I recently filed for divorce. I don't want to take my children (15 and 13) away from their JW mom, but I wanted to make sure that I had final say in medical matters. My attorney said that in South Carolina, legislation was passed that pretty much mandated that doctors provide minor children with life-saving care over any religious objections by parents or hospital committees. My lawyer was directly involved with the many motions prior to the legislation, and the legislation itself.
Is this the case in your state or country as well?
My lawyer told me...is this the case where you live too?
by Globetrotter 6 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Globetrotter
-
upside/down
That was the case when my kid was in a medical emergency sitch. They said it didn't matter how many wavers and disclaimers I signed that the laws mandated a minors care if death might be imminent. The Liason guys just try and work with the docs to go as far as they can, before doing the "blood" thing.
I'm not positive but I was told that was the case nationwide. The Docs and hospitals can actually be sued by the authorities even if the parents and patient all agree on a certain treatment and the patient dies. So the liability makes them trump the parents wishes- IT'S THE LAW, not religious persecution that prompts this action.
So much for the Dubs playing martyr.
u/d
-
blondie
I suppose they can get a court order over-ruling the parents wishes medically if it is a life/death situation.
-
Globetrotter
Hi Blondie,
This is one of the issues that is now avoided - having to wake up attorneys and judges at 3:00 a.m. -
blondie
As long as it holds up in court after the fact. It would be good for each person to check what the laws are in their state and to check with more than one legal opinion.
-
euripides
In any state, the courts have the right to assert legal custody over a child if it deems the child is 'neglected,' as by failure to provide adequate medical care, and typically that would include a blood transfusion. No one, despite what you may believe, has an absolute right to be free of any and all medical intervention, and this was decided by the Supreme Court 100 years ago, and it is still good law. See Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 26-27 (1905) (upholding a Massachusetts law imposing fines or imprisonment on those refusing to be vaccinated as "of paramount necessity" to that State's fight against a smallpox epidemic). As a matter of practice though, where a person's conscious choice is made clear, (and it is a medical procedure that only affects their well-being), there is a defensible right. The issue tends to swirl around whether the person really has made a conscious and knowing choice, consider the Nancy Cruzan case. Also, there was a NY case involving a severely retarded man who, though plainly did not like his blood transfusions, could not properly refuse them becasue he had never been competent. When it comes to minors though, the state always reserves the right (every state) to override the parents' choice if they feel it is in the best interests of the child. The extent to which any court or legislature is going to spell this out, and regarding which medical choices, is one that comes down to a state by state issue, and perhaps even down to which court. If a physician obtained a court order permitting him or her to administer a transfusion on a minor, that physician, though not shielded absolutely from liability, would have a very strong case in defense of the act. Euripides
-
freedom96
Regardless of what the state law says, I would be concerned over who is going to have final say over medical care between you and your ex.
In California, the say in medical care is given to the person who has physical custody. There might be joint custody, but whoever is listed as physical custody will have the final say. You may want to do what you have to do in order to have a say in this matter. Very important, indeed.