{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Изменено (Player3Th0mas):
9/17/2013 9:32:33 PM
27
If you were a doctor and a Jehova's witness comes to the ER...
... He is losing a lot of blood. Would you help him? Or wouldn't you want to take the risk?
[spoiler]Jehovas don't accept a blood transfusion, so you can't give him extra blood. Lots of doctors refuse to treat Jehovas, as they feel extra guilty if the patient dies.
[/spoiler]Would you take the risk? Or would you let someone else do it? Would you still give him a blood transfusion?
English
#Offtopic
-
For all of you who are saying 'Screw him he gets the transfusion!', read the above.
-
Whether or not he's willing I go through with a transfusion he'll need to stop bleeding and in that situation I'd have to be the guy to do such.
-
I'd get in my blue box and -blam!- off before I had to make the decision.
-
BECAUSE THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH IS CONDITIONAL, RIGHT?
-
I can try to convince him. But if he still refuses, that is his choice. I would let him die. I have to respect his beliefs.
-
5 отв.Save him. If I was Jehovah's Witness I'd probably be dead then. After I had surgery I lost a lot of blood so I had to get a transfusion.
-
1 ответOf course I would, as per the Hippocratic (spelling?) Oath.
-
Wouldn't they feel more guilt by not helping them and then they died? Over, I don't know...helping them and then the person dies? At least, with he former you tried to help. The latter did nothing.
-
I would so long as if he passed on that I would not be inherently responsible for it somehow.
-
3 отв.I'd save them. It'd be unethical not to.
-
Provide blood salvaging and shoot em up with Erythropoietin. Than do nothing.
-
Wow. Like 80% of you would be hit with a malpractice suit...
-
If my job was to save lives, I would try my hardest to do so.
-
As a training medic, I would have to let them die. Its their choice, they know the risks of their beliefs, and you have to respect that. It's better to save the blood and use it on someone who wants helping. You will save more lives not losing your job over ethical issues.
-
If their beliefs inhibit them from receiving medical care that would save them, that is their right and they will meet an early death. The Doctor does not have the right to decide for them. At one time (several years ago) there was experimentation done with making a blood substitute from red beets that seemed promising, and Jehovah's witnesses were open to being able to receive it for it was not from another person. Don't know if that ever went anywhere or not.
-
6 отв.You have to respect his religious beliefs, as silly and life-threatening as they may be. You'd be sued out your ass if you did the blood transfusion.
-
3 отв.Not attempting to help at all and letting them die is the better route? The doctor should feel more guilty for not even trying!
-
I'd still give him the blood transfusion.
-
I saw that episode of House, too.
-
If I could choose I'd save them regardless of any ethics or religious stances. That being said, in the real world where litigation is more common than human decency I'd let the idiot die rather than get sued for saving his life.
-
If the patient announced they did not me to save them, I wouldn't do it.
-
I'd stand there and watch his god save him. Or watch him bleed out, whichever happened first
-
I'd tell him he can do it my way or not at all.
-
-
You would need to ask for his consent to do so. If he is fully aware of the consequences and not in an altered mental state, then he can say no if he wishes. Otherwise, if he is altered, from what I know you must treat the patient under implied consent.
-
12 отв.I would. Religion be damned
