I'm curious of your opinion

Nurses General Nursing

Published

On another board a group of people are discussing a case.

It's about a 25 week premature baby needing a blood transfusion. The family refused the blood transfusion. The court's interceded and the courts ordered the hospital to give the baby the blood transfusion.

What is your feeling? Should the courts/hospital intercede? Or do the parent's have the right to refuse blood in this case?

JW,

Your link does'nt work on my crappy little computer. Thanks for trying though. I've got Real Player but it won't take the software.

What I said was that you are asking me to abdicate my authority. You don't REALLY want me to work with you. You want me to work FOR you. That's just a nice way to say "go along with what I want or I will cause trouble".

That does'nt just happen in pediatrics. It occurs in every department. I've seen patients that mouth it around their endo tubes in the I.C.U.

If your alternatives are so great they'll be recognized by the regulating authorities and be put in place as theraputic modalities of choice. Why would'nt they. It's expensive to hang blood. There are alot of people behind the scenes from collection, storage, transport, typing, testing, RESEARCH. WHERE ARE THE PROTOCOLS?

If I relied on scripture I could just "lay on of hands" and my shift would be over. If I relied on "working with" parents their kids would'nt get I.V's or anything else that makes them have pain. There would be very little in the way of medical procedure I imagine.

Except for the orders you would give.

There's danger here JW. If you need a court order to get your way then there isn't much science to back you up. Any time a JW wins a court battle a little more power is abdicated to that precedent. We'll have courts and parents making medical decisions that belong to protocol guidelines of clinicians.

Those court decisions will not be any more based on science than the O.J. simpson trial was on justice.

Certainly you watchtower folks have a bundle of cash for research that you could use to show the medical community enough data to get the protocols changed so there would be no argument. If there is completed research, why are there no universal protocols? Why all the argument? Certainly the pharmaceutical companies would just LOVE to introduce a substance they can manufacture that would be used universaly as a first choice.

HEY......There's an idea. Who is it that manufactures the blood being used in transfusions as first choice now?

Would'nt that be God?

This is a very interesting quandry.

Okay peeps, I can appreciate some of your points, and I understand where you are coming from. However, you stated:

Originally posted by Peeps Mcarthur

We'll have courts and parents making medical decisions that belong to protocol guidelines of clinicians.

I, as a parent, feel I should be able to make medical decisions for my child. Period.

Now, the role of doctors and nurses (and here I have an advantage over some parents, admittedly, since I am a nurse and have background in medical terminology) is to TEACH and INFORM the parents of options, risks, and benefits. (The original root word for doctor means teacher, by the way).

If you go to another culture, where say Eastern philosophy or Ayurvedic medicine is practiced, the clinicians may have a very different recommendation regarding the treatment of the child. Just because Western medical doctors are schooled and trained in one thought doesn't mean that they are always right.

I appreciate the doctors and nurses who take the time to acknowledge and learn about other treatment options, as well as validate and try to understand the family's values.

I also appreciate this discussion. You certainly seem caring and passionate about your beliefs and your patients wellfare.:)

I am sorry that the link doesn't work for you. If you are able to contact your local Hospital Liaison Committee for Jehovah's Witnesses they will give you the complete 30 minute video free of charge. The content of the video actually answers your question:-

"If your alternatives are so great they'll be recognized by the regulating authorities and be put in place as theraputic modalities of choice. Why would'nt they. It's expensive to hang blood. There are alot of people behind the scenes from collection, storage, transport, typing, testing, RESEARCH. WHERE ARE THE PROTOCOLS?"

Bloodless alternatives ARE becomming the treatment of choice and the US is leading this. However JW's are not the medical profession - it takes the medical profession to produce papers that can be read by their peers and many professionals are slow to publish. However interesting ones continue to be published (eg recent research shows dangers to critically ill patients given RBC's over 7 days old

Link

"You don't REALLY want me to work with you. You want me to work FOR you. That's just a nice way to say "go along with what I want or I will cause trouble".

No, no, no, - we definitely want to work WITH you, but we want you to work with us as well. We don't abdicate our responsibility for our child when we walk through the hospital doors. What we say is "If you can't work with us say so quickly and let's find someone who can". We believe that it is appropriate to do what RNKitty has just stated re: Risk/Benefit, that means working with the parents not seeing them as a nuisance to the process. That's a bit like the shopworker viewing the customer as being an inconvenience to the running of the business!

"If I relied on "working with" parents their kids would'nt get I.V's or anything else that makes them have pain. There would be very little in the way of medical procedure I imagine.

Except for the orders you would give."

Again, no,no,no - we do not try to take over treatment, why should we most of us ore not medically trained; we just object to blood, virtually everything else is acceptable to us and we actively seek the best treatment we just do our utmost to find alternatives to blood.

"WHERE ARE THE PROTOCOLS?"

I can't speak for the US but in Britain many individual hospitals have protocols for treating Jehovah's Witnesses as do the Royal College of Surgeons and the Association of Anaesthetists. The British Society of Haematology is also working on a protocol at this time and one of the HLC's here in Britain spoke to them (at their invitation) at their National Conference in 2001.

" Any time a JW wins a court battle a little more power is abdicated to that precedent. We'll have courts and parents making medical decisions that belong to protocol guidelines of clinicians."

If that really did happen, surely it would be a question of recognised authorities seeing "another way", or such a decision would never be made by the courts. We have seen many medical matters decided upon by courts and the medics have had to adjust. Medics are not the only ones gifted with understanding and wisdom, sometimes they are blinkered by their protocols and somone has to stand up and show them that there is another way! Such has been the case throughout history.

"Certainly you watchtower folks have a bundle of cash for research that you could use to show the medical community enough data to get the protocols changed so there would be no argument"

If only that were true, even if it were, as a registered charity any funds we have are correctly governed by charity laws - they cannot be used for the medical needs of its members (though as I stated in a previous posting many individual Witnesses privately contribute funds for hospitals, equipment etc). My previous comment still applies - it is medics that must produce papers, no one would listen to what the Watchtower Society said - hence the benefit of the above-mentioned video.

Interestingly advances are being made with blood substitutes, foremost amongst these is probably a product called "Oxygent" which is currently undergoing satisfactory testing - who knows what the future will hold. One thing is sure, here in the UK the NHS is doing its utmost to reduce the amount of blood used; its NHS Executive Directive "Better Blood Transfusion" directed NHS Trust Hospitals to actively seek alternatives such as cell salvage. In the US? - well just look at how many Bloodless Centres there are. I know these aren't for paediatric cases, but it must say something about the medical view!

JW, RN Kitty,

Since you're both parents that explains alot.

I'll further(believe it or not) post on this matter tomorrow.

This is certainly becoming pleasant enough to exchange some ideas.

:D

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.

Freedom of religion is very important, even a sacred right in our society. I do not agree with JW doctrines, but I will defend your right to preach/teach/go door to door and practice your religion. I also believe that parental rights are very important. Only in the most compelling circumstances should the state intervene--matters of life and death involving a minor child. This involves all religious practices, not just JW. For instance, the radical Moslem father who is determined to kill his 16-year old daughter, because he believes she is no longer a virgin and has "shamed" his family. The animist or Moslem family whose cultural/religious ideals include the horrific practice of female circumcision on their 5 year old daughter. The devoutly religious couple who will not allow their teenager with juvenile diabetes to take insulin or see the doctor and she is now in a diabetic coma. The Christian Scientist mother who will not allow her 10-year-old son to receive medical treatment for a broken femur. In many, many cases, the refusal to receive a blood transfusion will result in certain death for a patient. This is a fact. PERIOD. While it is certainly within one's rights as an adult to refuse blood components (as my elderly female patient did and later died as a direct result), in the case of a child, the state must become involved. PERIOD. End of argument.

It is good to see that you have a willingness to accept the views of other religions and of parents. ;)

In respect to the issue of specific treatment of a child, there was a time when I would have said exactly the same as you, so I can understand your feelings. Whilst I don't agree with your putting the "circumcision" or "killing for shame" illustrations on the same footing as the JW issue, I can appreciate your views re: the insulin and Christian Scientist cases.

Just try to remember that JW's actively seek medical attention for themselves and their children, we are not anti-medicine. It is only in the matter of blood where we have a problem and in most cases that can be resolved by using alternative methods. It should be very rare indeed to require a forced transfusion in this day and age.

JW,

Wait a minuet there.

If we're going to uphold the precedent of religious freedoms over 1st choice of treatment(notice I did not say "options" of treatment). We then must uphold those freedoms across the board.

We can't pick or choose what freedoms suit us.

That is unless we follow medical guidelines first.

Ya know "do no harm" and all, and use them for any judgements of credibility.

If you want the freedom to choose for your child aceptable treatment under religious standards, then you cannot discriminate the religion of others.

To exclude what they see as the only acceptable medical treatment(just as you see only yours) you are discriminating against the individual for his beliefs. Not because of science.

What a great thread for opening up new ideas to my mind! Sometimes I see the world through rose-colored glasses.:)

1) the radical Moslem father who is determined to kill his 16-year old daughter

The law already prohibits murder, and murder is not considered a medical option.

2) The animist or Moslem family whose cultural/religious ideals include the horrific practice of female circumcision on their 5 year old daughter

What, and chopping off a foreskin on a helpless male human is not horrific? Maybe it is not seen as such in our society since it is a common and accepted social practice. (Never mind the fact that it is only medically necessary in

3)The devoutly religious couple who will not allow their teenager with juvenile diabetes to take insulin or see the doctor and she is now in a diabetic coma. The Christian Scientist mother who will not allow her 10-year-old son to receive medical treatment for a broken femur.

Okay, I'll admit here is where my rose colored glasses come in. I guess I haven't run across these issues. That is why it is so good to hold these discussions.:) It makes me think and learn.

4) Only in the most compelling circumstances should the state intervene--matters of life and death involving a minor child.

I agree. I also feel we should be very careful what rights we remove from the parental guardians and hand over to the state.

Screw the state

LOL.............Harde har har....

"If you want the freedom to choose for your child aceptable treatment under religious standards, then you cannot discriminate the religion of others."

I am not discriminating, I just do not see the issue of circumcision as being a "life-threatening" issue, whatever your views on it and that was what this thread was all about - the use of blood when medics consider it a necessary procedure.

The matter of a person from ANY religion actively trying to kill one of its members, family or otherwise, for shame or otherwise, is as RNKitty states - murder and that is not at issue here.

"1st choice of treatment"

Your 1st choice of treatment may be another medics "option", some have experience in bloodless treatment and act accordingly and others do not and so do not feel comfortable with certain procedures. That's why we say if you can't treat, refer as soon as possible.

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.

JW, the Apostle Paul admonishes us, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, and WHO CORRECTLY HANDLES THE WORD OF TRUTH." (II Timothy 2:15).

Jesus rebuked the religious crowd of his day (the Saducees--they had a religious spirit and were oh-so-sad-you-see), "You are in error because you DO NOT KNOW THE SCRIPTURES OR THE POWER OF GOD." (Matthew 22:29).

The oft-quoted (and misapplied) Scripture in Acts concerning blood, "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.." (Acts 15:29), referred to a cultural practice of the time of offering sacrifices to pagan gods, also committing acts of immorality in pagan temples with temple prostitutes. The Gentile Christians were admonished by the Hebrew Christians in Jerusalem to not partake in such activities, not to EAT meat and likewise NOT TO DRINK blood sacrificed to these idolatrous gods and goddesses. This is all this meant, JW. If your interpretation of the Scriptures were correct, then Jesus would be a heretic, when he told his disciples, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him...: (John 6:53-56); Also, during the Last Supper, Jesus stated these immortal words (which foreshadow our Holy Communion) concerning the wine of communion, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood the covenant which is poured out for many for the foregiveness of sins..." (Matthew 26:27-28).

You need to RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH, JW, not just take a Scripture here and there, out of context, and build a doctrine around it. That's a sure-fire way to get into deception. Jesus stated, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. BY THEIR FRUIT YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THEM." (Matthew 7:15-16). People dying from lack of blood transfusions is NOT GOOD FRUIT and NOT GOD"S WILL.

Consider this also, JW, God created the womb and the baby in the womb. During those long nine months before the baby is born, where does she receive her sustenance? FROM THE MOTHER'S BLOOD OF COURSE, VIA THE PLACENTA. The baby is a separate entity from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate destiny and plan from God. If the baby receives the mother's blood before birth (GOD's DESIGN), what is the difference if the baby receives her mother's blood (or someone else's blood for that matter) AFTER BIRTH?

Prayerfully consider these Scriptures, JW:

"The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will abandon the truth and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons...." (I Timothy 4:1).

"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths..." (II Timothy 4:3-4)

sorry guys,

but this thread is getting like sundayschool more and more!

You still know why you are discussing? I get the feeling, that you're trying who-can-quote-more.

I had a collegue who was a JW. I learned one thing: not to discus blood and everything made with it, because I just couldn't argue with her.

She went to her JW meetings every other day and made every single one of us, mouthdeath.

I was really relieved as she retired, plus I didn't have the watchtower on my desk every week.

She was one of the most intolerant people I ever knew!

Especially my catholic collegues "got" it from her, this was no fun!

Still, take care, Renee

+ Add a Comment