# **Hospital Ethics Survey

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 13, 1999 at 02:53:45 {OA5YBxH8IAMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: *Hospital Ethics Survey posted by Farkel on November 12, 1999 at 13:08:06:

Hi Kelfar,

Don't cop out so quickly. The comparison is a good one and it involves the broader issue of ethnics and morality in medical practice.

For instance, what if the doctors themselves were Jehovah's Witnesses and someone wanted to come in for a therapeutic abortion? Could the JW doctor conscientiously agree to do that procedure? No.

What about the more complex issues of cloning or genetic alteration? Lots of people are afraid of that kind of research and think it is going over the medical line.

Or what about issues of surrogate parenting. There was a case in California where some donated eggs of some women were being given to other women and it was a big scandal. But what if you worked in a fertility hospital where there was donated sperm and donated eggs and you decided to steal a couple of eggs and sperm from various donors and then, via artificial methods paid several women on welfare to be surrogate mothers? Whose children would they be? Sound far fetched?

No so. That's because you can get disfellowshipped for donating sperm to a blood bank and the WTS calls it "test tube fornication."

Now consider the legal and ethical situation of blood. Some persons with AIDS are so angy they will die and so bitter about having contracted the disease that they want to kill others, and so they become promiscuous or sometimes use their blood as a weapon. After all, an AIDS' patient's blood is deadly. So legally, if an AIDs patient exposes you to his blood or some other biologically hazardous material, they can be charged with assault and attempted murder.

So what if a JW insisted upon not having blood and it was forced upon them and they contracted AIDS? And a review board decided that it wasn't a medical emergency and there was a greater than 70% chance they could have survived without blood? Should the hospital be held liable?

So this underscores a point I've tried to make regarding the blood issue and that is this really is a moral and legal issue. It's the Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice debate which is so heated.

And that is really why this issue won't be resolved outside the witness organization since witnesses have a LEGAL RIGHT to refuse certain types of medical treatment if they wish, especially since blood is not 100% safe.

And finally, on a less intense level, even now certain medical procedures are not available to certain persons because of MONEY! Certain HMOs will disallow certain procedures which many doctors feel is necessary for comprehensive care because of financial considerations. For a while, OB-Gyn doctors were being sued so much they couldn't get malpractice insurance. You know, if the baby came out healthy but ugly, they sued the doctor...

So ethical, legal, moral and fiscal issues already are a part of medical decision-making when you look at the broad picture.

So it's not all that complex after all. It's Pro-Life or Pro-Choice all over again.

Cheers,
Bibleman

Follow Ups:

- ***Hospital Ethics Survey Polly 02:12:46 11/14/99 (1)
  - ****Hospital Ethics Survey Bibleman 06:23:57 11/14/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***Hospital Ethics Survey

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]