Respect for patient autonomy. Part 3

In the two previous articles in this series consider the case of MMF refusing to accept a treatment that could be submitted if necessary. We saw the involvement of a judge in the case and the legal arguments. Consider the conclusion reached by the judge and to which we come.

Conclusion of the judge
"Ultimately, given the above, are in some who it endorses, for discussion with the concerned will, free, express and spontaneously emitted to disallow the transfusion of blood on his person in no case exempt health personnel responsibility for the decision, taken after the relevant information carried by the medical team about the impact that maintaining such a resolution could imply, that person being an adult and not appreciating any physical or mental limitation that may vitiate the will of this has to be concluded by respecting the will, not giving the requested authorization to perform a blood transfusion even if it be needed. And all without prejudice, of course, the obligation of physicians and other health personnel to take other measures necessary to ensure the patient's health. "

Part

"DECIDE: that, while respecting the free choice made by the patient, should be adopted by health personnel all measures within its power to preserve the life of the same, except the realization of a blood transfusion, which has been expressly and validly opposite MS. M.M.F.

Notifíquese the present resolution to the hospital concerned and the Virgin of Health and the Public Prosecutor indicating that it fits against lodging an appeal within five days of its notification.

This was agreed and signed D. FOZ, Judge of the Court of First Instance and Instruction number one of Torrelavega and his party, I certify. "

Conclusions
This only has a name: "you made up for the backfire. That is, sought to impose by force a treatment against patient's wishes and now that the judge finds that not only does not require authorization but the medical team that MMF being supplied with all measures at its disposal other than transfusion. Go rebuke!

Meditate on all the past. But how is it that you want to use the authority of a judge to impose a criterion that precludes a person of legal age! What arrogance and pride!

Moreover, the humility of what this judge! He who has the authority says who is he to have to decide for others? If the medical team had had a hint of the humility of this court would not have happened this cold water over it.

I know some people are thinking that perhaps the position of MMF was a bit intransigent, that life was at stake, the doctor only wanted to help, the medical team only wanted the best for her. But what was best for her? To live feel outraged? How many times have we heard "I'd rather die standing than live on your knees"? How many millions of soldiers gave their lives to achieve freedom of the peoples of Europe during World War II? How can they consider these soldiers? "Heroes or villains? Is not it true that many heads of state and authorities have made them homage by giving their lives for freedom? Did M.M.F. should be treated as a villain for exercising their right to choose the treatment that it considers most appropriate for her?

Forget prejudice. We're not talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses, of which there are known worldwide for its deep moral and religious convictions. We're talking about patients' rights to choose the type of treatment that is most appropriate. No matter what the treatment is rejected: a blood transfusion or chemotherapy or radiotherapy sessions, vaccines, antibiotics, etc.. We're talking about freedom.

Recently an acquaintance of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer went to her oncologist and said he would not continue their chemotherapy. Reaction of the judge. He gave her discharge. Unheard of!

He told her not wanting to continue your treatment, had nothing to do. He refused to do tests to monitor your condition. As the judge, must remove the "aura of infallibility" that they have been gone to his head, and never better, and be a little more humble.

That is, doctors are charging these gentlemen their salaries through the taxes we pay patients, and now we're going to Social Security and we want to meet unless it is in their own way. They imagine that you hire a mason to make them work at home, you get paid in advance and now he refuses to do the job because you want it to be in a certain way. I understand that private medicine would be logical for the doctor to put his conditions because that's his clinic, but in public medicine is we're paying them their wages. But that look is just the opposite. Go and private medicine and receive them with open arms, treated them as you like, do not want blood, for without blood, they do not want chemotherapy, for without chemotherapy, as you will pay. But in public medicine ...

Just today in the press comes an article from a couple of 13 years to which it has been respected their right to choose her treatment, going against what the team doctor recommended.

According to the newspaper El Mundo: "When they refused, the hospital management that addresses the Herefordshire-Hereford Primary Care Trust (United Kingdom) - decided at first to go to court to remove temporary custody to her parents and ' oblige "the teen to undergo surgery, but after several legal proceedings and the report of an official in the office of ombudsman for children, the center has decided to withdraw the demand."

That is, if a mature and responsible young man is respected for his convictions "should have been dealt with MMF, an adult as it tried?

Finally, you may ask, but how it ended with MMF? For indeed she was operated on without blood transfusions, and was a success. We believe it was without blood transfusions, because of course there was the judge to see it, and the patient was unconscious from the anesthesia. This is another topic to discuss what many doctors will do us without our knowledge and without our consent?

As the old aphorism: "God Cuidem doctors who take care of my health I!". I would not be so blunt but I would say, "God Cuidem some doctors, my health that I will still worry me!"

Related topics:
The choice of medical treatment: the right of every patient. Part 1
Should a judge decide what medical treatment should we follow? Part 2

*Automatic Translation