If you look closely at personal rights we always have the right to do or not do something physical. We don't pass the right off for someone else to control. The only exceptions are medical and it is well documented why they are exceptions.
SCC Decision on Consent
- Thread starter TenPenny
- Start date
Fine.. Provide the judgement on the JW anecdote... Word it in a way that stipulates whether the doctor's legal responsibility supersedes the JW's right to practice their religion as they see fit.
The SCC wasn't evaluating a child custody case. Their only job was to rule on consent.
If a 90 year old JW won't consent to a medical procedure then they won't likely get it.
If a 5 year old JW has malignant brain cancer who's rights are being violated if they perform lifesaving surgery?
There are some real nuggets to chew on in this case:
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto
If a 90 year old JW won't consent to a medical procedure then they won't likely get it.
If a 5 year old JW has malignant brain cancer who's rights are being violated if they perform lifesaving surgery?
There are some real nuggets to chew on in this case:
Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto
The woman who was the complainant in the case in question isn't a child either.
Care to try the answer again and pretend that the JW is a woman the same age as the complainant in the sexual assault case?
That's why we have DNR tags you can buy so they won't try to save you or these for JoHos:
Last edited:
I guess that all Kreskin has to consider is the legal considerations faced by the doctors relative to preserving life and the religious rights involved.... That and the potential that the JW may decide to renounce their religion in emergency and opt for a transfusion, but alas, they can't provide conscious consent.
Your point doesn't relate to the question you presented to me, nor my answer.
If I hypothetically agreed to be choked out or drugged to the point of unconsciousness and I agreed to the risks of what may or may not be done to me during that time, I accepted the consequences that follow that decision..... If I don't wish to take that risk and don't wish to accept those consequences, I won't consent to being rendered unconscious in the first place.
This ruling removes that option, makes the decision for me and will automatically deem any actions done to me while unconscious as being illegal and sexual assault..... or assault in general.
OOoOOooooo.... And Oath!
That's reassuring...... because oaths have never been broken before.
Marriage Oaths are one of the first ones that come to mind right away.....
Apparently only 10% of JoHo will do that.
Read that while searching for the tag.
Yes you can, because all it takes is one person to challenge it in court and say "Well if the parameters of this law apply to this situation, then why doesn't it apply to this very similar situation?"
And thus you either have the original law removed, modified, or expanded...... and because of the wording of this ruling, they allowed this to easily happen.
Yes it does.
Malpractice and the emergency room
Malpractice and the emergency room - WrongDiagnosis.com
"The ER has a particularly high rate of medical errors, and thus causes a relatively high rate of medical malpractice lawsuits. Two of the highest paying malpractice-related diseases in terms of total awards are heart attack (myocardial infarction) and appendicitis. In both of these cases, the typical allegation is misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis or mismanagement of medical tests, leading to a late diagnosis and to severe consequences, often death. The other three of the top five malpractice diseases, which are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer, are more common in general practice and involve slower-progressing diseases."
Like I posted waaaaaaay back at the beginning of the thread "Get it on paper". Verbal contract means **** but when on paper....
Tell you what.... when I make my way back to Canada and I get into an accident that renders me unconscious, when I wake back up in the ER after an operation, I'll make the first case and sue their ass for doing something I didn't consent to because I was unconscious..... then we'll see what happens.
Oh and regards to Je-Ho/Witnesses, you don't even need a tag or religious reasons not to refuse medical treatment..... any citizen has the right to refuse medical treatment of any kind.
Because the law for the other situation is written differently. Primates can have higher functioning self awareness than a human on life support, yet animal activists have been unsuccessful at arguing that previous court decisions should apply to animals and thus give them more rights...because the laws are different. They don't apply.
You and Captain morgan can't seem to grasp that crucial fact.
So, would you like to tell me how this applies to consent? A doctor does not need your consent in an emergency situation. The court has ruled on this.
What you are failing to connect is that the underlying, core issue of (conscious) consent is a pivotal and common thread between multiple areas of the law.
Consent does not have a different meaning in different areas of the law, consent is consent and that is where the threat exists. An interested party can apply that core definition potentially to any other facet of the legal system.
Why don't you answer that question, after all, you were the one that stated that malpractice does not apply in the emergency room.
As far as a doctor not needing your consent in the emergency room, I guess we'll see about that if/when the law is challenged using the "conscious consent" ruling that was just handed down.