1. Respond to the discussion:
“Suppose a child needs a particular treatment, but the parents deny the child this treatment due to their beliefs and religion. In that case, I think that it is essential that there are laws that will restrain the parents from limiting the child from this treatment, especially if it is life or death for the child.  If a child’s life relies on this treatment, why would the parents want to deny them the treatment?  Their life could end due to their religion.  The child’s health should be considered more important than religion in this case.  I understand that for someone powerful in their belief, this could be difficult, but I would imagine that it would be even more challenging to know that your child didn’t survive their illness due to the parent’s decision.  I could see how the parents put all of their faith in their religion, and maybe they believed that their child would overcome the illness without the treatment.  But physicians are specifically trained to know what is best for the child, and if they think that this treatment is what will consider the life or death of the child, then there should not be a choice whether to give the child the treatment.  The child has so much potential ahead of them, they are the future, and their life needs to be considered, and everything should be done to keep them healthy and alive.  I guess I would be interested in learning how the parent would react after the treatment is done and their child has been saved.  How would they respond to the child?  Would they be thankful that they were forced to follow through with the treatment, or would they still be upset that their child had it?  I just can’t imagine denying my children treatment if I knew it was life or death.  “
Respond to peer discusion.

2. For example, under the Shorter vs. Drury case, patient Doreen Shorter was a Jehovah’s Witness who had a missed abortion. She needed to get a D & C done to evacuate the uterus in order to protect against infection. However, Dr. Drury chose the method that involved more bleeding, posed a greater risk of harm for the patient, and knew that the patient refused blood transfusion due to her religious beliefs. Despite the patient signing an informed consent knowing the risks to the procedure and still refusing transfusions, Dr. Drury was held negligent for choosing this particular procedure when there were two other methods of D & C that posed a lesser risk. Nevertheless, the court found that the blame for Mrs. Shorter’s death itself was Mrs. Shorter because she failed to receive a blood transfusion multiple times when offered that could have saved her life (Furrow, Greaney, Johnson, Jost & Schwartz, p. 127-131).
Now, hypothetically speaking, say Mrs. Shorter was a child in this case and her parents refused a blood transfusion to treat her missed abortion. However, she still needed to get a D & C done and Dr. Drury actually used the less risky methods to do this procedure, but there was still a potential complication for blood loss. For instance, some risks of any D & C procedure include uterus perforation, damage to the cervix, scar tissue of the uterine wall, infection, etc. (Mayo Clinic, 2022). Thus, a blood transfusion may be needed in such events like the uterus perforating. Regardless, her parents refused blood transfusion as an alternative to save her life in the OR in case she did so happen to bleed profusely during the procedure. Here, the physician should appeal to the state immediately, because the parents are making a decision that could cause harm/death to the child if this complication occurred during surgery. Overall, if a parents decision to withhold a particular treatment for a child can result in harm/death, the state should become involved and supersede the decision to prevent such adverse events.

what is your response to the discussion 2?