Quebec: the superior court autorize the transfusion of two prematures
by chasson 36 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
chasson
Transfusion authorized by the higher Court
At the university Hospital complex of Quebec (CHUQ), the bar of the “viability” of a new-born baby is fixed at 24 weeks. (Photographic library Sun)
To increase the image
At the university Hospital complex of Quebec (CHUQ), the bar of the “viability” of a new-born baby is fixed at 24 weeks.
Photographic library Sun
Élisabeth Fleury
Sun
Cut text Cut text
To print To print
To send To send
Judge Jean Bouchard, of the higher Court, returned yesterday an ordinance which authorizes the CHUL to proceed to blood transfusions on two twins prematurely born in spite of the opposition of their pilot parents of Jéhovah, learned the Sun.
Bouchard judge, who pronounced this ordinance while waiting to give a judgement on the bottom, heard yesterday a request in authorization of care deposited by the CHUQ with the law courts of Quebec.
The lawyer of the applicant, Me Marie-Nancy Package, made hear the two practitionars attending of the twins born Thursday by Caesarean after only
25 weeks of pregnancy. According to Drs Piuze and Bélanger, the blood transfusions are necessary for all the cases of babies born prematurely. Not only this is a question of survival, but it is also the best way of decreasing the neurological risks of after-effects, explained the two doctors.
Always according to their testimony, its twin brother and health of the young girl evolves/moves of hour in hour, and the blood transfusions are inevitable to ensure their survival. In the case of the boy, his doctor affirmed yesterday that it was absolutely to receive a blood transfusion “from here next the 24 hours”.
If they accept that the doctors do all that it is necessary to save the life of their children, the parents refuse on the other hand that they proceed to blood transfusions, a practice which goes against their religious beliefs.
“These children will die if they do not receive transfusions. How can one speak on the two sides of the mouth while saying on a side to the doctors to do all that it is necessary to save the children and other not to make transfusions? ” reflected high Bouchard judge by hearing the pleading of the prosecutor of the defendants, Me Jayden MacEwan.
According to Me MacEwan, which the parents wish (to refuse the blood transfusions) is reasonable. The defendants estimate that there is an alternative to the transfusions, the érythropoïétine (EPO), which makes it possible to increase the number of red globules in blood. An alternative which, opinion of several doctors, is not really one because insufficient and even risky, pled the lawyer of the applicant.
What wishes the defendants, it is that the court declares that at present, only the parents have jurisdiction on their children. “The question which should be raised, it is: “Can we say that with the eyes of the law, they (twins) are entitled to the life as human beings?” ” asked Me MacEwan. Remarks which have surprised Bouchard judge. “Are you saying that at 25 weeks, these children are not human beings? ”
Me MacEwan explained why the doctors of the twins themselves did not consider the right to the life of the children insofar as they made it possible to the parents to put an end to the therapeutic eagerness by ceasing the treatments. “By quoting this, it is as if the hospital said that the children are not viable. On a side, the hospital says that they can refuse all the treatments, and other, it says that they cannot refuse one of them (blood transfusions)”, asserted lawyer.
The procureure of the CHUQ immediately seized the ball with the jump by recalling to the court that the parents themselves had asked the doctors to do all that it is necessary to save the life of their children.
Considering the current medical condition of the twins, the magistrate considered it necessary to return an ordinance of safeguard which “authorizes the applicant to proceed to the transfusions of blood products required by the health of the children, and this, until final judgement is given”.
“I must find a way of blocking the least possible the freedom of religion and the health of the children”, summarized Bouchard judge, showing blow the complexity of the debate. -
Scully
good find, chasson! Although BabelFish translation doesn't quite do the trick....
Friday, May 18, 2007
Premature Twins of Jehovah's Witnesses
Transfusions authorized by the Superior Court
Elisabeth Fleury
Le Soleil has learned that Judge Jean Bouchard of the Superior Court rendered a court order yesterday that authorizes the CHUL to proceed with blood transfusions for two prematurely born twins, despite opposition from their Jehovah's Witness parents.
Judge Bouchard, who pronounced the order while waiting to render judgement on the case, listened yesterday to a request authorising treatment in a deposition from CHUQ at the Palais de Justice of Quebec.
Lawyer for the plaintiff, Ms Marie-Nancy Paquet, brought testimony from the two physicians treating the twins, who were born Thursday by cesarean section at only 25 weeks gestation. According to Drs Piuze and Belanger, blood transfusions are necessary for all cases of babies born prematurely. Not only is it a question of survival, but also it is the best way of minimizing neurological risks and sequelae, the two doctors explained.
According to their testimony, the health status of the baby girl and her twin brother changed from hour to hour, and the blood transfusions were inevitable for assuring their survival. In the case of the boy, his doctor confirmed yesterday that he absolutely must have a blood transfusion "within the next 24 hours".
Even though they accept that the doctors are doing everything possible to save the lives of their children, on the other hand the parents refuse them to proceed with blood transfusions, a practice that is contrary to their religious beliefs.
"These children will die if they do not receive transfusions. How can they speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying on one hand that they want the doctors to do everything possible to save their children, but out of the other not to do the transfusions?" reflected the esteemed judge Bouchard in hearing the plea from counsel for the defendants, Ms. Jayden MacEwan.
According to Ms. MacEwan, the parents wishes (to refuse blood transfusions) is reasonable. The defendants believe that there is an alternative treatment to transfusions, erythropoietin (EPO), which will increase the number of red blood cells in the blood. This is an alternative, on the advice of many doctors, which is not really an alternative because it is insufficient and just as risky, stated the lawyer for the plaintiff.
The defendants want the tribunal to decide that presently only the parents have jurisdiction over their children. "The question that must be asked is: 'Can we say that in the eyes of the law, they (the twins) have the right to life as human beings?'" asked Ms. MacEwan. The remarks surprised Judge Bouchard: "Are you trying to say that at 25 weeks, these children are not human beings?"
Ms. MacEwan explained that the doctors of the twins themselves did not consider the children as having the right to life, since they offered the parents the option to terminate resuscitation efforts and cease treatment. "In making this offer, it is as though the hospital said that the children were not viable. On one hand, the hospital was saying that they could refuse all treatments, and on the other, they were saying they cannot refuse one treatment (blood transfusions)," argued the lawyer.
Counsel for the CHUQ immediately countered the argument put to the court, saying that it was the parents themselves who insisted that doctors do everything possible to save the lives of their children.
Considering the actual medical condition of the twins, the Judge found it was necessary to give the order of safety that "authorizes the plaintiff to proceed with transfusions of blood products required by the health status of the babies, and no more than that, final judgement has been rendered."
"I must find a way of minimizing the infringement on religious freedom and the health status of these babies," stated Judge Bouchard in summary, showing the extreme complexity of the debate.
-
Scully
I have to say something about the WTS's lawyer argument here:
Ms. MacEwan explained that the doctors of the twins themselves did not consider the children as having the right to life, since they offered the parents the option to terminate resuscitation efforts and cease treatment. "In making this offer, it is as though the hospital said that the children were not viable. On one hand, the hospital was saying that they could refuse all treatments, and on the other, they were saying they cannot refuse one treatment (blood transfusions)," argued the lawyer.
That is such a CROCK OF CRAP.
What happens in cases like this, is the doctors will explain to the parents what is involved in resuscitation of a 25 week gestation infant. They also are told what the risks are to the baby. There are almost always neurological and developmental sequelae. The doctors allow the parents to make the decision whether they want to put their babies through the rigorous medical interventions required to save the baby's life, or whether they do not wish to have any resuscitation efforts. The doctors' actions are according to the parents' wishes. They do NOT refuse treatment.
The parents are given as much information to make the decision as possible - that is what the principle of INFORMED CONSENT is all about. It pisses me off that the WTS lawyer would take that ethical principle and twist it so heinously.
Here's an excerpt from a manual that I use to train colleagues in neonatal resuscitation:
In most circumstances, it is ethically and legally acceptable to withhold or withdraw resuscitation efforts if the parents and health professionals agree that further medical intervention would be futile, would merely prolong dying, or would not offer sufficient benefit to justify the burdens imposed.
Parents have the primary role in determining the goals of care delivered to their newborn. However, informed consent should be based on complete and reliable information, and this may not be available until after delivery and perhaps not until several hours after birth.
Are there situations in which it is ethical not to initiate resuscitation?
The delivery of extremely immature babies and those with severe congenital anomalies frequently raises questions about the initiation of resuscitation. Although the survival rate for babies born between 22 and 25 weeks' gestation increases with each additional week of gestation, the incidence of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability among survivors is high. Where gestation, birth weight, and/or congenital anomalies are associated with almost certain early death, and unacceptably high morbidity is likely among the rare survivors, resuscitation is not indicated, although exceptions may be appropriate in specific cases to comply with parental request. Examples may include the following:
- Newborns with a confirmed gestational age of less than 23 weeks or a birth weight of less than 400 g.
- Anencephaly
- Confirmed Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18 syndrome
In conditions associated with uncertain prognosis, where there is borderline survival and a relatively high rate of morbidity, and where the burden to the child is high, some parents will request that no attempt be made to resuscitate the baby. An example may include a baby born at 23 to 24 weeks' gestation. In such cases, the parents' views on either initiating or withholding resuscitation should be supported.
These recommendations must be interpreted according to current local outcomes and parental desires. Given the uncertainty of gestational age and birth weight predictions, be cautious about making unalterable decisions about resuscitative efforts before the baby is born. When counseling parents, advise them that decisions may need to be modified in the delivery room, depending on the condition of the baby at birth and the postnatal gestational age assessment.
-
Anti-Christ
I guess I'm going to hear a lot about this very soon. I don't get it, JW can't get an abortion because life is sacred but you can refuse treatment that can save the life of a baby because blood is sacred and it represents life. Now that I'm no longer under their mind tricks I can really see through their bullsh.
-
Scully
Anti-Christ writes:
I don't get it, JW can't get an abortion because life is sacred but you can refuse treatment that can save the life of a baby because blood is sacred and it represents life.
What is even more bizarre is the greater value placed on the "symbol" than on the reality. It's like saying your wedding ring is worth more than your marriage or your spouse.
-
Anti-Christ
What is even more bizarre is the greater value placed on the "symbol" than on the reality. It's like saying your wedding ring is worth more than your marriage or your spouse.
That's a good one, I'm going to use that example.
-
truthsetsonefree
Something else that the Governing Body ignores is their own doctrine of obeying Caesar unless there is a clear Scriptual reason not to. Can they call a ban on certain blood fractions that cannot be found in the Bible clear and rational justification for disobeying the clear direction to obey the government? I don't think so. They admitted not long ago to elders in the US via letter that governments don't grant exemptions in the case of minors. So they know the law, why not follow it?
tsof
-
Scully
They admitted not long ago to elders in the US via letter that governments don't grant exemptions in the case of minors. So they know the law, why not follow it?
The law is clear in Canada as well. There are Supreme Court decisions that the minor child's right to life trumps the parents' right to practice the religion of their choosing.
What the WTS is trying to do is circumvent these legal precedents - particularly in the case of minor teenagers - by claiming that the teens have the right to make medical decisions on their own behalf that are in harmony with their religious beliefs. Where they are falling short, however, is in trying to prove that the teens are not under coercion or undue influence by religious leadership. As well, there is obviously hypocrisy on the part of the WTS in such a case, because we know that a JW teenager who became pregnant would not be permitted to have an abortion if that was how she wanted her medical treatment to proceed.
-
Handsome Dan
Notch one up for humanity