Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights

Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

maybemaybenot -> Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 7:19:41 PM)
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/24/abraham-cherrix-and-patients-rights/ http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=5187442&nav=0Rcx3aIN With all the other news in the world, this story seems to be getting overlooked. I am pretty outraged that this young adult will possibly be forced, against his will, to undergo chemotherapy. If he was one or two years older it would be assault and battery. It's very odd to me that in many states a young woman cannot get an abortion without the consent of her parents. Yet this young adult has the support of his parent to decline conventional treatment and those rights are being ignored. There are young teen girls getting boob jobs and ass implants with Mama and Papa's blessing, yet this young man has made a conscious decision to choose his own destiny, knowing the risks he is taking. I have been a nurse and specifically an oncology nurse and hospice nurse for almost 30 years and I cannot imagine strapping my patient down and forcing ANY treatment on him/her. Where is the ethical regard to do no harm? Emotional harm is just as bad as physical harm. Where are the ethics period ? The thing that slays me is the fact that this even got to court. This young adult is not the first one of his age group to make the decision to stop treatment and take their chances. I have taken care of many, many young adults and adults who have done this. Some yahoo oncologist got his knickers in a twist because this family did not see him as God, and started the legal process to enforce his will on this young man. It sickens me. OK.. I am done ranting... mbmbn

FangsNfeet -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 8:32:37 PM)
Having worked in ERs and ICU's it's true that minors do not have the right to choose what is best for them nor do there parents/guardians. I've seen cases where kids where taken in custody by the State so that the minors would undergo surgery and recieve blood transfusions. Minors do not have the right to make medical decissions. Especially if there life is in danger. Religion, beliefs, and parental consent do not matter. Chemo is tough but it's unfortunatly the best treatment for beating cancer. Herbs and sugar free goods might make you feel better, but it's not going to do jack to cancer cells. By refusing to have the best treatment avalible, you put your life in a more dangerous balance. Since cancer is putting the teen in a probable chance of dying, he has no choice but to be given the best and most recomended treatment for the sake of his own well being. Even on an ambulance run, minors do not have the right to refuse paramedic treatment and be taken to the hospital. It sucks that chemo and radiation treatment or still our best ways to fight cancer. As the cleshe goes "If the cancer does not kill, the chemo will." My best wishes go out to this family in hopes that life will go on for this kid.

maybemaybenot -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 9:19:19 PM)
FnF: Go to any major Childrens Hospital that treats childhood cancers or any other terminal disease. Parents choose to stop chemotherapy/radiation/treatment every day and let their children die. They unplug respirators and stop artificial tube feedings. It is a deeply personal choice and one, in my experience, a parent does not make easily. This young man has Stage 3 Hogekins disease, which has been unresponsive to prior chemo treatments. Chemo is fine and dandy IF one responds to it or chooses to continue, despite poor response.. But the idea that one should be forced, from cradle to grave, to recieve chemotherapy is absurd, IMO. The cases of which you are speaking: Christain scientists refusing medical treatment for their child has been largely where the parent<s> are choosing to not seek treatment and the offspring is quite young and unable to reason and participate in the decision making process. Yet the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the parent to make the decision. In this young mans case, parents and off spring are united. So you are quite wrong about parental consent not mattering. The Supreme Court has ruled it does. And in my experience, not everyone wants to beat cancer.. some are at peace living their lives out as it plays. That is their decision and it should be respected, IMO. mbmbn

Estring -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 10:16:24 PM)
The state knows best. Isn't that what what big government is all about??

LotusSong -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 10:41:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring The state knows best. Isn't that what what big government is all about?? Puleeeeeeeeeeeeze.l tell me you are kidding.. pleeeeeeeeeeeease

Estring -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/24/2006 11:09:34 PM)
Actually I am not. When I am kidding I do this.[;)] Where are all the people who believe in a woman's right to choose what is done to their body? Does not a child or his parents on his behalf have the same right to choose what is done with his body?

maybemaybenot -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 12:35:29 AM)
Actually Estring, you are right on target. This ruling, if upheld, sets a very bad precident. If, I were a parent, which I am not, I would be very afraid Imagine your little one is in an accident and is legally brain dead and on artificial life support. The parent wants to remove the life support, but the medical personel says no, and to boot, we are gong to try dialysis becxause the kidneys are now failing. This ruling upholds the MDs. right to to it. Or vice versa, your little one is on life support, Medical personel says there is no hope and we are removing all support. Parent objects and wants all life support continued. This ruling also upholds that. The above is applied in the extreme, but this basically set in place the state being able to do as they will with your little ones. mbmbn

FangsNfeet -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 1:10:38 AM)
Parents only get that choice only after all hope has been ruled out by the Doctors and they give there recomendations to stop treatment. In most if not all states, you still need a MD order along being told you have six months to a year to live before you can go on Hospice.

Termyn8or -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 3:16:21 AM)
Amber Marlowe of Pennsylvania walked out of a hospital, still pregnant with her seventh child because they insisted that a Csection was necessary. She had, after all devilered the other six normally, with some weighing in bigger than the estimated weight of this one. Also, a friend had died undergoing a Csection. After the baby was born normally at another hospital she found out from a reporter that she and the baby had become wards of the first hospital in an ex-parte hearing, imagine the surprise. The hospital's lawyers portayed the Marlowes as religious fanatics, which true or not, was not the basis for their decision to refuse the Csection, but they had no opportunity to say so in court. The judge who made that ruling should be tarred and feathered, and the lawyers who brought the case to court in the first place should be shot. This was so ridiculous that someone took notice and in June 2002 Medical Practice Committe Opinion 237 spells out that refusal of treatment can be based on "religious beliefs, personal preference or comfort". What is incredulous to me is that they had to spell that out. Are we at that point in society ? Note that this is a society where abortion is legal, and even if Amber Marlowe believed that her baby's life was in danger she could simply choose to leave it in "God's hands" so to speak, or if not religious to keep it natural, if it was not meant to be oh well. My friend's daughter was having a hard time right after birth. The doctors didn't know what the problem was. Well, it was clear to the old mountain Man, those stick on body temperature indicators were the problem, she was having a reaction to the adhesive. He didn't mince words, there was no "Well, I think ummmmm", it was "Get those off of her and don't put them on anymore". Believe me this kid was in bad shape, and even his now estranged Wife says unequivocably that he saved the girl's life. I have a solution for all this, at least for myself. I don't go to doctors. For broken bones and stuff like that they are great, but when it comes to disease they couldn't cure a foot fungus without $4,000,000 worth of equipment, when all you have to do is wipe the feet down with kerosene daily, soak if it's really bad. Perhaps medicine should be socialized, but a bit differently than you think. Get a doctor, X number of people to a doctor. They all pay monthly. People who abuse themselves by smoking or using other substances would pay a surcharge to make it fair. The doctor is then obligated to perform all necessary procedures. Keep your patients healthy and you hardly have to work. Go crazy with tests every time someone gets a headache, you get a headache doing it. Tell patients what to eat to prevent diabetes, and/or cure it instead of treating it with insulin. Face it, unless you have a genetic defect diabetes is caused by mineral deficiencies, and they have known it for decades. They just don't have any incentive to tell you. My solution is not perfect, but it may well be better than what we have now. There are no perfect solutions, on a tertiary note, there is no solution for the unbridled greed of big corporations including Walmart, there is no solution for this government going to war for no good reason. Even with a number of people actually keeping a doctor on retainer, which is pretty much what I said, there is no guarantee that the pre-diabetics will heed his advice. This would be unfair. (if the advice was correct that is). There is no solution I guess, but one thing is clear. When the government decides what rights you have, you have none. When a court can rule that a hospital can strap you down and cut your abdomen open without your consent, this means that you are considered property, no more than cattle. It's time for someone to write a sequel to Orwell's 1984. T

SirCumsSlut -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 4:28:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/07/24/abraham-cherrix-and-patients-rights/ http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=5187442&nav=0Rcx3aIN With all the other news in the world, this story seems to be getting overlooked. I am pretty outraged that this young adult will possibly be forced, against his will, to undergo chemotherapy. If he was one or two years older it would be assault and battery. It's very odd to me that in many states a young woman cannot get an abortion without the consent of her parents. Yet this young adult has the support of his parent to decline conventional treatment and those rights are being ignored. There are young teen girls getting boob jobs and ass implants with Mama and Papa's blessing, yet this young man has made a conscious decision to choose his own destiny, knowing the risks he is taking. I have been a nurse and specifically an oncology nurse and hospice nurse for almost 30 years and I cannot imagine strapping my patient down and forcing ANY treatment on him/her. Where is the ethical regard to do no harm? Emotional harm is just as bad as physical harm. Where are the ethics period ? The thing that slays me is the fact that this even got to court. This young adult is not the first one of his age group to make the decision to stop treatment and take their chances. I have taken care of many, many young adults and adults who have done this. Some yahoo oncologist got his knickers in a twist because this family did not see him as God, and started the legal process to enforce his will on this young man. It sickens me. OK.. I am done ranting... mbmbn This young man deserves the right to choose how he wants to be treated for this disease....And the fact that his parents and siblings are behind his decision, should hold some merit with the depart. of family services. The doctors and gov't have no right sticking their noses, once again, into family business. If the docs had told me twelve years ago that I could not take my first hubby off of life support, I would have taken him home to die happily instead of letting him die in the one place he did not want to be, the hospital. If his parents had told me no, you can't turn off the respirator....I would have told them that their son and I made this decision long ago when we found out he was ill. This young man in Maryland has every right to make the decision he has, as it is his life and not the docs or gov't. So I say, BIG BROTHER, GET OUT OF OUR HOUSEHOLDS!!!!!!!

LadyEllen -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 4:34:58 AM)
Hi I think it depends on the circumstances of each case as to whether treatment should be given or withheld in these life and death situations. A cancer patient who is going to die anyway, having reached the end of the line, should not be put through the discomforts of treatment but rather enabled to die in their own way, with dignity. Young people should not be automatically determined unfit to decide their fate simply because they are under the age of adulthood where they live - they are each different, with varying levels of competence just as adults are, and some are wiser than many adults. On the other hand, if someone is so ill that they cannot understand let alone make the choice, or if there is a good chance of recovery to a good life, then we have to err on the side of caution. The problem with our society is that the emphasis is on prolonging life, rather than a good life. I am serious about this - I am about to drive 200 miles on the motorway, if I should be involved in an accident on the way and left tetraplegic, I would really rather be dead - and yet, the medical people will do all they can to preserve my "life", and I of course would be helpless to stop them doing that and helpless to end it myself. Anyone that helped me to fulfil my wishes would be put in gaol as a murderer, rather than being seen as the merciful agent of my will. As medicine advances, we are going to run into more and more of these problems because we will be more and more able to keep life going beyond any reasonable enjoyment. We have to get this sorted out soon. The medical people have to be involved since they are the experts on prognosis, but they should not be permitted to make value judgements. The legal people have to be involved since they are the experts on law, but they should not be permitted to make value judgements either. The family, and other possible benefactors from the potentially deceased's estate should not be permitted to judge either. We have to get living wills established in law, and ensure that the medical people can follow them by amending the duty of care they have. After that, if we dont choose to make a living will, then the medical people will have to err on the side of caution and keep us alive. It comes down in the end as to whether we have any right to determine our fate. I get very annoyed at certain religious types who insist that assisted suicide is wrong - they seem to be saying that the incredible pain of someone dying of say cancer, is somehow the will of (their) God and/or is somehow spiritually valuable. Since their God is love and mercy, the former is somewhat paradoxical. As to the latter, if severe and ongoing pain is so spiritually valuable then perhaps I could do these religious types a favour by causing them severe and ongoing pain to bring them closer to their God! In the end, we live in the UK in a multi-religious society - I am not of the same religion as these people, so why on earth should their views be applied to me via their unelected participation in Parliament? On the other hand, the freedom to decide our own fate, which to my mind is inalienable, also has to be controlled of course. We cannot have a situation where suicide by otherwise fit and healthy people is enabled - otherwise we would be dropping like flies! I speak as someone who has seriously contemplated suicide before anyone rushes in, by the way. Suicide in that sense occurs where the mental pain exceeds the coping resources, and the only perceived way to stop the pain is through death. It is a failure of society that people are brought to such situations, so there is another problem on the list that needs to be solved. Suicide doesnt stop the pain of society in general, it just stops life, and in my experience most people contemplating suicide dont want to die, they just want the pain to stop. Then there is the abortion debate. We have to have legalised abortion, because just as with prostitution, it will happen regardless, and we have therefore to ensure proper care of the women involved rather than often dangerous backstreet abortion clinics. However, abortion asserts that a foetus has no rights and can be killed - and that is a problem, if we are to say that we should have an inalienable right to decide our own fates, because surely once a foetus becomes concious it is a person who also has that same right? We must bear in mind that premature babies are being born right now and surviving, within the permitted time period of gestation for abortion to be performed. Whose right to self determination comes first in such late abortions - the child's or the mother's? My opinion, and thats all it is people, is that abortion has to be legal, but should not be permitted unless there is a very strong likelihood that the quality of life of the child will be extremely poor due to inherited illness etc, the pregnancy is the result of rape or the life of the mother will be endangered because of the pregnancy. "Lifestyle" reasons in an age of very effective contraception are simply not good enough reasons for terminating a life - if my son becomes a pain in the neck, it would be accounted as murder if I terminated him because he interfered with my lifestyle, so I dont see how his age (under 6 months or older) or location (womb or my living room) really affects that. Overall, we are affected in modern society by clinging to a system of belief that is outdated, whilst every day advancing our understanding and capabilities. We have to resolve these issues, and we cannot look to a system of belief which is fossilized in the world of two millennia ago to do this. E

KatyLied -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 8:29:13 AM)
quote: For broken bones and stuff like that they are great, but when it comes to disease they couldn't cure a foot fungus without $4,000,000 worth of equipment, when all you have to do is wipe the feet down with kerosene daily, soak if it's really bad. Interesting. I had major surgery in May. Leading up to the surgery I had a battery of tests and was seen by a few different doctors. I received excellent medical care. Part of this was me being an advocate and educating myself regarding surgical procedures and tests, so I was able to gauge if I was getting the appropriate treatment. And I was able to ask the right questions regarding my treatment/recuperation. Don't paint with such broad strokes. All docs aren't bad. spelling edit

sub4hire -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 11:43:11 AM)
There are people in this country who have empathy for other's afterall Judge Lifts Treatment Order for Sick TeenYouth Refuses Conventional Medical Care for CancerBy SONJA BARISIC, AP ACCOMAC, Va. (July 25) - A judge ruled Tuesday a 16-year-old cancer patient who has refused conventional medical treatment does not have to report to a hospital and ordered a trial to settle the dispute. http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/judge-lifts-treatment-order-for-sick/20060725132409990006?cid=2194

maybemaybenot -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 1:32:40 PM)
Thanx for the update, sub4hire[:D][:D] !! Hopefully some high powered legal firm will come to this family and lawyers assitance. Footnote to FnF : Parents Do infact stop treatment for their children without this hoopla. I have seen it with my own eyes. Not immediately after diagnosis, but after seeing the chemo failed to produce any forward progress, or when the cancer returns. Just as feeding tubes are removed in cases like the Shaivo case, every day, without all the hoopla that surrounded that case. Hospice is the same state to state, becasue it is a Medicare Benefit, therefore Federal. The guideline being that given the normal progression of this disease at this point in the disease process, the average life expectancy is less than 6 months. Not every person who stops treatment fits that guideline and has chosen to live out there life as they see fit. mbmbn

MasterRenegade77 -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 1:49:49 PM)
I wholeheartedly agree that no-one should be strapped down & have poisin forced into thier bodies... I Know O/our government is Complicit in out right Murder being that there are MANY cures & have been for Many years but the AMA & the FDA have actively surpressed & actually persecuted Drs that would use them... They do this in deference to the big pharmacutical companies & drs that only view us as CASH-COWS... Check out http://educate-yourself.org/fc/ While you're there check out the link to Ozone, then get in touch With the editor of Educate-Yourself.org & find out how you can get the book "The Story of Ozone" Once you start reading it you'll be absolutely amazed, I was... BTW there are still only five states in the USA that presently allow drs to use Ozone therapy... It's all about the $$$$$s people no-one can patent Ozone so there's no way to make big Mooo-ney... Then if you know anyone with Cancer send them to Google, have them put in Budwig & check out her (Dr. Johanna Budwig) Flaxseed Oil diet... She claims that in 90% of cases even those close to death can be returned to good health... Please don't take My word for it but check it out on your own... Y/you owe it to Y/yourself & Y/our's!!!

Alumbrado -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 2:30:22 PM)
quote: With all the other news in the world, this story seems to be getting overlooked. I am pretty outraged that this young adult will possibly be forced, against his will, to undergo chemotherapy. If he was one or two years older it would be assault and battery. While I'm not very happy about someone having to go though an awful experience because a judge said so, I don't get the age/legal comments... If a person were a young adult, then they would have to, by definition be over 18, and would have every right to refuse treatments. And there is no minimum cut off age for assault and battery, which is a moot point anyway when the government is the one doing the 'touching'...that is like saying that everyone sentenced to jail has been the victim of the crime of 'kidnapping' because they don't want to be there . But this person appears to be a child, not an adult. according to the links. As far as forcing treatment, should we refuse to strap down and treat a delusional patient? How does that render any standard of care for them?

maybemaybenot -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 2:59:07 PM)
Alumbrada : I was correct in my usage of the term young adult. I also was trying to refrain from using a taboo word here.. ya know TOS and all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult In the world of medical malpratice, if I were to pry someones mouth open and force a medication down there throat. I would be committing assault and battery on the patient. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0763723142&id=5gwsBRhEd70C&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&ots=_xnh-dyqOM&dq=medical+malpractice+assault+and+battery&sig=I9P7gcSpDALj7vSuoEm78s9WYec So, it seems in this particular case the first courts did give a cut off age for assault and battery. Actually they condoned it and ordered it done, if the young adult did not go peacefully. My point, seems to have been missed by you was that if a Medical person took it upon themselves to say This patient must accept therapy, I know what is in their best interest and gave the treatment without consent to an unwilling patient, it constitutes assault and battery. Your comparison to prisoners and kidnapping is just silly. Look up the legal definition of kidnapping and you will se that it is the " unlawful" taking of a person against their will. Since being imprisoned if one is convicted of a crime is " lawful", your point is moot. Why would we strap down a delusional patient? There are many delusional folks walking the streets, a good number of the homeless in this country are schizophrenics and are quite free to roam. Are you suggesting delusional persons need to be restrained from society? I'm not quite sure where you were going with that statement. The big difference being this is an alert and coherent young adult, the alert and coherant parent have chosen to decline chemotherapy. Mental capacity does not even enter into this case. mbmbn mbmbn

Termyn8or -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 6:46:13 PM)
Lady Ellen; I jumped ahead, but this is to be a quickie post. "The legal people have to be involved since they are the experts on law," I must take exception to that, the law should not be involved at all except to enforce the patient's will. Although I have been remiss in this, I believe that upon one's eighteenth birthday they make those choices, and update it at will. This could take many forms, like coming along with a will. Even at eighteen, a person would do well to make known their wishes for the distribution of their property in the event of their death. This might grow them up a bit, conceptualizing the idea of mortality. Making suicide, assisted suicide and euthenasia illegal is the epitome of proof that we are considered property. We are the customers dammit, and we should be able to fire a doctor if we want to. The rest of your post, so far so good. We agree on much. T PS, I go back now to read the rest. I will return. T

justheather -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 7:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado As far as forcing treatment, should we refuse to strap down and treat a delusional patient? How does that render any standard of care for them? I used to be a psych nurse, working with adolescents. While "routinely" may be too strong a word, it was not uncommon for us to restrain teenagers who were in the midst of violent or psychotic (or both!) outbursts, threatening harm to another or themselves, and medicate them via injection. Minors have no legal rights when it comes to medical threatment. They are literally at the mercy of their parents and caregivers. Id like to offer a situation that occurred when I was in nursing school: A nine year-old boy was in a terrible car accident with his father. As a result of internal injuries, he had to have his spleen removed. This meant that we had to re-innoculate him against the childhood diseases he had already received vaccinations against. His family agreed that it had to be done, on the advice of the medical team. The child, however, was not having it. He screamed and kicked and cried and fought. His mother and extended family, being so distraught over almost losing him and still not sure if they were going to lose his father, would intervene every time we tried to give the injections (being sensitive to his aversion to needles, three of us were going to give him the shots all at once, kind of like the best method of pulling off a band-aid...cruel but quick), and tried to reason with him. Eventually, we had to send the family away, hold the child down and give him the shots. The child didnt want the vaccines. Lots of people think vaccines are unneccessary and even "Bad". There could have been made a case for not giving him the injections. So, was what we did wrong? Was it "assault"? Chemo can be ugly. I work in an ICU with patients who are at death's door because of chemo. I have seen people die from chemo after being declared "cured" by their oncologists. I know exactly how ugly it can be, and how very real the risks and side-effects are. Ultimately this is between the child and his parents. Just one perspective. Im not saying it's the right one.

Alumbrado -> RE: Forced Chemotherapy- Patients Rights (7/25/2006 7:31:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: maybemaybenot Alumbrada : I was correct in my usage of the term young adult. I also was trying to refrain from using a taboo word here.. ya know TOS and all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult In the world of medical malpratice, if I were to pry someones mouth open and force a medication down there throat. I would be committing assault and battery on the patient. http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0763723142&id=5gwsBRhEd70C&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&ots=_xnh-dyqOM&dq=medical+malpractice+assault+and+battery&sig=I9P7gcSpDALj7vSuoEm78s9WYec So, it seems in this particular case the first courts did give a cut off age for assault and battery. Actually they condoned it and ordered it done, if the young adult did not go peacefully. My point, seems to have been missed by you was that if a Medical person took it upon themselves to say This patient must accept therapy, I know what is in their best interest and gave the treatment without consent to an unwilling patient, it constitutes assault and battery. Your comparison to prisoners and kidnapping is just silly. Look up the legal definition of kidnapping and you will se that it is the " unlawful" taking of a person against their will. Since being imprisoned if one is convicted of a crime is " lawful", your point is moot. Why would we strap down a delusional patient? There are many delusional folks walking the streets, a good number of the homeless in this country are schizophrenics and are quite free to roam. Are you suggesting delusional persons need to be restrained from society? I'm not quite sure where you were going with that statement. The big difference being this is an alert and coherent young adult, the alert and coherant parent have chosen to decline chemotherapy. Mental capacity does not even enter into this case. mbmbn mbmbn Your own link lists 'young adult' as a euphemism. not a legal definition, so relevant to this particular story, and my comments on the use of legal terms, there was nothing legally 'adult' about the person. Calling a court ordered medical treatment assault and battery is every bit as silly as calling jail time kidnapping, which is the point I made quite clear in my post....thanks for taking it out of context, and fabricating something I didn't say. Ditto for muddling up the quite clear question on treating a delusional person who resists. Since it was a question and not a statement, there was no call for you to read any extra meaning into it. So, again.....Are you saying that if you were in fact working in some medical capacity, and there was a TDO in place, you would refuse to treat a delusional patient who told you to stop? Because that would be malpractice.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875