SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (7819)7/27/2009 9:45:00 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 42652
 
Damned hippocratic oath.

The problem is that patient's rights trump the hippocratic oath.

Health care providers may not administer emergency treatment if they have reason to believe that such treatment is contrary to the wishes of the individual.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has looked at this issue relative to the refusal of blood products. An individual who was a Jehovah’sWitness was brought to the emergency room of a hospital and required an immediate blood transfusion. The unconscious patient had a signed card in her purse stating that she was not to be given a blood transfusion. The physician was not satisfied that the signed card expressed the patient’s current wishes and gave her a blood transfusion. The patient subsequently sued the physician.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that a capable adult is entitled to reject a specific treatment or all treatment, even if the
decision may entail risks as serious as death. The court stated that unless the doctor had reason to believe that the instructions in the signed document were not valid instructions then he was obliged to honour those instructions. Without contrary evidence, such instructions should be taken as validly representing the patient’s wishes. Although the physician saved the patient’s life, he was found liable for damages for administering treatment contrary to her wishes.