Caso de morte apoia a liberdade religiosa


Um paciente criticamente doente foi autorizada por um tribunal de recusar tratamento médico no hospital por causa de suas crenças religiosas, embora sua decisão irá “apressar a sua morte.”

A paciente, identificada apenas como Sr. A, assinaram um Advanced Care directiva no ano passado, afirmando que ele se recusou a ter uma transfusão de sangue “, mesmo que os prestadores de cuidados de saúde acreditam que tal (is) necessário para preservar a minha vida, ou mesmo se algum dos meus familiares , os meus familiares, ou meus amigos, discorda com o meu considerado e não negociável decisão.”

Um deputado, que já designou dois colegas Testemunhas de Jeová para agir como seus protetores, foi admitido no serviço de emergência de um hospital na região Hunter em 1 º de julho, que sofrem de choque séptico e insuficiência respiratória.

Ele precisava diálise após encerrar sua rins, no entanto o seu guardião produzido a Advanced Care Directiva médicos e pediu para que cesse a limpeza do sangue através das suas toxinas diálise.

Depois de mantê-lo vivo por duas semanas pela ventilação mecânica e diálise, o Caçador e Nova Inglaterra Serviço de Saúde solicitou ao Supremo Tribunal em 14 de Julho de fazer uma decisão sobre se era justificada em conformidade com os desejos do Sr. A, de acordo com o Advanced Care directiva.

Em defesa do paciente pedido, Robert McDougall Justiça sublinhou que o tribunal não estava em forma de reconhecer o Sr. A “direito a morrer.”

McDougall Justiça concluiu que o Sr. A foi competente quando ele assinou a directiva, elaborada por um advogado que tinha redigido muitos desses documentos para outro testemunha de Jeová clientes.

O advogado, o Sr. N, admitiu que ele não explicou o risco da recusa de diálise ao Sr. A, porque “não era claro se, de acordo com as crenças detidos por Testemunhas de Jeová, não houve qualquer bíblico proscrição de esta forma de tratamento.”

No entanto, para além da directiva, o Sr. A guardiões produzidas duas testemunha de Jeová “”planilhas indicando a sua atitude em relação aos diversos tipos de tratamento médico, escrito por ele em agosto do ano passado, mas não assinado.

Em um deputado da segunda folha, sob a explicação de diálise, ele afirmou que iria recusar o tratamento.

Em sua fundamentação, disse McDougall Justiça competente qualquer adulto tem o direito de recusar tratamento médico em morais, sociais ou religiosas, sob a forma de um Advanced Care directiva.

“Se (ele) é feita por um adulto capaz, e é clara e inequívoca, e estende-se à situação em apreço, deve ser respeitada,”disse ele.

“Com base nas provas médicas, devo admitir que o resultado da retirada de diálise será para apressar a morte de um deputado. Isso é uma consequência da decisão que ele fez, como mostrado na Planilha 2.”

Link original: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/death-case-backs-religious-freedom/story-e6freuy9-1225758621527

Tradução Google

Death case backs religious freedom

A CRITICALLY ill patient has been allowed by a court to refuse medical treatment in hospital because of his religious beliefs, even though his decision will “hasten his death.”

The patient, identified only as Mr A, signed an Advanced Care Directive last year stating that he refused to have a blood transfusion “even if health-care providers believe that such (is) necessary to preserve my life or even if any of my family, my relatives, or my friends, disagrees with my considered and non-negotiable decision.”

Mr A, who has appointed two fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses to act as his guardians, was admitted to the emergency department of a hospital in the Hunter region on July 1, suffering from septic shock and respiratory failure.

He needed dialysis after his kidneys shut down, however his guardians produced the Advanced Care Directive and asked doctors to cease cleaning the toxins from his blood via dialysis.

After keeping him alive for two weeks by mechanical ventilation and dialysis, the Hunter and New England Health Service requested the Supreme Court on July 14 to make a ruling on whether it was justified in complying with Mr A’s wishes according to the Advanced Care Directive.

In upholding the patient’s request, Justice Robert McDougall emphasised that the court was in no way recognising Mr A’s “right to die.”

Justice McDougall found that Mr A was competent when he signed the directive, drawn up by a solicitor who had drafted many such documents for other Jehovah’s Witness clients.

The solicitor, Mr N, admitted he did not explain the risk of refusing dialysis to Mr A, because “it was unclear whether, according to the beliefs held by Jehovah’s Witnesses, there was any biblical proscription of this form of treatment.”

However, in addition to the directive, Mr A’s guardians produced two Jehovah’s Witness “worksheets” indicating his attitude to various forms of medical treatment, written by him in August last year, but unsigned.

On Mr A’s second worksheet, under an explanation of dialysis, he stated that he would refuse the treatment.

In his reasons, Justice McDougall said any competent adult is entitled to refuse medical treatment on moral, social or religious grounds in the form of an Advanced Care Directive.

“If (it) is made by a capable adult, and is clear and unambiguous, and extends to the situation at hand, it must be respected,” he said.

“On the basis of medical evidence, I accept that the result of withdrawal of dialysis will be to hasten Mr A’s death. That is a consequence of the decision that he made, as signified in Worksheet 2.”

A CRITICALLY ill patient has been allowed by a court to refuse medical treatment in hospital because of his religious beliefs, even though his decision will “hasten his death.”

The patient, identified only as Mr A, signed an Advanced Care Directive last year stating that he refused to have a blood transfusion “even if health-care providers believe that such (is) necessary to preserve my life or even if any of my family, my relatives, or my friends, disagrees with my considered and non-negotiable decision.”

Mr A, who has appointed two fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses to act as his guardians, was admitted to the emergency department of a hospital in the Hunter region on July 1, suffering from septic shock and respiratory failure.

He needed dialysis after his kidneys shut down, however his guardians produced the Advanced Care Directive and asked doctors to cease cleaning the toxins from his blood via dialysis.

After keeping him alive for two weeks by mechanical ventilation and dialysis, the Hunter and New England Health Service requested the Supreme Court on July 14 to make a ruling on whether it was justified in complying with Mr A’s wishes according to the Advanced Care Directive.

In upholding the patient’s request, Justice Robert McDougall emphasised that the court was in no way recognising Mr A’s “right to die.”

Justice McDougall found that Mr A was competent when he signed the directive, drawn up by a solicitor who had drafted many such documents for other Jehovah’s Witness clients.

The solicitor, Mr N, admitted he did not explain the risk of refusing dialysis to Mr A, because “it was unclear whether, according to the beliefs held by Jehovah’s Witnesses, there was any biblical proscription of this form of treatment.”

However, in addition to the directive, Mr A’s guardians produced two Jehovah’s Witness “worksheets” indicating his attitude to various forms of medical treatment, written by him in August last year, but unsigned.

On Mr A’s second worksheet, under an explanation of dialysis, he stated that he would refuse the treatment.

In his reasons, Justice McDougall said any competent adult is entitled to refuse medical treatment on moral, social or religious grounds in the form of an Advanced Care Directive.

“If (it) is made by a capable adult, and is clear and unambiguous, and extends to the situation at hand, it must be respected,” he said.

“On the basis of medical evidence, I accept that the result of withdrawal of dialysis will be to hasten Mr A’s death. That is a consequence of the decision that he made, as signified in Worksheet 2.”

Anúncios

One response to this post.

  1. Eu respeito todas as religiões e formas diferentes de pensar. O meu ponto de vista é o seguinte: se for um adulto, ele é que sabe, a vida é dele, ele que faça o que quiser; se for uma criança, aí o cenário já é diferente, aí a decisão dos pais, Testemunhas de Jeová, já devia ser mais preponderada e não tanto apressada, afinal, é uma vida inocente que ainda podia ter muito tempo para viver que está em risco – nesse cenário, eu acho, na minha sincera opinião, que as Testemunhas de Jeová deviam por de lado a sua crença e preocuparem-se em salvar a respectiva criança.

    Curtir

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s

%d blogueiros gostam disto: