If the examples given here are true (I'm not saying they aren't, I just didn't independently verify them), there is...
If the examples given here are true (I'm not saying they aren't, I just didn't independently verify them), there is something seriously wrong.
It's all wrong, but in particular, as far as I know, forcibly performing any kind of surgery on someone without their consent is a felony. What further confuses me here is that you absolutely can sue for malpractice under such a circumstance. There is no law of which I know with which the government can compel you as a physician to do anything to anyone, and certainly none that protect you as a physician if you do something to someone without their consent.
What exactly were the circumstances and who were these physicians? Because even in a situation with compelling medical evidence recommending a particular course of action, under every other possible circumstance, you have the legal right to refuse treatment. I repeat, NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU TO AGREE TO ANY COURSE OF TREATMENT. Unless, of course, somebody wholesale rewrote a whole bunch of laws. Lawyers may wish to weigh in on this.
This is war crimes levels of nonsense if this is happening. In that context, I don't give a bleep what your personal beliefs are, or what you were ordered to do. As a physician, it is none of your damned business to do things to people 'for their good' or 'for the good of the state'. That violates every ethical, and I'm still pretty sure about the legal, principle relating to medical practice.
I don't care what kind of physician you are otherwise (or nurse or any other healthcare professional). You should be stripped of your license to practice and have that behavior listed somewhere in a mandatory reporting database. Because I am a lot more concerned about possibly being cared for by someone who is going to abuse my person and my rights (especially because you were ordered to by the government) than someone who got paid by a pharmaceutical company for providing their expertise.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&referrer
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&referrer
It's all wrong, but in particular, as far as I know, forcibly performing any kind of surgery on someone without their consent is a felony. What further confuses me here is that you absolutely can sue for malpractice under such a circumstance. There is no law of which I know with which the government can compel you as a physician to do anything to anyone, and certainly none that protect you as a physician if you do something to someone without their consent.
What exactly were the circumstances and who were these physicians? Because even in a situation with compelling medical evidence recommending a particular course of action, under every other possible circumstance, you have the legal right to refuse treatment. I repeat, NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU TO AGREE TO ANY COURSE OF TREATMENT. Unless, of course, somebody wholesale rewrote a whole bunch of laws. Lawyers may wish to weigh in on this.
This is war crimes levels of nonsense if this is happening. In that context, I don't give a bleep what your personal beliefs are, or what you were ordered to do. As a physician, it is none of your damned business to do things to people 'for their good' or 'for the good of the state'. That violates every ethical, and I'm still pretty sure about the legal, principle relating to medical practice.
I don't care what kind of physician you are otherwise (or nurse or any other healthcare professional). You should be stripped of your license to practice and have that behavior listed somewhere in a mandatory reporting database. Because I am a lot more concerned about possibly being cared for by someone who is going to abuse my person and my rights (especially because you were ordered to by the government) than someone who got paid by a pharmaceutical company for providing their expertise.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&referrer
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/08/opinion/pregnant-and-no-civil-rights.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&referrer
If you're declared non-compos mentis would be one of the exceptions I can think of.
ReplyDeleteI think that's this: In one notable 1990 decision, a District of Columbia appellate court vacated a lower court's decision to compel cesarean delivery in a critically ill woman at 26 weeks of gestation against her wishes, stating in its opinion that "in virtually all cases the question of what is to be done is to be decided by the patient—the pregnant woman—on behalf of herself and the fetus" (1). Furthermore, the court stated that it could think of no "extremely rare and truly exceptional" case in which the state might have an interest sufficiently compelling to override a pregnant patient's wishes (2). Amid often vigorous debate, most ethicists also agree that a pregnant woman's informed refusal of medical intervention ought to prevail as long as she has the ability to make medical decisions (3, 4).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/Maternal-Decision-Making-Ethics-and-the-Law
Hm, no, in that case truth and justice prevailed rather than the woman dying.
ReplyDeleteSo is that one of the cases they were referring to, but misreported the deaths, or is that a different one? This is why I wish I had time to verify what's in the article. I am, sadly not quite as skeptical about Florida being horrible, but then I'd still like to know details because what doctor would agree to force a competent person to have surgery? And you're right, I assumed the women were competent. By modern standards, not some Victorian assumption that all women are basically incompetent.
ReplyDelete