I wonder how doctors would react in such a situation? if they must decide on life treating procedure for teen and kid legally refuse? And opt for experimental one?

[Pawelk198604]

And parents do not need to pay anything because all is budget founded.

 

I wonder how doctors would react in such situation, I've always dreamed of becoming a doctor but now I'm too old (I'm almost 33) I wonder how doctors approach a child's lack of consent for a life-saving medical procedure? 

And those apply also for seniors under geriatrics care, does family should impose their will on such a person? 

Like cancer procedures? 

If for example, 16 years old teen boy has some kind of cancer that affects his nethers, and doctor order castration as the best course of action, but it's also new experimental procedure, with good effectiveness, but parents opt for castration 
Yet boy not agree in my country kid above 16 can legally refuse even parents are legal guardians and have custody right, kids below 16 and above 13 can also refuse but it's only advisory but most doctors listen to their patient wish not their little parents because of this 
 

rather than regulations or money :-) 

The case I described is real I read about it boy refused and doctors are in deadlock (literally) 
Parents could get family court ruling forcing their will on kid ːsteamsadː But our Polish court is sluggish like heal and boy could appeal to court of appeals and the case could bounce back and forth and time for him would running out for him, and it's maybe too late for both treatment the one that parents want and the one that kid want :-( 

I read that eventually, his parents stepped down, and they do what they boy wanted :-) 

Update: And the same goes for seniors do seniors should have the right to decide on themselves even if their mental capabilities maybe deteriorating?

Edited December 18, 2018 by Pawelk198604

[Superfluous J]

Whomever has the legal right to decide has the legal right to decide. Doctors can't and shouldn't override that. If the law is vague and the system is slow, that should be fixed and doctors shouldn't just do whatever they want.

"First, do no harm" is great and all but in reality, the first goal is to do what the patient wants you to do. Advise? Yes. Strongly urge? Sure. Refuse to do something the patient asks for on a legal ground? By all means. Do something to a patient against their express wishes when they have the legal right to those wishes? Full stop.

[Pawelk198604]

And what if is about the kid if is cancer for example? And procedure would result in permanent sterilization or lost of limp, and unproven yet promising experimental treatment is available? and the kid is 16 years old, is what I read. Eventually, parents of this boy agreed after one medical professor and one law professor explained to them that hurling it through court giving the fact how sluggish our Polish Legal system could be could result that may be too late for any treatment at all :-(

So the parent relent on that :-)

It was not known how it ends:-/

In fact, I’m more interested in how the doctor make their decision to be good for their patient and be later could look at their face on the mirror without shame :-/

One of my friend who is a doctor told me about the procedure called “medical selection” or Triage Triage – Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia (french word) I told him that from me combing word “medical” and “selection” I rather associate with railroad ramp in Auschwitz Birkenau concentration camp and this man

rather than genuine medicine :-(

[tater]

Removing a nethers (orchiectomy) is standard of care for testicular cancer, if that's the particular cancer involved (seems likely, penile cancer is incredibly rare), it's usually not bilateral. I know that here docs are trained to do the surgery the same day if possible, any delay increases mortality, and if treated promptly, the cure rate is very high.

 

[YNM]

4 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

if they must decide on life treating procedure for teen and kid legally refuse?

I suppose it's their right. By this extension the same battle has been fought over and over in comatose patients or 'brain-dead' patients (or PVS or locked-in), or even simply those that seek 'alternatives'.

The only true way to sway them one way or another is to try and give the most complete and bias-less overview of the situation and outcome. Even then they still retain their right as is, and there isn't a way to go about that. Not to mention "bias-less" is too often impractical and in some other impossible.

This is why I often see any problems in these areas aren't really out of the laws but rather out of the wills of everyone. It is more than possible to settle almost everything out of court, and as much as there are things that should be settled in court (esp. in law systems that seeks upon past judgement and not just the written law, and when it deals with monopoly or such), some others are mostly unnecessary process and would've been better if solved through other means.

This is also partly why if you go against the doctor's decision sometimes there's a legal document that has to be signed.

Edited December 18, 2018 by YNM

[wumpus]

9 hours ago, Pawelk198604 said:

One of my friend who is a doctor told me about the procedure called “medical selection” or Triage

I worked with a guy who was a captain in the army reserves, and he mentioned having to train for that for medical assistance.  Sounds absolutely terrible to have to do in practice (presumably due to conditions of war, but possibly some other emergency).

[tater]

Triage is entirely rational. There are finite providers at any given facility (even a big hospital), and they need to prioritize who gets treated first. It's just common sense.

[Pawelk198604]

13 hours ago, tater said:

Removing a nethers (orchiectomy) is standard of care for testicular cancer, if that's the particular cancer involved (seems likely, penile cancer is incredibly rare), it's usually not bilateral. I know that here docs are trained to do the surgery the same day if possible, any delay increases mortality, and if treated promptly, the cure rate is very high.

 

That's probably what it was all about!

The case came to the authorities, but our authorities are slow, doctors have persuaded these parents to give this experimental therapy a chance because if they were waiting for the court decision, it could have tragic consequences :-(

The doctors managed to save the nethers of this poor boy.

Better than none, but the parents respected the boy's demands 

 

They succumbed and the boy seems to have recovered?
In total, I understand the boy's rebellion, , To have the nethers  or not have the netherss  that is the question ːsteammockingː, it's a great thing for a teenage boy ( and for an adult man also)

I myself would rather die than lose my balls , or have a broken brain and its cognitive function as a result of surgery, so much so that I would become an idiot. 

Not that I would like to die, I can not imagine myself living as a eunuch or intelligently reduced so much that I can not do basic activities, but if there was any chance of survival without damage, then I would go for ir :-)

Edited December 18, 2018 by Pawelk198604

[tater]

The kid is an idiot, and should not have been allowed to make medical decisions, his brain isn't even fully formed. Orchiectomy is standard of care for a reason, and the cancer that it treats is VERY curable when properly treated. Any "experimental" therapy probably hurt him in the long run.

An orchietomy doesn't make you a eunuch, as I said, like most cancers it is atypical for it to be bilateral. Even if it was, he could simply take hormones (testosterone) to correct for the lack of both, had they been removed. This entire thing smacks of anti-scientific nonsense. If it was testicular cancer, a nethers-sparing procedure is a cancer-sparing procedure. truly stupid (there's a reason minors should not be allowed to make life-altering decisions like this).

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 He will listen with pleasure all your success stories.