(July 12, 2015 at 11:36 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I wasn't saying that people shouldn't be able to make their own decisions, but it's still frustrating - I don't know how it's like to be a doctor, but watching someone dying in front of you can be extremely hard and for a brief moment you may instinctively act to save that person even if you know the consequences.
Yes, people can die if they wish to, they can refuse any medical procedure they want to, but does that justify firing someone or just ruining their career forever? I accept the fact people want to die, what irritates me is that religionists are purposefully picking on someone for doing the most sane thing on earth - Saving lives. "Ohhhhhhhhhh I'm being oppressed because my life was saved, how sad"
Know this - If you're unconscious and I'm not aware of your religion, you do not have a right to sue me because I assumed the most rational thing - That you would consent. Indeed, consenting when unconscious is complicated - Legislators and jurisprudence have created a thing called "presumed consent", which consists in the doctor (or the person with the task at hand) assuming what the average person would consent to or not, and then applying it to that case - The average person would most likely consent to a blood transfusion, but would not consent to, for example, amputating a leg when there's other alternatives. Obviously, it's impossible to wake up everybody to ask for consent, sometimes there's no time, so if I have no info on your religion, you can't sue me even i fyou are a JW.
But in the scenario you proposed, the doctor is aware of the patient's religion, and the patient expresses his lack of consent for a blood transfusion.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
