Kirjoittaja Aaac » 07.02.2009 16:02
Vieras kirjoitti:Tuo hylkäämisjuttu on kerrottu muistamani mukaan aaac:n uutisissa joitakin vuosia sitten.
JT-vanhemmat hylkäsivät verensiirron saaneen lapsensa (220403)
http://web.archive.org/web/200708102216 ... rkiv4.html
Britannian parlamentissa keskusteltiin vuonna 1996 tapauksesta, jossa jehovantodistajavanhemmat kieltäytyivät enää ottamasta takaisin 8-vuotiasta lastaan, jolle oli tehty verensiirto oikeuden päätöksellä. Vanhempien mielestä lapsi ei enää ollut sama kuin ennen, koska veri oli muuttanut sitä. - Omien lastensa hylkääminen ei ole jehovantodistajilla kovinkaan harvinaista: vanhemmat hylkäävät seurakunnasta erotetut lapsensa.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... 125-13.htm(kohta: 25 Jan 1996 : Column 1162):
"The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered.
However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.
I believe that the judge and the hospital in that case did right. However, it goes to show quite how much one must pause and consider the unknown reactions that may arise. If one attempts to enforce access with a legal big stick, the reaction of one or the other parent may be quite unpredictable. Such a generalised discretion as the one suggested would, perhaps, force the court to run upon a waterfall. I believe that it should have discretion to hold back from that waterfall if it sees fit.
As regards subsection (a) of Amendment No. 158A, I would also be interested to know how the reference to "the conduct" of the parties impinges on the very long debates that we have had about fault during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. I am not able to work that out in the time available; and, indeed, I certainly do not intend to detain Members of the Committee. However, if fault is to come into the Bill, I believe that it should come in through the front door and not accidently by the back door. If we bring such a provision into the Bill accidently, it may create no end of legal confusion afterwards."
Keskustelua aiheesta:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/frie ... ransfusion[quote="Vieras"]Tuo hylkäämisjuttu on kerrottu muistamani mukaan aaac:n uutisissa joitakin vuosia sitten.[/quote]
[b]JT-vanhemmat hylkäsivät verensiirron saaneen lapsensa (220403)[/b]
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20070810221642/medlem.spray.se/aaac/arkiv4.html[/url]
Britannian parlamentissa keskusteltiin vuonna 1996 tapauksesta, jossa jehovantodistajavanhemmat kieltäytyivät enää ottamasta takaisin 8-vuotiasta lastaan, jolle oli tehty verensiirto oikeuden päätöksellä. Vanhempien mielestä lapsi ei enää ollut sama kuin ennen, koska veri oli muuttanut sitä. - Omien lastensa hylkääminen ei ole jehovantodistajilla kovinkaan harvinaista: vanhemmat hylkäävät seurakunnasta erotetut lapsensa.
[url]http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199596/ldhansrd/vo960125/text/60125-13.htm[/url](kohta: 25 Jan 1996 : Column 1162):
"The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. [color=#FF0000][b]However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.[/b][/color]
I believe that the judge and the hospital in that case did right. However, it goes to show quite how much one must pause and consider the unknown reactions that may arise. If one attempts to enforce access with a legal big stick, the reaction of one or the other parent may be quite unpredictable. Such a generalised discretion as the one suggested would, perhaps, force the court to run upon a waterfall. I believe that it should have discretion to hold back from that waterfall if it sees fit.
As regards subsection (a) of Amendment No. 158A, I would also be interested to know how the reference to "the conduct" of the parties impinges on the very long debates that we have had about fault during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. I am not able to work that out in the time available; and, indeed, I certainly do not intend to detain Members of the Committee. However, if fault is to come into the Bill, I believe that it should come in through the front door and not accidently by the back door. If we bring such a provision into the Bill accidently, it may create no end of legal confusion afterwards."
Keskustelua aiheesta:
[url]http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/50404/1/JW-Parents-refuse-to-have-8yr-old-back-after-transfusion[/url]