Should doctors refuse treatment if it conflicts w/ their religious beliefs? Issue was brought up in this cnn video (link below)




Comments?

SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.


A judge said Dennis Lindberg, shown in 2005, "understands the consequences of his decision."

Dennis Lindberg died Wednesday night at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, his father, Dennis Lindberg Sr., told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Hospital spokeswoman Teri Thomas said she could not confirm or deny anything about the case at the request of the boy's legal guardian, his aunt Dianna Mincin.

Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew "he's basically giving himself a death sentence."

"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," the judge said during the hearing.

"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."

Doctors had given Dennis a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years with the transfusions and other treatment, the judge added.

Doctors diagnosed the boy's leukemia in early November. They began chemotherapy at Children's Hospital, but stopped a week ago because his blood count was too low, the Skagit Valley Herald reported. The boy refused the transfusion on religious grounds.

However, his birth parents, Lindberg and Rachel Wherry, who do not have custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly influenced by his aunt, who is also a Jehovah's Witness.

The aunt has declined to talk about the case.

The boy's father told the Post-Intelligencer the ruling shocked him but after visiting his son later Wednesday, he decided not to appeal. He said doctors told him Wednesday evening that the boy, unconscious since Tuesday, had likely suffered brain damage.

__________________

i think i'd rather not debate the religious issues involved...too complicated! I just wanted to raise everyone's awareness regarding issues that might come up when you practice. The first post was about doctors withholding certain forms of treatment if it ran counter to their religious beliefs...and the second post was about patients refusing treatment when it ran counter to their beliefs....

I've heard of this kind of morality issues, so far haven't encountered one yet. It is as drchinx said is very complicated... especially if the patient is a minor wherein consent lies with the parents or a legal guardian. At a tender age the minor probably would side with his/her parents or legal guardian, however, what if the minor grow up and later believe that the decisions made concerning the past was a mistake and prefer the opposite decision... Maybe too late to change an irrevocable consequences...

No one should deny treatment on religious ground. Doctors must not forget that they are to serve the mankind, they are to save life. They should not do any act of omission or commission which will cause serious harm to the patient. This is what I belief

don't think it's so much on the part of doctors, as on the patients. For doctors to refuse to treat someone would be unethical and completely against the basic principles of medicine. But patients are another story. Each patient has their own belief. So that some patients refuse treatment on religious grounds even if it's not good for them.

I agree on the doctors' responsibility over their patients, the need to explain in detail all the benefits and risks of certain procedures or treatments. As long as all these are understandable on the part of the patient or the patient's legal guardian if he is a minor, then there should be no problem. For the part the doctor, he must also respect the patient's rights particularly when it concerns religious matters.

I agree, the doctor can only explain both sides. In the end it is the patients decision. The problem that I have with this case is that the patient is a minor. I do not believe that the adolescent mind can cope with such a decision. This is a time where the court should have made the decision to give the doctors a chance to save the patients life. Had the patient been an adult I think it should be his or her's decision.

ha guys look at the patient don't look at his religion. well every patient is different i had a once meet a Muslim patient during my surgery rotations and she refused to get her wound dressed by me and she wanted to get it dressed from Dr.pasha. still really dont know why she refused me ? was it religion.