To transfuse or not to transfuse
I was shocked to hear that Doctors at a Pretoria Hospital had obtained a court order to give a baby a blood transfusion despite the repeated refusals by the parents. 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.
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 this and have their decision overruled by a doctor, who cannot even start to understand the reasoning behind the path chosen.
Loads of doctors prefer to do bloodless surgery. It just proves that it is vital that we keep our eyes firmly fixed on long-term solutions, even if we suffer losses now. Guidance given to us is far superior to the head knowledge of the medical fraternity.
Mmm… I was wondering what happened since the transfusion. Isn’t it funny that there is so much less coverage about the fact that the blood transfusion did not help the child that there was over the initial court cases and furor? I guess it isn’t really surprising – just a bit annoying since the news is supposed to be an unbiased report of the facts. That news report was very biased. It was set up to make the child’s parents look like murderers and now that the transfusion didn’t even help the reporter has no doubt sunk into the background having got what they came for and no longer caring about the well-being of the child. Silly, annoying people!
They should take a lesson from Special Assignment (“SA”). Not only is it an honest and unbiased but I’ve found it refreshing that people (however far up in the hierarchy) get exposed for lawless/wrongful activity. To put the proverbial cherry on top, SA follow up many of their stories and keep the public appraised of the after effects of opening up Pandoras Box.
I was having a conversation with a mate who made a good point. If a Muslim child was dying and his only chance of survival was to get him to drink a bucket of pig fat would he do it? NO! Would they get a court order to enforce it? Jihad Jihad! I don’t think so…
But because it’s a blood issue…
Amen. Latest news also indicates that the baby is doing NO better since the transfusion. ???