sheds, consenting and otherwise
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:28 pm
Dear Joy
Having people giving consent on their behalf is one of the many indignities imposed on children and animals. We have to assume that parents/owners have a primary responsibility for their care and are in a position to give consent on their behalf. When my children were too young to give consent i would have objected strongly to someone treating them medically (non emergency situation) without my consent. And if someone decided that my dog needed treatment i would expect them to consult me. If an adult could not give consent (due to mental impairment) i imagine they would have a carer, too. As for ordinary adults they come and pay for my advice and i provide remedies, which they don't even have to take. They don't have to sign consent forms because they have choice about whether they take my advice - i don't ram pills down their throats.( I didn't actually understand your 3rd sentence and may have missed your point)
As for an adult who *will* not speak to give their consent - they won't get treatment from me. No sly medication of someone's coffee, no spraying the room with remedies etc etc.
I wouldn't want to be treated without having given permission whether i was alive or dead and i am just extending that courtesy to others.
I am excluding emergency treatment here but if someone had expressed a wish for how they did and did not want to be treated medically if unconcsious, I tend to think that that should be respected.
The question of responsibility is a matter of interpretation but i would say that in principle we are each responsible for our own health, but if we *choose* to go to someone for professional help we have a right to expect them to behave responsibly. That doesn't actually make them responsible for our health in my book.
I am not particularly interested in treating sheds and really do not want to pursue that!
I don't know where you live but imagine there are several homeopaths in your area using QXC1 machines. They probably don't all use them in this way, though.
bw
Theresa
Joy wrote:
Do you not treat any animals, babies, children who cannot yet speak,
adults who cannot or will not speak to give their consent? Do your
clients have to sign consent forms? Our main purpose is to do no harm
which begs the question of needing consent as we would hardly be asking
for permission to do damage (although sadly this happens). We are, by
the nature of our profession very much responsible for our clients
health anyway.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Having people giving consent on their behalf is one of the many indignities imposed on children and animals. We have to assume that parents/owners have a primary responsibility for their care and are in a position to give consent on their behalf. When my children were too young to give consent i would have objected strongly to someone treating them medically (non emergency situation) without my consent. And if someone decided that my dog needed treatment i would expect them to consult me. If an adult could not give consent (due to mental impairment) i imagine they would have a carer, too. As for ordinary adults they come and pay for my advice and i provide remedies, which they don't even have to take. They don't have to sign consent forms because they have choice about whether they take my advice - i don't ram pills down their throats.( I didn't actually understand your 3rd sentence and may have missed your point)
As for an adult who *will* not speak to give their consent - they won't get treatment from me. No sly medication of someone's coffee, no spraying the room with remedies etc etc.
I wouldn't want to be treated without having given permission whether i was alive or dead and i am just extending that courtesy to others.
I am excluding emergency treatment here but if someone had expressed a wish for how they did and did not want to be treated medically if unconcsious, I tend to think that that should be respected.
The question of responsibility is a matter of interpretation but i would say that in principle we are each responsible for our own health, but if we *choose* to go to someone for professional help we have a right to expect them to behave responsibly. That doesn't actually make them responsible for our health in my book.
I am not particularly interested in treating sheds and really do not want to pursue that!
I don't know where you live but imagine there are several homeopaths in your area using QXC1 machines. They probably don't all use them in this way, though.
bw
Theresa
Joy wrote:
Do you not treat any animals, babies, children who cannot yet speak,
adults who cannot or will not speak to give their consent? Do your
clients have to sign consent forms? Our main purpose is to do no harm
which begs the question of needing consent as we would hardly be asking
for permission to do damage (although sadly this happens). We are, by
the nature of our profession very much responsible for our clients
health anyway.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]