted X would again become severely anaemic. He told X and his parents if he suffered severe bleeding or his blood pressure dropped to dangerous levels, blood would immediately be brought to the ward and administered. In response, X said he would ''rip the IV out''.

Professor Marshall, who has 20 years' experience treating children with cancer, told the Court X had an 80 per cent chance of dying from anaemia without a blood transfusion.

If he was allowed to administer his preferred treatment, he said X would have up to a 50 per cent chance of survival.

Apart from ripping out the IV if he could, X and his father would otherwise obey the court order, Judge Gzell found.

''The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual,'' Justice Gzell said in his ruling. ''X is still a child, although a mature child of high intelligence.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/teen-wit ... z2QnRVsEZh

He can't be of that high intelligence if he believes all the Jehoovees Witness bollocks.

[Crackpot]

So the tranfusiusion increases his chances of living 30% to only even odds of living or dying. The article uses a little misleading language. Not that I condone JWs beliefs on the matter but I can see the reluctance to compromise ones beliefs if it only means even odds at survival.

Gob how have you been doing in incorporating fish into your diet?

[Gob]

Can't stop eating the stuff, Hen and Hatch are getting sick of it. I'll develop scales if I eat any more....

[Crackpot]

Did you catch my point?

[dgs49]

In the US we have a constitutional right to do stupid shit, even if it kills us. But I suspect a minor could be compelled to undergo a transfusion if his parents were on board.

Abolishing that right is a slippery slope. Before you know it they will be trying to stop you from purchasing large, sugary drinks.

[Scooter]

And minors can also be compelled to undergo a transfusion if their parents are loons who are not acting in the child's best interests.

[Big RR]

Yep; there have been a number of instances where that occurred (and rightfully so MHO when the child is too young to make the decision for his or herself). This is interesting, however, because of the minor's age and because it would be difficult to prove it is in his interest (is a reduction in the chance of dying from 80-50%sufficient to overrule his decision based on his heartfelt belief?). And I also have a problem with the judge's statement ''The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual,'' ; what sanctity is there in a life when the dignity of the individual is not respected? It's pretty scary to see a judge write something like that.

[oldr_n_wsr]

''The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual,''

I guess he doesn't believe in pulling the plug?

[Gob]

Did you catch my point?

Probably not!

[Crackpot]

You did spend some time contemplating your doctors direction to incorporate fish into your diet. Due to a strongly held personal belief that is not supported by physiological or historical evidence.

[Gob]

Got you! In a way yes, I had made an ethical choice to not eat meat/fish.

But that was my choice, not my conforming to a religious dictat.

[Crackpot]

How does that negate choice?

[Gob]

Indoctrinating a child into making a choice is far different to an adult making an unilateral choice.

I had no parental, religious, peer or other pressures in me when I chose to be come a vege.

[oldr_n_wsr]

or other pressures

Not even from the cow that winked and smiled at you?

[Crackpot]

I've known of more than a few JWs that got and gave blood. (Also knew one that was a pot dealer but that's beside the point) I think you over estimate the power of indoctrination. It all comes down to a personal moral choice.

[Crackpot]

In fact I get the impression that persecution (real or imagined) has more effect on people's actions than indoctrination of any sort.

People are funny that way

[dgs49]

I have a problem with forcing people to undergo dangerous, painful, and debilitating treatments IN THE HOPE that it will keep them alive for a couple more months of suffering - something I've seen on more than one occasion. Death is a normal and natural thing. There comes a time when the best course is to accept it and die with dignity, on your own terms.

[Scooter]

They weren't objecting to the chemo. They were objecting to the blood transfusions that needed to go along with it. And there's nothing "normal and natural" about the death of a 17 year old.

[Big RR]

there's nothing "normal and natural" about the death of a 17 year old.

There is when the 17 year old is suffering from a form of cancer fatal in 50% or 80% of the cases. One can't always cheat or beat death--sometime it is the natural consequence of a disease or accident. And if one chooses to decline any treatment for any reason, IMHO, it should be their choice. Even though I'm not a Jehovah's witness and might cheerfully accept a blood transfusion in many circumstances, I might well decline it if I were in the same position as this young man.

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, you might feel that way if it were you, but would you feel the same way if was your kid?

If one of my kids contracted a serious disease, and while still a minor, decided to adopt some philosophy that would cause them to avoid taking a treatment that would improve their chances of living by 30%, I would tell them "screw your philosophy, you're getting the treatment"

I wouldn't spend two seconds considering their wishes in a situation like that....

I'd figure that if they hated me for forcing that on them, at least they'd have a better chance of hating me for a lot longer....