|
Re: Don't Get Too Close....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by garinda
So it's ok for us as a society to allow children to die because of their parents beliefs, but we could protect them from TB by quarantining infected individuals who refuse treatment?
Strange old world, medical ethics.
|
It certainly is a strange old world is that of medical ethics. As a general rule medical ethics won't let a child die for want of a transfusion, but this depends on the age of the child. If a child is very young and therefore incapable of making an informed choice about the treatment, I have known them to be made a ward of court and a court decision is made for transfusion against the parent's wishes. If the child is older ie teenager and can be said to be 'Gillick' competent (taken from the Victoria Gillick case) and the child fully understands and accepts that the lack of treatment may result in his/her death but still chooses not to be treated, then that's his/her decision..
It certainly is a funny old world and these things don't happen very often, but are headline hitters when they do.
__________________
 Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether.
The views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of my family, friends, employer, this site, my neighbours, hairdresser, dentist, GP, next door's dog or anyone else who knows me.. 
|