Justitia said-
I didn't miss the above sentence Adamah; I just didn't think it was especially relevant. Actually, one of the disturbing issues associated with this case is that the treating physician's decision to respect the minor's decision would never have been reviewed under normal circumstances.
Perhaps, but if you're disturbed by it, you may have alot to learn about how the World of medicine operates.
As a retired physician, I've seen all kinds of aberrations in the standard of care that a lawyer might even label as 'medical malpractice' that get swept under the rug by the provider (and obviously incriminating details are NOT recorded in the pts chart such that the event disappeared), following a perversion of the homily, "work never recorded is work never done". If that thought is disturbing to any, you may not be as familiar with human nature as you think; in this case, it worked to the benefit of the JW child who got what he wanted from the healthcare system.
Adam said- The treating physician's anomalous decision was discovered AFTER a supervisor from Child Protective Services (an arm of the State) checked on his welfare after being tipped off by someone in the hospital, and they escalated the situation to a County judge, who ruled that 'comfort (palliative) care' should proceed (i.e. the judge didn't force a transfusion).
Justitia said- The above is totally incorrect.
"Totally"?
Justitia said- The hospital itself ended up making the CPS referral two days before the young man died. Throughout the case, the hospital's legal department supported the doctor's decision, and while a 'concerned citizen' (likely the minor's teacher) reported the case to Child Protective Services (CPS), CPS sat on the case for a while (I believe several weeks) because no one there was especially concerned. It seems the hospital worker report suffered the same fate.
In your own words, "that's TOTALLY incorrect!" (at least, if the video can be trusted).
The male PhD on the video said it took four days for CPS to get around to acting on the case after it was reported by someone in the hospital (I don't recall if he said who it was, only "someone in the hospital". But being that the identity of reporters of suspected child abuse are typically protected from disclosure unless they admit to reporting, it's speculative to say). Of course, like most State's CPS agencies, the case load is overwhelming, and it's not like the gov't moves quickly to act on ANYTHING.
However, the boy died less than four hours AFTER the judge issued a ruling, which gave the hospital some cover from a wrongful death lawsuit, should the natural parents decide to sue for his death.
Justitia said- The only reason the case ever went before a judge is that the hospital administrator wanted more legal protection.
Yes, but despite your claims of irrelevancy above, that's exactly why I mentioned seeking the opinion of the bioethics committee above, etc, i.e. a treating physician needs to seek the opinion of another competent authority in lieu of seeking a judge's ruling; the treating physician minimally is required to do so in order to avoid the appearance of a sole doctor acting as if a God, i.e. serving as the judge, jury, and executioner without anyone else to share in the decision-making process.
The problem is the treating physician sought out the opinion of a bioethics panel, but then 'went rogue' and acted AGAINST their recommendations; that left both him AND the hospital in a vulnerable position, although the doctor instead sought out the opinion of five oncologists (the specialty which treats leukemia pts), who concurred with his decision. WA doesn't have a "mature minor" doctrine explicitly stated in their State law, and clearly the Hospital's legal office correctly identified the deviation from WA State law (age of consent is 18, no exceptions stated) as leaving them vulnerable to a claim, if the natural parents filed a wrongful death suit.
The hospital's lawyers probably advised elevating the case to a judge to get an official ruling, which either forced a BT or resulted in a de facto "mature minor" ruling (which the judge DID); either way, the hospital would be covered. Fortunately for the hospital, the judge's ruling on the matter was issued within four hours before the child's death.
But my point remains: in this case, the treating physician sought out the opinion of OTHERS, as it would be "totally" (in your vernacular) unethical to do otherwise (not to mention violative of WA State law, leaving the doctor potentially open to criminal charges as a Kevorkianesque mercy killer, if there were an aggressive D.A. in his area, public outrage over the case, etc).
This case demonstrates WHY bioethics committees are formed: struggling with biomedical issues in this manner provides some measure of shielding from liability in those low-risk situations where the family is not likely to sue for wrongful death, thus avoiding the need for getting the courts involved. The liability protection provided by such committees isn't AS effective as a ruling from a judge, but it does allow independent verification of a quasi-legal 'checks and balances' system being in place.
Of course, if the child had been the aunt's son (and not her nephew), OR if the treating physician had followed the recommendations of the bioethics committee to transfuse, the situation wouldn't have made news. Regardless, the threat of a wrongful death claims works for the lion's share of such cases to make sure the standard safeguards are respected.
Justitia said- And if that had been the case, no one would have ever known about this highly controversial case. Therefore, I don't know that anyone case assert what happens in most cases because we would never hear about the cases where no outside referral is made. Though I do hope you are right, and that most cases are reviewed.
That goes back to second-guessing the decisions of the providers who faced the prospect of actually having to treat a 14 y.o. for up to THREE YEARS who vowed to put up a struggle in a fight for his life, every step of the way (kicking, struggling, screaming, biting, etc).
Despite what many might claim, there are no easy or simple answers here. The case you cited in WA seems to be an example of a child who the physicians and oncologists, in fact the entire medical staff AND judge determined that the boy TRULY WANTED to die, who TRULY BELIEVED that he'd be resurrected, etc.
YES, the WT HLC coaches, trains, and prompts the child to cite the right words ("rape", etc), but that doesn't change the fact that there's NO WAY in 2013 to distinguish between beliefs that aren't the result of having been coerced and those which are actually genuinely believed (and to claim this child TRULY didn't believe what he did stretches MY incredulity: NO ONE can know what his beliefs actually were, since at the end of the day, talk is cheap, and it's only what someone says and does that matters).
As an aside, I find it more than a bit ironic that in some threads like this we have people protesting how the WT is a criminal organization that has blood on their hands for murder, yet in other threads, everyone takes a more-accommodative and accepting view of not wanting to judge others, not wanting to blame the INDIVIDUALS who in some cases decide to return to JWs EVEN AFTER learning TTATT! It's as if they still carry the easily-misconstrued and nebulous advice of Jesus' words, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", not realizing that it SHOULD apply to shunning, too.
We have ex-JWs who don't want to OWN UP to the harm THEY personally caused others by serving as the 'enforcement arm' of the JW mob. And even if THEY don't think they've personally shunned someone else (impossible to know, as the harm of shunning depends on the perception of the shunned, not the shunnee), they nevertheless are ex-members of a group that fully supported the shunning of individuals in order to, amongst other things, enforce compliance with the deadly "no blood" policy.
To a lesser extent, it would be like a German hausfrau living in Weimar who claimed she never personally gassed Jews, so felt she didn't carry any of the blame for Nazi genocide. Nevertheless, the citizens of Weimar were forced to take tours of Buchenwald after the War to see exactly what their apathy and personal deniability (diffusion of responsibility) led to, with genocidal results:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Exhibits.html
I see as much apathy in ex-JWs who fail to claim any responsibility for having once supported the WTBTS, being paralyzed and unable to claim the moral high-ground in a manner that's likely to be effective in breaking the cycle, instead of merely being content to engage in ineffective hyperbole and repeating, "someone should DO something!" without having any actual useful suggestions in order to break the destructive cycle.
Adam