There may be disagreement between the parents regarding the treatment of their child, so that one of them agrees to it while the other refuses. In the view of some jurists, there is no dispute in permitting a doctor to work in cases where medical intervention does not involve serious harm to the safety of the young person, as long as the intervention is in his or her interest.
In other cases, some consider that the will of the parents must be taken into account, and therefore it is necessary to try to convince them together.
Another view was that there should be a distinction between whether the refusal was from the father or the mother. In the case of the consent of the father, the intervention may be legitimate for the doctor, since the father is the legal guardian of the minor .. He is the primary responsibility for all members of the family.
However, if the father refuses and the mother agrees, the doctor's intervention is not legitimate for a number of legal persons unless there are a number of conditions, the most important of which is that the chances of success are certain and that the treating physician take all necessary precautions for the benefit of the child. Intervention.
In the view of some, there is no problem if the doctor intervenes in the event of urgency requiring rapid intervention, as explained above, because the doctor is obliged to save the life of the young and if the parents refused.
Perhaps the lesson is with the consent of the father as the legal guardian, and in the absence of the father replaced by the mother. If the father refuses medical intervention, the reasons for such refusal should be sought. If the reasons for the rejection are serious, such as when the results of the intervention are unsafe, or if the risk is detrimental to the interests of the child, it is necessary to obey the father's refusal. If the reasons for rejection are not serious, such as the rejection of financial considerations or social or religious beliefs, it may be sufficient in this case the consent of the mother if the medical intervention serves the interests of the young, both in the field of prevention or treatment.
In all other cases where medical interventions involve serious risk, the doctor must wait for parental consent.
In the case of divorce, the duty of health care rests with the person entrusted with custody of the child. However, if medical interventions involve serious harm to the physical well-being of the child and the child is in the custody of the mother, One of them was absent.
What does the doctor (legally) do about the refusal of the minor's guardian?
If the doctor is in front of a person who refuses, for medical or religious reasons, to allow the treatment of a minor who needs it, how should he act?
There is no doubt that it is the duty of the doctor to seek this opposition to obtain the consent of the parents, or at least not to oppose them, and to clarify carefully, in addition to patient dialogue, which shows both respect and firmness, can overcome stubborn resistance.
If the parents' refusal continues, despite all the warning and warning of the consequences of matters in urgent matters, we are dealing with one of two possibilities: Either the doctor acts himself, or the matter is brought to the prosecution and to the judiciary.
A - The doctor himself:
If the parents hold the refusal, it can not be said that the doctor can, at all times, strike a page on the consent of the parents, and intervene to provide treatment. The obligation to obtain consent remains the same as the rules of ethics. It is confirmed by the contract between the doctor and the patient.
Therefore, according to the circumstances of the case, the physician must determine whether the unacceptable treatment can be avoided or postponed, or that it is indispensable.
Where rejected treatment is not immediately necessary, parents' opposition to such action can not be condemned in principle. The doctor must therefore respect the parents' authority and submit to their refusal.
But what if the medical action rejected by the parents is not immediately necessary, but not doing so poses a danger to the young person in the future, as if the parents refused to vaccinate the child against poliomyelitis, tetanus and others?
We do not believe that if the doctor can not convince the parents of the importance of vaccination and the seriousness of neglecting to do this against their will, this can be one of the cases that he would prefer to refer to the courts.
However, there are cases in which treatment or blood transfusion is vital for a young person, such as requiring a blood transfusion surgery or a new baby whose blood type is not compatible with the mother's blood type, which requires urgent blood transfusion.
There is no doubt that in such cases, the doctor must be given broad authority over parental rejection.
But before talking about this authority, it is necessary to understand the necessity of allowing the doctor to overcome parental opposition.
What is meant here is that treatment or blood transfusion is the only way to save a youngster's life or physical integrity.
Therefore, if other treatments are found to perform the same goal, even if they are more expensive and difficult, the doctor must replace them with the rejected treatment.
This treatment should also be ruled out if it is simply a means of improving the patient's condition, and it was not necessary to save his life or physical integrity.
If the proposed treatment becomes necessary in the advanced sense, it is the right of the doctor, and even his duty, to go beyond parental opposition.
When the matter is related to the life or death of a young person, this opposition becomes worthless, because parental authority is a function that is intended to serve the interests of the young person. It is a means of protecting the health and morality of the child.
If this power is transformed by a deviation in practice into a means of harming the minor, the doctor must strike a page.
On the other hand, it is unacceptable to involve a child in religious or philosophical beliefs that are not suited to his or her opinion. These beliefs belong to their owners, and should not be affected by others, becoming a stick to them as a means to threaten their lives.
It is not true that the price of parental obedience to a moral or contractual obligation is to harm the life of the young, who has no benefit or harm to himself.
In addition, a doctor who refrains from providing the necessary treatment to save a child's life, even if it is consistent to refuse his parents, is liable to criminal accountability.
The doctor's respect for the parents' refusal to accept the child's death or exposure to risk makes him vulnerable to criminal punishment. The same accusation can be directed at the parents, because they insist on refusing treatment, also committing the offense of not helping a person at risk.
If the doctor decides to intervene because he is convinced of the need for treatment that the parents refuse, the question arises as to how the intervention is performed. Some may suggest that the doctor take care of the secret, such as transferring blood secretly.
The doctor can also take advantage of the patient's presence under anesthesia, and give him treatment arguing that he can not - because of the urgency - to obtain satisfaction in a timely manner.
But it is difficult to accept these methods because of the deception of the parents, even if the purpose is to achieve the interests of others.
After obtaining the support of another colleague, the doctor may apply the treatment despite parental opposition, even if this leads to abuse of authority.
The doctor should be careful in his or her release to the will of the parents, so that only in the case of extreme urgency, when the life or safety of the young person is at grave risk, he can only be saved from doing the necessary medical work.
The imposition of the will by the doctor is presumed to have been done in advance, including the use of another colleague, to convince the parents of the gravity of the situation and the need for the work to be carried out. If these conditions are met, the doctor may resort to any method he deems appropriate to save the child's life, even if it requires the use of the trick or intimidation, or any other appropriate method.
In front of the nobility of the desired result is saving an innocent soul, objections to the means used diminish.
B - The use of the judiciary:
If the medical work is necessary and vital for the young person, it is possible to postpone for some time, perhaps for a day or a few hours. For example, the doctor may find his interest in informing the Attorney General to obtain legal support for his intervention. A medical act of his own gravity and prompting them to take the matter to the Public Prosecution.
The frequency of what some jurists declare is that the doctor can not impose medical attention on the child, even if it is in his favor, that the parents refuse.
The Attorney-General usually informs the child judge of the circumstances of the incident. The child judge is ordered to overcome parental opposition and to provide any medical treatment necessary to maintain the child's life or health.
The judge may issue an order depriving the child of the custody of his parents and handing him over to a medical center, with the authorization of doctors to perform the medical work required by his condition. But it is common for a judge to authorize the doctor who requested the license to do the work.
Conclusion: In the face of parents' refusal to perform treatment that seems necessary for the minor, the problem of the guardian's refusal to be treated can be resolved on the basis of the distinction between two hypotheses:
First: If the medical work which requires the minor to be subjected to urgent work is not likely to delay, otherwise the life of the minor is at risk, then the urgency itself is justified to do the work, even if the guardian refuses him, the doctor to proceed immediately, because of the conditions of urgency can not bear Delay, and fear with it on the patient's life.
The second is that the work, despite its necessity, is likely to be postponed for some time, and here the doctor can notify the public prosecutor, who in turn sends the order to the child judge to take the necessary measures.
In other cases, some consider that the will of the parents must be taken into account, and therefore it is necessary to try to convince them together.
Another view was that there should be a distinction between whether the refusal was from the father or the mother. In the case of the consent of the father, the intervention may be legitimate for the doctor, since the father is the legal guardian of the minor .. He is the primary responsibility for all members of the family.
However, if the father refuses and the mother agrees, the doctor's intervention is not legitimate for a number of legal persons unless there are a number of conditions, the most important of which is that the chances of success are certain and that the treating physician take all necessary precautions for the benefit of the child. Intervention.
In the view of some, there is no problem if the doctor intervenes in the event of urgency requiring rapid intervention, as explained above, because the doctor is obliged to save the life of the young and if the parents refused.
Perhaps the lesson is with the consent of the father as the legal guardian, and in the absence of the father replaced by the mother. If the father refuses medical intervention, the reasons for such refusal should be sought. If the reasons for the rejection are serious, such as when the results of the intervention are unsafe, or if the risk is detrimental to the interests of the child, it is necessary to obey the father's refusal. If the reasons for rejection are not serious, such as the rejection of financial considerations or social or religious beliefs, it may be sufficient in this case the consent of the mother if the medical intervention serves the interests of the young, both in the field of prevention or treatment.
In all other cases where medical interventions involve serious risk, the doctor must wait for parental consent.
In the case of divorce, the duty of health care rests with the person entrusted with custody of the child. However, if medical interventions involve serious harm to the physical well-being of the child and the child is in the custody of the mother, One of them was absent.
What does the doctor (legally) do about the refusal of the minor's guardian?
If the doctor is in front of a person who refuses, for medical or religious reasons, to allow the treatment of a minor who needs it, how should he act?
There is no doubt that it is the duty of the doctor to seek this opposition to obtain the consent of the parents, or at least not to oppose them, and to clarify carefully, in addition to patient dialogue, which shows both respect and firmness, can overcome stubborn resistance.
If the parents' refusal continues, despite all the warning and warning of the consequences of matters in urgent matters, we are dealing with one of two possibilities: Either the doctor acts himself, or the matter is brought to the prosecution and to the judiciary.
A - The doctor himself:
If the parents hold the refusal, it can not be said that the doctor can, at all times, strike a page on the consent of the parents, and intervene to provide treatment. The obligation to obtain consent remains the same as the rules of ethics. It is confirmed by the contract between the doctor and the patient.
Therefore, according to the circumstances of the case, the physician must determine whether the unacceptable treatment can be avoided or postponed, or that it is indispensable.
Where rejected treatment is not immediately necessary, parents' opposition to such action can not be condemned in principle. The doctor must therefore respect the parents' authority and submit to their refusal.
But what if the medical action rejected by the parents is not immediately necessary, but not doing so poses a danger to the young person in the future, as if the parents refused to vaccinate the child against poliomyelitis, tetanus and others?
We do not believe that if the doctor can not convince the parents of the importance of vaccination and the seriousness of neglecting to do this against their will, this can be one of the cases that he would prefer to refer to the courts.
However, there are cases in which treatment or blood transfusion is vital for a young person, such as requiring a blood transfusion surgery or a new baby whose blood type is not compatible with the mother's blood type, which requires urgent blood transfusion.
There is no doubt that in such cases, the doctor must be given broad authority over parental rejection.
But before talking about this authority, it is necessary to understand the necessity of allowing the doctor to overcome parental opposition.
What is meant here is that treatment or blood transfusion is the only way to save a youngster's life or physical integrity.
Therefore, if other treatments are found to perform the same goal, even if they are more expensive and difficult, the doctor must replace them with the rejected treatment.
This treatment should also be ruled out if it is simply a means of improving the patient's condition, and it was not necessary to save his life or physical integrity.
If the proposed treatment becomes necessary in the advanced sense, it is the right of the doctor, and even his duty, to go beyond parental opposition.
When the matter is related to the life or death of a young person, this opposition becomes worthless, because parental authority is a function that is intended to serve the interests of the young person. It is a means of protecting the health and morality of the child.
If this power is transformed by a deviation in practice into a means of harming the minor, the doctor must strike a page.
On the other hand, it is unacceptable to involve a child in religious or philosophical beliefs that are not suited to his or her opinion. These beliefs belong to their owners, and should not be affected by others, becoming a stick to them as a means to threaten their lives.
It is not true that the price of parental obedience to a moral or contractual obligation is to harm the life of the young, who has no benefit or harm to himself.
In addition, a doctor who refrains from providing the necessary treatment to save a child's life, even if it is consistent to refuse his parents, is liable to criminal accountability.
The doctor's respect for the parents' refusal to accept the child's death or exposure to risk makes him vulnerable to criminal punishment. The same accusation can be directed at the parents, because they insist on refusing treatment, also committing the offense of not helping a person at risk.
If the doctor decides to intervene because he is convinced of the need for treatment that the parents refuse, the question arises as to how the intervention is performed. Some may suggest that the doctor take care of the secret, such as transferring blood secretly.
The doctor can also take advantage of the patient's presence under anesthesia, and give him treatment arguing that he can not - because of the urgency - to obtain satisfaction in a timely manner.
But it is difficult to accept these methods because of the deception of the parents, even if the purpose is to achieve the interests of others.
After obtaining the support of another colleague, the doctor may apply the treatment despite parental opposition, even if this leads to abuse of authority.
The doctor should be careful in his or her release to the will of the parents, so that only in the case of extreme urgency, when the life or safety of the young person is at grave risk, he can only be saved from doing the necessary medical work.
The imposition of the will by the doctor is presumed to have been done in advance, including the use of another colleague, to convince the parents of the gravity of the situation and the need for the work to be carried out. If these conditions are met, the doctor may resort to any method he deems appropriate to save the child's life, even if it requires the use of the trick or intimidation, or any other appropriate method.
In front of the nobility of the desired result is saving an innocent soul, objections to the means used diminish.
B - The use of the judiciary:
If the medical work is necessary and vital for the young person, it is possible to postpone for some time, perhaps for a day or a few hours. For example, the doctor may find his interest in informing the Attorney General to obtain legal support for his intervention. A medical act of his own gravity and prompting them to take the matter to the Public Prosecution.
The frequency of what some jurists declare is that the doctor can not impose medical attention on the child, even if it is in his favor, that the parents refuse.
The Attorney-General usually informs the child judge of the circumstances of the incident. The child judge is ordered to overcome parental opposition and to provide any medical treatment necessary to maintain the child's life or health.
The judge may issue an order depriving the child of the custody of his parents and handing him over to a medical center, with the authorization of doctors to perform the medical work required by his condition. But it is common for a judge to authorize the doctor who requested the license to do the work.
Conclusion: In the face of parents' refusal to perform treatment that seems necessary for the minor, the problem of the guardian's refusal to be treated can be resolved on the basis of the distinction between two hypotheses:
First: If the medical work which requires the minor to be subjected to urgent work is not likely to delay, otherwise the life of the minor is at risk, then the urgency itself is justified to do the work, even if the guardian refuses him, the doctor to proceed immediately, because of the conditions of urgency can not bear Delay, and fear with it on the patient's life.
The second is that the work, despite its necessity, is likely to be postponed for some time, and here the doctor can notify the public prosecutor, who in turn sends the order to the child judge to take the necessary measures.
