Red Shirts Blood Campaign Is Dangerous : Health Groups

[hammered]

CNN's Dan Rivers said it "smacks of desperation"

[Wolfie]

Wasn't the last protest at Songkran larger than this one?

[termad]

Isn't it obvious that spilling blood in this manner is a symbolic gesture. It's a demonstration of unity and brotherhood, like an oath of allegiance taken for a united purpose.

There are gestures that make sense, and then those that are irrational.

This is the latter with out doubt. Desperation to make some kind of point.

Even if this hurts the peripheral causes more than it saves the leaders face.

So,

you are saying large scale mass blood oaths are still a good thing in the age of HIV and AIDS?

Sorry, it is not.

I'm not aware of any blood oaths being taken. Where did you get that one from?

Abhisit made the statement that he would not walk over the peoples blood to get to work. The blood is to be splashed over the entry to government house to show he lies. It is a symbolic gesture but good for the anti Abhisit/Elite in that it will generate International coverage.

Nobody will be carrying blood filled syringes as suggested in somebody's lunatic comment above.

they carry grenades so why do you think they wont carry syringes ?

Can you give your source for saying that any of the protesters are carrying grenades or any other weapons?

[onethailand]

You should note that the BBC are describing the Red Shirt demonstration as the largest political demonstration in Thailand for thirty years.

Correction:

The rally, led by red-shirted supporters of Mr Thaksin has been one of the largest in recent years, although the BBC's Rachel Harvey, at the scene, says the numbers appear to be dwindling.

Get it right, please. Largest political demonstration my foot, the PAD had them outnumbered by a longshot.

[Insight]

Isn't it obvious that spilling blood in this manner is a symbolic gesture. It's a demonstration of unity and brotherhood, like an oath of allegiance taken for a united purpose.

There are gestures that make sense, and then those that are irrational.

This is the latter with out doubt. Desperation to make some kind of point.

Even if this hurts the peripheral causes more than it saves the leaders face.

So,

you are saying large scale mass blood oaths are still a good thing in the age of HIV and AIDS?

Sorry, it is not.

I'm not aware of any blood oaths being taken. Where did you get that one from?

Abhisit made the statement that he would not walk over the peoples blood to get to work. The blood is to be splashed over the entry to government house to show he lies. It is a symbolic gesture but good for the anti Abhisit/Elite in that it will generate International coverage.

Nobody will be carrying blood filled syringes as suggested in somebody's lunatic comment above.

I have not seen any very young children giving blood but I have seen some very happy young boys doing so. The drawing of even the tiny amount of blood involved is supervised by doctors and trained medical staff.

Absolutely rubbish justification for this senseless action. The blood spilled is not at the hands of Abhisit or the military, but from their own leaders. It's akin to (and as pathetic as) punching yourself in the face and blaming the injury caused on somebody else for the sake of revenge, in front of the eyes of the world.

[Tigs]

My Sister in law is a senior nurse in Thailand. She is currently stood in front of the TV with us, absolutely aghast at the scenes of blood collecting. The legal age in Thailand for giving blood (of any amount) , unless it is for a medical test for suspected illnessis 15 years old, the maximum age is 60. In terms of the 11 year old, three lots of people have broken the law, the organisers for encouraging it, the parents for agreeing and the Dr or Nurse who has taken it. Non of the Dr's or Nurses can be insured for anything they are doing today

I suspect that health insurance is not a significant part of today's agenda.

Sure, unless you contract hepetitis, HIV, or any number of other diseases that WILL be in that blood. So now you read the last line of the post, what about commenting on the other aspects. The illegal assault of an 11 year old perhaps.

[onethailand]

oops - doubled up somehow.

Edited March 16, 2010 by onethailand

[Insight]

Isn't it obvious that spilling blood in this manner is a symbolic gesture. It's a demonstration of unity and brotherhood, like an oath of allegiance taken for a united purpose.

There are gestures that make sense, and then those that are irrational.

This is the latter with out doubt. Desperation to make some kind of point.

Even if this hurts the peripheral causes more than it saves the leaders face.

So,

you are saying large scale mass blood oaths are still a good thing in the age of HIV and AIDS?

Sorry, it is not.

I'm not aware of any blood oaths being taken. Where did you get that one from?

Abhisit made the statement that he would not walk over the peoples blood to get to work. The blood is to be splashed over the entry to government house to show he lies. It is a symbolic gesture but good for the anti Abhisit/Elite in that it will generate International coverage.

Nobody will be carrying blood filled syringes as suggested in somebody's lunatic comment above.

I have not seen any very young children giving blood but I have seen some very happy young boys doing so. The drawing of even the tiny amount of blood involved is supervised by doctors and trained medical staff.

Absolutely rubbish justification for this senseless action. The blood spilled is not at the hands of Abhisit or the military, but from their own leaders. It's akin to (and as pathetic as) punching yourself in the face and blaming the injury caused on somebody else for the sake of revenge, in front of the eyes of the world.

[mojaco]

<snip>

The same concept if it had to be done at all, in the following manner , could have been marketed to the world and , I say, gained new members and won over many more hearts and minds if done in the following way.

Red leaders should have revved up their charges and then requested them to give blood to the blood banks, or the Red Cross, and who would have surely given the go ahead to the pros to extract the blood in sanitary and much safer [to all] conditions.

Then an amount of blood, equal to that blood given, could have been purchased or donated by a believer from a local butcher shop and symbolically splashed around if need be.

I think this would have gained a lot more respect for the movement , world wide, both inside and outside the movement, then the present example of stupidity....

<snip>

I agree wholeheartedly that your idea would have accomplished the same symbolic purpose and also been beneficial to Thai people needing blood, and also would have been good PR the world over. However to take actual blood for a blood bank requires a lot more preparation. better facilities, screening of the donors and their blood, and etc.

[mrtoad]

My Sister in law is a senior nurse in Thailand. She is currently stood in front of the TV with us, absolutely aghast at the scenes of blood collecting. The legal age in Thailand for giving blood (of any amount) , unless it is for a medical test for suspected illnessis 15 years old, the maximum age is 60. In terms of the 11 year old, three lots of people have broken the law, the organisers for encouraging it, the parents for agreeing and the Dr or Nurse who has taken it. Non of the Dr's or Nurses can be insured for anything they are doing today

I suspect that health insurance is not a significant part of today's agenda.

Sure, unless you contract hepetitis, HIV, or any number of other diseases that WILL be in that blood. So now you read the last line of the post, what about commenting on the other aspects. The illegal assault of an 11 year old perhaps.

Correct Tigs, I can fully understand your Sister in Laws thoughts about this, I also share the same thoughts. I am disgusted by it, and by health-care professionals that are involved in this unsafe and unethical practice. They are without doubt a disgrace to their professions.

[mrtoad]

Wasn't the last protest at Songkran larger than this one?

As does some of the replies from posters trying to justify this particular stunt.

[SeanMoran]

My Sister in law is a senior nurse in Thailand. She is currently stood in front of the TV with us, absolutely aghast at the scenes of blood collecting. The legal age in Thailand for giving blood (of any amount) , unless it is for a medical test for suspected illnessis 15 years old, the maximum age is 60. In terms of the 11 year old, three lots of people have broken the law, the organisers for encouraging it, the parents for agreeing and the Dr or Nurse who has taken it. Non of the Dr's or Nurses can be insured for anything they are doing today

I suspect that health insurance is not a significant part of today's agenda.

Sure, unless you contract hepetitis, HIV, or any number of other diseases that WILL be in that blood. So now you read the last line of the post, what about commenting on the other aspects. The illegal assault of an 11 year old perhaps.

I have not had any communications with that young fellow, and await his personal testimony.

[Who, me ?]

My Sister in law is a senior nurse in Thailand. She is currently stood in front of the TV with us, absolutely aghast at the scenes of blood collecting. The legal age in Thailand for giving blood (of any amount) , unless it is for a medical test for suspected illnessis 15 years old, the maximum age is 60. In terms of the 11 year old, three lots of people have broken the law, the organisers for encouraging it, the parents for agreeing and the Dr or Nurse who has taken it. Non of the Dr's or Nurses can be insured for anything they are doing today

I suspect that health insurance is not a significant part of today's agenda.

Sure, unless you contract hepetitis, HIV, or any number of other diseases that WILL be in that blood. So now you read the last line of the post, what about commenting on the other aspects. The illegal assault of an 11 year old perhaps.

I have not had any communications with that young fellow, and await his personal testimony.

Ridiculous!

[anotherpeter]

They've won previous elections which were taken away from them why should they now wait for yet another election? I think that it is quite obvious that the Elite Families and the Military are determined that the people will never be allowed to have their government because that's the end of their years of ruling the country.

They should wait for another election because if they just take this one illegally, they are no better than the coup makers.

As for Abhisit being in power legally that's been discussed on previous threads. He is not in power legally unless you think that the purchase of Newin Chitbob and his forty MPs with Elite and Military money (which made Abhisit PM) is legal. Parties have been disolved for vote buying but when the Elite/Military bought Newin Chitbob and his forty MPs they also bought the millions of votes of their electorate who are the same people now out on the streets of Bangkok trying to get these stolen votes back. As for stolen money the Elite families have ruled and subjugated the rural population for years. So would you say that their money is not stolen? If not where did it come from?

Considering many of the smaller parties campaigned before the election that they would not join the PPP, do you think that maybe there was money involved with the then forming a coaltion with the PPP after the election?

Abhisit was schooled in the UK and later studied law at Oxford University so is well aware of the moral and ethical questions raised by his installation as PM. Do you think that he would dare to debate his actions with the Dons at Oxford? I don't think that this grubby man with his thirst for unearned power would dare to do so.

Now you're just getting personal and showing how biased you are.

You should note that the BBC are describing the Red Shirt demonstration as the largest political demonstration in Thailand for thirty years. That alone is enough in any democracy to consider calls for a General Election but Abhisit has dismissed the idea out of hand. Why? Because he knows that he can't win and is not a legally elected PM.

If a large protest (even if it was the largest in 30 years, which it isn't) forced an election, then every (democratic) country in the world would be having elections every 6 months.

IF there was an election now, why do you think the PTP will be able to win it? It's very unlikely that they will get 50% of the seats themselves, and if they can't form a coalition with the smaller parties now, why do you think they would be able to after a new election?

Whatever way you look at it, Abhisit is currently the LEGAL PM of Thailand. A majority of the elected MPs from the 2007 elections (and by-elections) voted for him to be Prime Minister. That is democracy.

[termad]

I am beginning to wonder if it is you that needs to come to your senses. The way forward is by the due electoral process. What reason at all do you have that Abhisit should stand down?

The objective of these rallies is to 'demand' (thank you JT) that Abhisit dissolve the house. The reasons for this 'demand' are quite well understood by the protestors and by many others who have been ostracised by the current government.

Please suggest some sensible alternatives for peaceful protest that will ensure that the 'demands' are met tomorrow.

I say again: Go home and let the due electoral process take place. The current Government is legal. Start canvassing, start political campaigning, but there is no peaceful process that will allow the lunatic demands to be met by tomorrow. Thailand is just starting to make progress again, and here we are ready to start taking 10 steps back.

The reasons for this 'demand' are quite well understood by the protestors

Yes the reason for the demand being that I make 2000 baht if I join the protest! As Jingthing rightly says, the majority of the people involved in this protest have no idea of the political aspects of this.

First of all people on this forum were claiming that the demonstrators were being paid Bt200 then it was Bt500 now you say that they're being paid Bt2000 yet none of these claims can be substantiated. I would also point out that most of the people you see out there wearing red shirts had to spend two days travelling to reach Bangkok because of the Government orchestrated obstructions designed to stop them arriving i.e Police and Military roadblocks, searches and general harrassment. One group of 10,000 only arrived this morning. They were supposed to have left Nonthaburi by boat last Saturday but mysteriously the boats that they had booked and paid for (public service boats) were mysteriously cancelled. Do you really think that people would leave their homes and spend two to three days travelling to live rough on the streets of Bangkok for a week for even Bt2,000, the idea is silly.

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

[bkkjames]

First of all people on this forum were claiming that the demonstrators were being paid Bt200 then it was Bt500 now you say that they're being paid Bt2000 yet none of these claims can be substantiated. I would also point out that most of the people you see out there wearing red shirts had to spend two days travelling to reach Bangkok because of the Government orchestrated obstructions designed to stop them arriving i.e Police and Military roadblocks, searches and general harrassment. One group of 10,000 only arrived this morning. They were supposed to have left Nonthaburi by boat last Saturday but mysteriously the boats that they had booked and paid for (public service boats) were mysteriously cancelled. Do you really think that people would leave their homes and spend two to three days travelling to live rough on the streets of Bangkok for a week for even Bt2,000, the idea is silly.

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

You mean they are getting paid more than 2k? Do tell more.

[Wolfie]

First of all people on this forum were claiming that the demonstrators were being paid Bt200 then it was Bt500 now you say that they're being paid Bt2000 yet none of these claims can be substantiated.

Did you see the youtube thread?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Video-Organi...-s-t346886.html

[mrtoad]

My Sister in law is a senior nurse in Thailand. She is currently stood in front of the TV with us, absolutely aghast at the scenes of blood collecting. The legal age in Thailand for giving blood (of any amount) , unless it is for a medical test for suspected illnessis 15 years old, the maximum age is 60. In terms of the 11 year old, three lots of people have broken the law, the organisers for encouraging it, the parents for agreeing and the Dr or Nurse who has taken it. Non of the Dr's or Nurses can be insured for anything they are doing today

I suspect that health insurance is not a significant part of today's agenda.

Sure, unless you contract hepetitis, HIV, or any number of other diseases that WILL be in that blood. So now you read the last line of the post, what about commenting on the other aspects. The illegal assault of an 11 year old perhaps.

I have not had any communications with that young fellow, and await his personal testimony.

Sean if you have ever heard of the laws of consent in respect to treatment? I am not going to use the Thai laws, as I am not so familiar with them - so apologies for using DoH guidleines from the UK. What this should show you though, is that in countries with accountability in the health care profession a lot of thought is put into protecting children. This is not done just on a whim, it has evolved through years of evidence based practice. I don't give a stuff about "oh this is Thailand", this is a professional issue - and as a registered health care professional myself I think this does the profession a disservice. I look forward to hearing the comments about this, when it get discussed in some of the professional journals in the coming months - as I am sure that it will.

General principles

* When obtaining consent, the doctor must establish whether the child is legally competent (in legal terms, 'have capacity' to give consent).

* All people aged 16 and over are presumed in law to have the capacity to consent to treatment unless there is evidence to the contrary.2

* If the child is deemed not legally competent, consent will need to be obtained from someone with parental responsibility, unless it is an emergency.3

* Emergency treatment can be provided without consent to save the life of, or prevent serious deterioration in the health of, a child or young person.

* The legal position differs, depending on whether the young person is aged over or under 16 (see below).

Parental responsibility

* Parental responsibility includes the right of parents to consent to treatment on behalf of a child when the child is unable to provide valid consent for themselves, provided the treatment is in the interests of the child.

Children under the age of 16

* Children in this age group are not deemed to be automatically legally competent to give consent.

* The courts have determined that such children can be legally competent if they have "sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed".

* This concept - now known as Gillick competency - initially arose in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech HA in 1986.6 The term Fraser competency is also used in this respect (Lord Fraser was the judge who ruled on the case).

* Much will depend on the relationship of the clinician with the child and the family, and also to what intervention is being proposed.

* A young person who has the capacity to consent to straightforward, relatively risk-free treatment may not necessarily have the capacity to consent to complex treatment involving high risks or serious consequences.1

* Competency is something that can be developed over time by presenting the child with information appropriate to their age and level of education, and this process may be a rewarding one in the management of children with long-term conditions that involve several therapeutic procedures or investigations.

Apologies to Dr Colin Tidy for grossly editing his article.

Edited March 16, 2010 by mrtoad

[onethailand]

First of all people on this forum were claiming that the demonstrators were being paid Bt200 then it was Bt500 now you say that they're being paid Bt2000 yet none of these claims can be substantiated. I would also point out that most of the people you see out there wearing red shirts had to spend two days travelling to reach Bangkok because of the Government orchestrated obstructions designed to stop them arriving i.e Police and Military roadblocks, searches and general harrassment. One group of 10,000 only arrived this morning. They were supposed to have left Nonthaburi by boat last Saturday but mysteriously the boats that they had booked and paid for (public service boats) were mysteriously cancelled. Do you really think that people would leave their homes and spend two to three days travelling to live rough on the streets of Bangkok for a week for even Bt2,000, the idea is silly.

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

Where have you been? You haven't seen the video on television and on Youtube showing red-shirt organizers giving 2,000 baht to some protesters, AND promising another 2,000 when they get back?

Mate - better you leave it alone. You are clearly not in touch with things.

[anotherpeter]

First of all people on this forum were claiming that the demonstrators were being paid Bt200 then it was Bt500 now you say that they're being paid Bt2000 yet none of these claims can be substantiated. I would also point out that most of the people you see out there wearing red shirts had to spend two days travelling to reach Bangkok because of the Government orchestrated obstructions designed to stop them arriving i.e Police and Military roadblocks, searches and general harrassment. One group of 10,000 only arrived this morning. They were supposed to have left Nonthaburi by boat last Saturday but mysteriously the boats that they had booked and paid for (public service boats) were mysteriously cancelled. Do you really think that people would leave their homes and spend two to three days travelling to live rough on the streets of Bangkok for a week for even Bt2,000, the idea is silly.

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

Are you saying that it took them 3 days to get from Nonthaburi to Bangkok?

EDIT: It only took protesting 2 days to get here from Chiang Mai and Phuket.

Edited March 16, 2010 by anotherpeter

[NEP]

What happened to the bags of faeces?

Baying for Blood, what a disgusting act!

[SeanMoran]

Sean if you have ever heard of the laws of consent in respect to treatment? I am not going to use the Thai laws, as I am not so familiar with them - so apologies for using DoH guidleines from the UK. What this should show you though, is that in countries with accountability in the health care profession a lot of thought is put into protecting children. This is not done just on a whim, it has evolved through years of evidence based practice. I don't give a stuff about "oh this is Thailand", this is a professional issue - and as a registered health care professional myself I think this does the profession a disservice. I look forward to hearing the comments about this, when it get discussed in some of the professional journals in the coming months - as I am sure that it will.

General principles

* When obtaining consent, the doctor must establish whether the child is legally competent (in legal terms, 'have capacity' to give consent).

* All people aged 16 and over are presumed in law to have the capacity to consent to treatment unless there is evidence to the contrary.2

* If the child is deemed not legally competent, consent will need to be obtained from someone with parental responsibility, unless it is an emergency.3

* Emergency treatment can be provided without consent to save the life of, or prevent serious deterioration in the health of, a child or young person.

* The legal position differs, depending on whether the young person is aged over or under 16 (see below).

Parental responsibility

* Parental responsibility includes the right of parents to consent to treatment on behalf of a child when the child is unable to provide valid consent for themselves, provided the treatment is in the interests of the child.

Children under the age of 16

* Children in this age group are not deemed to be automatically legally competent to give consent.

* The courts have determined that such children can be legally competent if they have "sufficient understanding and maturity to enable them to understand fully what is proposed".

* This concept - now known as Gillick competency - initially arose in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech HA in 1986.6 The term Fraser competency is also used in this respect (Lord Fraser was the judge who ruled on the case).

* Much will depend on the relationship of the clinician with the child and the family, and also to what intervention is being proposed.

* A young person who has the capacity to consent to straightforward, relatively risk-free treatment may not necessarily have the capacity to consent to complex treatment involving high risks or serious consequences.1

* Competency is something that can be developed over time by presenting the child with information appropriate to their age and level of education, and this process may be a rewarding one in the management of children with long-term conditions that involve several therapeutic procedures or investigations.

Apologies to Dr Colin Tidy for grossly editing his article.

I assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that the subject willingly consented to the treatment. That is at least more civilised practice than the ways of the Australian public health system, but how off-topic do we want to get here?

Is this thread meant to focus on the malpractice of the World's health industries, or on the industrious and creative actions of the peaceful demonstrations at the rally in Bangkok?

[elcent]

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

hmmm, I think with the last action the reds have lost credibility completely.

I pity those who came here with good intent and to be heard. But you reds haven't cut Thaksin, another issue that has eaten up your credibility. Why not send all the blood to him. He'd love it.

What do you want, Democracy or Thaksin?

[wasabi]

I'm willing to bet at least one person will get HIV from this idiotic stunt. Getting blood taken from many licensed places in Thailand can be a dicey proposition, sitting on a curb with a bunch of uneducated red shirtistas changing needles certainly seems to up the ante.

[SeanMoran]

I'm willing to bet at least one person will get HIV from this idiotic stunt. Getting blood taken from many licensed places in Thailand can be a dicey proposition, sitting on a curb with a bunch of uneducated red shirtistas changing needles certainly seems to up the ante.

From what I have read so far, and not having been there, hygienic practices have been adhered to. That is not the issue.

<ed: typo - corrected for the sakes of the kiddies learning English.>

Edited March 16, 2010 by SeanMoran

[termad]

Abhisit was schooled in the UK and later studied law at Oxford University so is well aware of the moral and ethical questions raised by his installation as PM. Do you think that he would dare to debate his actions with the Dons at Oxford? I don't think that this grubby man with his thirst for unearned power would dare to do so.

You should note that the BBC are describing the Red Shirt demonstration as the largest political demonstration in Thailand for thirty years. That alone is enough in any democracy to consider calls for a General Election but Abhisit has dismissed the idea out of hand. Why? Because he knows that he can't win and is not a legally elected PM.

If a large protest (even if it was the largest in 30 years, which it isn't) forced an election, then every (democratic) country in the world would be having elections every 6 months.

IF there was an election now, why do you think the PTP will be able to win it? It's very unlikely that they will get 50% of the seats themselves, and if they can't form a coalition with the smaller parties now, why do you think they would be able to after a new election?

Whatever way you look at it, Abhisit is currently the LEGAL PM of Thailand. A majority of the elected MPs from the 2007 elections (and by-elections) voted for him to be Prime Minister. That is democracy.

Firstly, if the BBC say it is the largest political demonstration for thirty years then I have no reason to disbelieve them, if you do can you say on what basis?

Secondly, the rest of your reply is balderdash. Newin Chitbob's forty MPs will never be re-elected for a start - they're even scared to visit their constituencies after what they did. I don't think that it's unlikely that Phue Thai won't get 50% plus of the votes which is the obvious reason that Abhisit is scared to call an election.

Thirdly your ideas of democracy are strange to me because I have the maybe old fashioned idea that the electors should get the government that they voted for.

[Wolfie]

Please provide the link for where the BBC Said this was the largest political protest in 30 years... thanks!

All i have been able to find on the subject is this

The rally, led by red-shirted supporters of Mr Thaksin has been one of the largest in recent years, although the BBC's Rachel Harvey, at the scene, says the numbers appear to be dwindling.

[termad]

Who are you to state the the people involved in the protest have no idea of the political aspects involved? Do you have degrees in Thai Language, History and/or Social Science and Politics? Because many of the demonstrators do. Or is it just because you read The Nation every day?

hmmm, I think with the last action the reds have lost credibility completely.

I pity those who came here with good intent and to be heard. But you reds haven't cut Thaksin, another issue that has eaten up your credibility. Why not send all the blood to him. He'd love it.

What do you want, Democracy or Thaksin?

Who are you trying to reply to. Match your replies to posts.

[animatic]

I assume unless there is evidence to the contrary that the subject willingly consented to the treatment. That is at least more civilised practice than the ways of the Australian public health system, but how off-topic do we want to get here?

Is this thread meant to focus on the malpractice of the World's health industries, or on the industrious and creative actions of the peaceful demonstrations at the rally in Bangkok?

The subject was not of sufficient AGE to give his consent,

except in an emergency situation, and this was not such and emergency.

And this in no way can be considered "Treatment",

"First do no harm." is the watch word and oath for ALL doctors,

this was a totally elective 'medical function', with no possible palliative purpose,

let alone one actually curing a medical condition.

.

Edited March 16, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

Just blather, from term end.