On the ? day of Christmas my Gov gave to me

Nanu said:
No they don't or can't refuse?
Click to expand...

A doctor can’t refuse someone because they are a JW. The example is not great though, a better example would be treating someone who self harms. Even then though it’s not the same because the issue is the number of people involved. If it were just 2 or 3 people in every hospital I’m sure the Drs and Nurses would happily treat them, the problem is just the number of sick people. It must be incredibly frustrating for the medical staff.
 
The issue I was trying to highlight is the conflict between two sets of beliefs. The Hippocratic oath and those of the Jehovas witness who does not want treatment. The doctor may disagree with the beliefs over blood transfusions and follow his sworn oath to use their skills to save lives. If the patient say is in a coma and the family state that they are a Jehovas witness, does the doctor ignore them and give treatment? Whose beliefs trump the others?

The hospitals are full of people who could have avoided it. They are there to save us from ourselves.
 
Nanu said:
The issue I was trying to highlight is the conflict between two sets of beliefs. The Hippocratic oath and those of the Jehovas witness who does not want treatment. The doctor may disagree with the beliefs over blood transfusions and follow his sworn oath to use their skills to save lives. If the patient say is in a coma and the family state that they are a Jehovas witness, does the doctor ignore them and give treatment? Whose beliefs trump the others?
Click to expand...

A DNR is always the patients choice, the Doctors belief doesn’t come into it. Pretty sure no Doctor has implied otherwise. That said, they are entitled to be pretty peeved off at having to be put under so much pressure to deal with unnecessary cases.
 
Nanu said:
The issue I was trying to highlight is the conflict between two sets of beliefs. The Hippocratic oath and those of the Jehovas witness who does not want treatment. The doctor may disagree with the beliefs over blood transfusions and follow his sworn oath to use their skills to save lives. If the patient say is in a coma and the family state that they are a Jehovas witness, does the doctor ignore them and give treatment? Whose beliefs trump the others?

The hospitals are full of people who could have avoided it. They are there to save us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to address your specific example. I didn’t know the details so I looked it up.

In terms of the National Health Act, if an adult Jehovah’s Witness is unable to consent to or refuse the administration of a blood transfusion (ie, due to unconsciousness), a person who had been mandated by the patient, in writing, may consent to or refuse the blood transfusion on behalf of the patient.

If no-one had been mandated by the patient, proxy consent or refusal should be obtained from the patient’s spouse or partner, a parent, a grandparent, an adult child or a brother or sister (in this specific order). If such a person refuses a blood transfusion on behalf of the patient, the medical practitioner will have to obtain a court order if he/she is of the view that a blood transfusion should nevertheless be administered.
Click to expand...
 
Nanu said:
So ultimately, a court will decide whose beliefs trump anothers
Click to expand...

Only in the very rare circumstances where a persons wishes are completely unknown and there is conflict around what their wishes may or may not be.
Additionally not treating someone who doesnt want to be treated is entirely consistent with medical ethics, to force treatment on that person would be to "harm" them mentally and/or emotionally, as well as not respecting their autonomy or dignity.

The Edinburgh Oath is as follows:
I declare that I will practise my profession to the best of my knowledge and ability, in good conscience and with integrity.
In my practice the care of my patients will be my first consideration.
I will strive to prevent and treat disease, improve quality of life, provide support in times of suffering.
I will respect the autonomy, confidences and dignity of all my patients in their living and in their dying.
I will promote the health and welfare of the community.
I will treat with respect my colleagues and all who contribute to the well being of my patients.
I will constantly seek to gain in knowledge and understanding, and to pass on the art and science of medicine to others, as my teachers have done before me.
I will treat all patients equally and without prejudice.
I will not breach these obligations, or abuse the trust placed in me, either under threat or for personal gain.
I make this declaration solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.
 
I’m sure the more knowledgeable members can help me on this one, but it appears, certainly in the southwest, that our hospitals are full of covid patients, of which apparently are 90% non vaccinated people.
Doctors and Nurses as I’m sure you’ll understand, are far from impressed that these people would likely not be in there if they’d taken there jabs like the majority have.
So, to cut to the point, we all have to suffer , people who require urgent operations are left to wait because of a minority who choose for various reasons not to do there bit.
I appreciate there will always be exceptions, but the minority are causing huge problems for the rest.
It’s clear that the main reason for the restrictions and further restrictions that will come, are primarily to protect the NHS, so why aren’t we focusing more on the un vaccinated.
I completely agree with the covid passports, as anything that helps encourage those people to have there jabs is a good thing.
The figures speak for themselves.
Without the 4million plus unvaccinated, I do not believe the NHS would be in the position it is.
I understand it’s a matter of Choice, but if you choose to be a part of the problem and not the solution, then you should not expect to enjoy the freedom of movement that the people that have chosen to do there bit enjoy.
Jmo.
Sorry if this offends anyone, but the facts are there.
The vaccine works, it’s not 100%, but it’s a whole lot better than no protection.
And I have it from a very reliable source, that the unvaccinated that are in there, are quick to ask, can we have our jabs now.
There’s a lot of unvaccinated out there who's main reason for not doing there bit is anything but convincing, and has little to do with side affects.
 
Phoenixboy said:
who's main reason for not doing there bit is anything but convincing, and has little to do with side affects.
Click to expand...

There are a percentage of people who don’t feel they need it, some who are scared if the side effects, but the frustrating bit is the significant percentage who are just rebelling at being told what to do.

… and as you said, people ending up in hospital are begging to be vaccinated.
 
sp3ctre said:
Phoenixboy said:
who's main reason for not doing there bit is anything but convincing, and has little to do with side affects.
Click to expand...

There are a percentage of people who don’t feel they need it, some who are scared if the side effects, but the frustrating bit is the significant percentage who are just rebelling at being told what to do.

… and as you said, people ending up in hospital are begging to be vaccinated.
Click to expand...
Yes, that pretty much sums it up.
If someone has a genuine reason, I can sort of give the benefit of doubt, but the majority are being guided by Mildred on Facebook or refuse to do anything that’s lead by the government, thus leaving the rest of us to carry the can.
Unless I’m very much mistaken, we would not be in this position if the Mildreds and there friends did there bit.
They should be left to enjoy the bare necessities, and not have the same freedoms as everyone else.
We’re too soft in this country, always worried we might infringe on someone’s human rights .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom