₦airaland Forum

thebosstrevor1:
They are.

They all have social media regulations in their various countries.

Various anti hate speech, anti bully and anti violence ngos are all online in these countries flagging and regulating hate speech, Nigeria is regulating hate speeches online they are all shouting foul and so called freedom of expression.

In the United states especially, the anti defamation league will hunt you down and report all your social media profile, if you post hate speech online.

That's not the point Sir. Yes the US and other states in the West regulate social media. Nigeria can do the same if they choose to. Banning Twitter simply because Twitter removed a tweet that went against its policy is not social media regulation.

Some months ago, I was in court for a motion. Since I was early, I sat down and watched the hearing before mine.
As you've heard older lawyers say before, any time you get the chance, I recommend watching other lawyers in action. If they're better than you are, you'll discover new skills or techniques you can apply to your practice. If they're worse than you are, you'll be reminded about mistakes that you shouldn't repeat. No matter what happens, you're almost guaranteed to learn something.
This was one of the cases where I was being reminded about mistakes one shouldn't repeat.

Counsel was questioning her witness, and I quickly saw that things weren't going very well. Although she was an experienced criminal defence lawyer and probably very accomplished in the art of cross-examination, her skills in examination-in-chief were awful. She was desperately trying to get her witness to tell his story, but she couldn't formulate a non-leading question to save her life.
Here's a brief example of how things were going:

DEFENCE:
You were submitting to the authority of the police, weren't you?

PROSECUTOR:
Objection. Leading.

JUDGE:
Sustained.

DEFENCE:
The police surrounded you, right?

PROSECUTOR:
Objection. Leading.

JUDGE:
Sustained.

DEFENCE:
You didn't have any choice but to do what they said, did you?

PROSECUTOR:
Objection. Leading.

JUDGE:.....read on at https://posts.gle/6rGX7j

Source: https://g.page/silverwrit-attorneys?gm

Well....

WE DON'T ACCEPT UNKNOWN BLOOD!


Doctor: Your wife is short of blood. She needs immediate blood transfusion.

Husband: Same thing they said in the other hospital she's been in the last 3 days of labour. We are Jehovah's Witness, we don't accept unknown blood.

Doctor: This is highly important to save your wife's life and the unborn baby.

Husband: We have worked for the Lord with all our strength, He can't fail us, she can't die.

Doctor: I may need to proceed forcefully if you don't accept.

Husband: Then be ready to FACE THE LAW IN COURT!

PAUSE:
You have once been boxed in that corner as a doctor, not knowing what action to take, right?

So the doctor went back to the theatre and asked the patient if she had another relative close by who could give consent for the blood transfusion.

With tears in her eyes, the patient begged her husband to allow the doctors carry on with the blood transfusion but he refused, bluntly. The doctors were furious. They tried convincing him for the last time but he was pretty obstinate. Some minutes later, the doctors asked him to take his wife to Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH). He was required to get an ambulance. Gosh, he got a Volvo heasre! (�)

Four hours later, a proper ambulance arrived, thankfully. The patient was placed right in. Hardly had she entered when her eyes fluttered open for a moment and then she breathed her last. Her unborn baby died with her, sadly.

Husband broke down and cried. (�)

But wait....

Why did the doctors not proceed with the blood transfusion?
Whose consent was required, the patient's, or her husband's?

Okay, I do understand that the doctors were really terrified — someone was about to die!
But it's the patient who decides what's good for them, not their spouse.

Recipients of health care have specific rights with regard to delivery of health care services. With regard to patients' rights, there are two basic concepts: PATIENT AUTONOMY AND INFORMED CONSENT.

PATIENT AUTONOMY is the right of a patient to determine what's best for them in the administration of health care. A patient should always be involved in the decision-making process regarding their health care and health professionals should always try to ensure that people are not treated against their will.

INFORMED CONSENT is a voluntary un-coerced decision made by a competent, conscious individual to either accept or reject a proposed medical course of action. Patients have the right to be informed about their treatment and care and give consent to the health care provider before any treatment regime can begin.

A conscious and competent (adult) patient is free to decide whether or not to submit to treatment recommended by a doctor. A patient is entitled to reject the advice of a doctor for reasons which are rational or irrational or for no reason at all. This was the Supreme Court's decision in MEDICAL AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL V. DR. JOHN EMEWULU NICHOLAS OKONKWO (2001) LPELR-SC.213/1999

Even if the patient is unconscious or is a child and thus, cannot give consent, the decision of the patient's spouse, parent or guardian is not final.

When a competent parent or one in loco parentis refuses blood transfusion or medical treatment for their child (or for their unconscious spouse) on religious grounds, the Court should step in, consider the baby’s (or spouse's) welfare, i.e. saving the life and the best interest of the child or spouse, before a decision is taken. These considerations outweigh religious beliefs of the Jehovah Witness Sect (or any Sect there is). The decision should be to allow the administration of blood transfusion especially in life threatening situations. This was the Supreme Court's decision in ESABUNOR & ANOR. vs. FAWEYA & ORS.(2019)LPELR-46961(SC). You can read the facts of the case in the comment ��

Numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses have been heard by Supreme Courts throughout the world. The cases revolve around three main subjects:

1. Practice of their religion,
2. Displays of patriotism and military service, and
3. Blood transfusions.

In July 1985, in the state of Kerala, some of the Jehovah's Witnesses' children were expelled from school under the instructions of Deputy Inspector of Schools for having refused to sing the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana. A parent, V. J. Emmanuel, appealed to the Supreme Court of India for legal remedy. On August 11, 1986, the Supreme Court overruled the Kerala High Court, and directed the respondent authorities to re-admit the children into the school. The decision went on to add, "Our tradition teaches tolerance, our philosophy teaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance, let us not dilute it" (Source: Wikipedia)

The Supreme Court of Canada has made a number of important decisions concerning Jehovah's Witnesses. These include laws that affected activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1950s and more recent cases dealing with whether Witness parents had the right to decide what medical treatment was in the best interest of their children based on their faith. (Source: Wikipedia)

It would appear that the Nigerian Supreme Court considers the interest of a patient over and above the religious inclination of their spouse or parent in life threatening circumstances.

So, what's your opinion?
Do you think religious inclinations of parents our spouses should control the choice of medical treatments of patients?

Do you think parents should be given the right to decide what medical treatment is in the best interest of their children based on their faith?

Let's here your opinion in the comment.

Source: https://posts.gle/wygj7p