A few years back,
there was a news article about Doctors at a Pretoria Hospital that had obtained
a court order to give a baby a blood transfusion. After the transfusion, it was noted that the
baby was not doing any better than it was before the transfusion. The parents were very against this treatment
and repeatedly refused the transfusion. The
reasons for refusal of this transfusion were based on religious beliefs. It was
upsetting to hear the way it was brought across in the media, as though the
parents were callously prepared to let their child die. Putting religion aside, legally, is it not up
to a person, or their guardian to allow or refuse medical treatment despite the
consequences? Besides, there are
countless other methods, which do not involve blood or its fractions, which
would have had just as much chance of saving the child’s life. Refer to the following site to see methods
used and benefits of bloodless surgery: http://bloodlesssurgery.org/
Without
setting off a debate regarding abortion, it occurred to me that there was a
hint of hypocrisy in all this. (Does anyone have a tin opener? I’m having a bit
of trouble opening up this can of worms!) In the earlier stages of pregnancy, a
mother has the legal right to actively terminate a living organism without
anyone second-guessing her. This happens
countless times, everyday. I realise
that, medically, there is some debate as to when a foetus is actually
considered a living organism. On the
other hand, there are many who believe that life starts at conception.
Back
to my initial gripe and also considering my own feelings on blood transfusions,
it just makes me sad that parents who are trying to do the right thing (despite
being faced with an horrendously difficult decision) are put in the limelight
like they were and have their decision overruled by a doctor, who cannot even
start to understand the reasoning behind the path chosen.
No comments:
Post a Comment