CONGRATULATIONS! Your expert medical knowledge and paramount scientific ability was demonstrated by the ease and calm with which you have delivered your answer. You have received an offer from Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial and Kings!
what the hell... is this how you will explain to court when this girl dies of severe blood loss? u better re think this answer- I hope u are not thinking of becoming a medical professional.....
Sadly yes, even if she dies because of this procedure, if u stick to the book, you will not get sued. The guilt will stay with you for life, I am sure!
IAO OAI yea things happen extremely fast in hospitals Ie in a matter seconds. So the fact that video goes on so long it’s for the purpose of teaching us.
This sounds like a pretty good way to approach the interview. In reality, establishing competence is not that difficult - inform the girl that she will likely die if you don't perform the transfusion, and mention the side effects of the transfusion. If she consents, she is deemed competent (because that's what a competent person would usually do). If not, she's considered incompetent and you follow the best practices route. I think most 15-year-olds are competent enough to realise that dying vs. blood transfusion = bad idea.
If you end up deciding based on the best interests of the child, why bother with parental consent at all? It seems this scenario resolves down to giving the transfusion and explaining why you made the decision to the Mother, rather than seeking consent from the Mother.
I think they started off being applied only to contraceptive situations, but they were then generalised. Check this link: www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/legal-definition-child-rights-law/gillick-competency-fraser-guidelines/
Hi. I can help you do all your nursing assignments excellently and get them delivered on a timely basis. I can perfectly research and write outstanding essays about evidence-based practice, bioethics, nursing leadership, nursing informatics, ethical dilemmas etc. contact me via lewispaps@gmail.com
Borat Sagdiyev sounds very silly, if she insists on doing this I would tell her that I can't work with her and pass the responsibility to someone else.
I kind of have a hard time accepting the last part of the video. I know we have to act according to whats best for the patient, but what happens if the patient wakes up and for whatever reason she is angry that we gave her the transfusion. We completely disregarded patient autonomy and the right for her closest relatives to speak on her behalf. I mean this is her mother and assuming that shes in a right state of mind and isn't plain evil, she does have the right to assume the best interest of her daughter before the doctor.
Manar Edriss i completely agree! Hypothetically, if the mother is acting not in the best interest of her daughter but according to her beliefs, this would be an important consideration as well. How could we know her motivations? I think it is important to call a close family member (maybe a father, grandmother) to confirm the mother's recommendations and motivation, and ensure that the family is in support of the decision. Obviously, there is no way to know for sure--other than asking the daughter directly-- if the recommendation is not in the daughters best interests (considering religious, psychological, and physical factors). However, the doctor could collect other information from a quick phone call--in the case that the child is not fully understanding the implications of the procedure--so that her closest, trusted family members can help make the best decision for her.
The alternative is sort of you know letting her BLEED OUT so playing it safe and saving her life is worth risking the patient and their family being mad at you. You obligation is to 1: do no harm, 2: create benefit, and 3: respect autonomy. Benefitting the patient trumps respecting their autonomy in this case.
You could argue the patient, being only 16, is largely influenced by her parents. She may be mad at the transfusion because she knows her parents will treat her a certain way when she gets home. Thus putting the onus back on to the parents. That possibility aside, she's 16, she most likely can't make an informed decision, and so the onus falls back on to the parents. If the parents make a decision that is against the best interest of their child, then you disregard it as child abuse. In other words: when a child is involved, you do whatever is best for the child regardless of what the parents think. The parents can either consent and make things smooth, or make a fuss about it. At the end of the day, the child's life take priority over everything. Parental consent is pointless.
Dr Din i was wondering the same thing and it goes against autonomy, consent! If the parent doesn't give consent how do u give blood to them? This is basically one of the most important pillars of Medicine.
@@jeonlix_m Yes but where do you draw the line of parental consent and parental abuse? We could go to the other end of the spectrum and pose a scenario: what if a parent refuses to feed their child adequately. That's abuse since they're causing harm to the child by withholding nourishment. How is that different to causing harm by withholding medication or treatment?
What i don't get is that you said that even if the parent continues to refuse treatment you will still act in the best interest of the child and give them treatment anyway. So why even bother asking the parent in the first place?
Faisal Alshukri I have no idea but I’m pretty sure that it would be law to inform the parents of the procedure and at least try to convince them to go ahead with the procedure before acting in the interest of the child idk tho🤷♂️
Yes Miss right I will just need to see the proof that you are the child's mother.... that is a photo and it in no way proves you to be the mother, did you remember to bring her birth cert and photo id and the same for the child... if yes check if the mother is in an unfit state to make the decision, is she overly emotional, are her feelings bottled up, does she see thing that aren't there ... (so you are upset and believe in an unimaginable magic man). If you want to save a kid ... you can always find a way. Although I do like the "spread the blame to the entire team" as this can include the nurse who cannot afford my lawyers fees "pass the buck clause". Just kidding do not listen to me. :)
You think that because of his tone and his posture, which was quite robotic and stationary. There's no actual reliable sign that it was memorised at all.
HE IS SO GOOD, THE ANSWERS ARE SO CLEAR AND PRECISE :( I THINK I'M STILL FAR FROM THIS
slap that woman and tell her her child's life is on the line.
CONGRATULATIONS! Your expert medical knowledge and paramount scientific ability was demonstrated by the ease and calm with which you have delivered your answer. You have received an offer from Cambridge, Oxford, UCL, Imperial and Kings!
pfft overrated bs, who would want to study there anyway? I would slap that woman, Adam Rabe and you if I ever get in that situation
Only if we could.
All this while the girl is bleeding out yea?
her life can wait, ethics is first
what the hell... is this how you will explain to court when this girl dies of severe blood loss? u better re think this answer- I hope u are not thinking of becoming a medical professional.....
Sadly yes, even if she dies because of this procedure, if u stick to the book, you will not get sued. The guilt will stay with you for life, I am sure!
IAO OAI yea things happen extremely fast in hospitals Ie in a matter seconds. So the fact that video goes on so long it’s for the purpose of teaching us.
🤣🤣🤣🤣😂
This sounds like a pretty good way to approach the interview. In reality, establishing competence is not that difficult - inform the girl that she will likely die if you don't perform the transfusion, and mention the side effects of the transfusion. If she consents, she is deemed competent (because that's what a competent person would usually do). If not, she's considered incompetent and you follow the best practices route. I think most 15-year-olds are competent enough to realise that dying vs. blood transfusion = bad idea.
How do you expect a 17 year old to know all of this? :(
God help us :(
Chandranil Deb its for 21+
The admissions lady did not buy something I said like that
You beat him/her up until he/she learns
A 17 year old isn't generally applying to medical school.
This video helped me alot hey ! Well explained and well compiled. Thank you so much!!!
How are we supposed to know age of consent and questionnaires to assess competence?
If you end up deciding based on the best interests of the child, why bother with parental consent at all? It seems this scenario resolves down to giving the transfusion and explaining why you made the decision to the Mother, rather than seeking consent from the Mother.
Just asking to be nice I suppose
Would the Fraser guidelines be applied to a situation like a blood transfusion, or is it exclusively for prescribing contraception?
Phoebe Hennell it's annoying that they haven't replied to you
I think they started off being applied only to contraceptive situations, but they were then generalised. Check this link: www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-system/legal-definition-child-rights-law/gillick-competency-fraser-guidelines/
If child is almost dying but mother keeps refusing treatment, can it be considered as a child abuse?
Lanziee01 good point, I'd say so
Hi. I can help you do all your nursing assignments excellently and get them delivered on a timely basis. I can perfectly research and write outstanding essays about evidence-based practice, bioethics, nursing leadership, nursing informatics, ethical dilemmas etc. contact me via lewispaps@gmail.com
Lewis Ireri really Lewis. What did you study?
Really useful!
Are these laws the same in the UK as they are in the US?
I know the Gillick competence principle is from the UK.
You give them the blood and save her life, if they don’t consent you can always take out the blood
Your brain 🧠 all I need is your brain
one question
why would i not just save the childs life if its in danger
Maybe she'd rather die than get a transfusion.
Borat Sagdiyev sounds very silly, if she insists on doing this I would tell her that I can't work with her and pass the responsibility to someone else.
Parents should have no say at all, save the child first and then the discussion can begin.
haha..then there could be a lawsuit
I kind of have a hard time accepting the last part of the video. I know we have to act according to whats best for the patient, but what happens if the patient wakes up and for whatever reason she is angry that we gave her the transfusion. We completely disregarded patient autonomy and the right for her closest relatives to speak on her behalf. I mean this is her mother and assuming that shes in a right state of mind and isn't plain evil, she does have the right to assume the best interest of her daughter before the doctor.
Manar Edriss i completely agree! Hypothetically, if the mother is acting not in the best interest of her daughter but according to her beliefs, this would be an important consideration as well. How could we know her motivations? I think it is important to call a close family member (maybe a father, grandmother) to confirm the mother's recommendations and motivation, and ensure that the family is in support of the decision. Obviously, there is no way to know for sure--other than asking the daughter directly-- if the recommendation is not in the daughters best interests (considering religious, psychological, and physical factors). However, the doctor could collect other information from a quick phone call--in the case that the child is not fully understanding the implications of the procedure--so that her closest, trusted family members can help make the best decision for her.
He already said that he would check if the child is competent enough to give consent. Why the hell would she be mad if she gave consent
The alternative is sort of you know letting her BLEED OUT so playing it safe and saving her life is worth risking the patient and their family being mad at you. You obligation is to 1: do no harm, 2: create benefit, and 3: respect autonomy. Benefitting the patient trumps respecting their autonomy in this case.
You could argue the patient, being only 16, is largely influenced by her parents. She may be mad at the transfusion because she knows her parents will treat her a certain way when she gets home. Thus putting the onus back on to the parents. That possibility aside, she's 16, she most likely can't make an informed decision, and so the onus falls back on to the parents. If the parents make a decision that is against the best interest of their child, then you disregard it as child abuse. In other words: when a child is involved, you do whatever is best for the child regardless of what the parents think. The parents can either consent and make things smooth, or make a fuss about it.
At the end of the day, the child's life take priority over everything. Parental consent is pointless.
I think the hospital can sue the parents too!
whats the point of asking for the consent of you're going to do the transfusion regardless?
thanks for knowledge sharing it is really useful for medical students.
Doesn't this mean that you're always going to do the blood transfusion? No matter the opinion of the mother.
Dr Din i was wondering the same thing and it goes against autonomy, consent! If the parent doesn't give consent how do u give blood to them? This is basically one of the most important pillars of Medicine.
@@jeonlix_m Yes but where do you draw the line of parental consent and parental abuse? We could go to the other end of the spectrum and pose a scenario: what if a parent refuses to feed their child adequately. That's abuse since they're causing harm to the child by withholding nourishment. How is that different to causing harm by withholding medication or treatment?
@@zidan6343 fair enough
when u say " matured enough to be deemed competent" i what sense are u referring to
it means if they can fuck or not
Schatten2712 Died laughing, thanks
@@Schatten2712 ahahahaha
if i see you in person i'll give you a hug :)
What i don't get is that you said that even if the parent continues to refuse treatment you will still act in the best interest of the child and give them treatment anyway. So why even bother asking the parent in the first place?
Faisal Alshukri I have no idea but I’m pretty sure that it would be law to inform the parents of the procedure and at least try to convince them to go ahead with the procedure before acting in the interest of the child idk tho🤷♂️
Are you a lawyer or a doctor?
If the child was unconscious?
Omg you mean u would go against autonomy?
It depends. You can go against autonomy if the person isn't competent enough / lacks capacity or if the patient will put themselves or others at risk.
Yes Miss right I will just need to see the proof that you are the child's mother.... that is a photo and it in no way proves you to be the mother, did you remember to bring her birth cert and photo id and the same for the child... if yes check if the mother is in an unfit state to make the decision, is she overly emotional, are her feelings bottled up, does she see thing that aren't there ... (so you are upset and believe in an unimaginable magic man).
If you want to save a kid ... you can always find a way.
Although I do like the "spread the blame to the entire team" as this can include the nurse who cannot afford my lawyers fees "pass the buck clause".
Just kidding do not listen to me. :)
Simple I ask my wife .
robotic memorized answer. absolutely terrible.
You think that because of his tone and his posture, which was quite robotic and stationary. There's no actual reliable sign that it was memorised at all.
This reminds me of the move 3 idiots
Those below 18 are not deemed competent and the consent of a parent or a guardian should be sought no matter what.
Why whole indian people.dont speak.english very bad...😑😑😑 it.is very interesting...