In Canada, everyone is privileged to have rights, however what happens when those rights are violated. In the case of a 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness, who refuses to have a blood transfusion, her rights are violated when her doctor forces her to have the transfusion, against her wishes. By doing so it breaches her right to equality, her fundamental freedom and her legal rights.
The doctors infringed her rights to equality by forcing her to have the transfusion. Her rights are restricted due to her age, and this goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The doctors force her to have the transfusion as they believe that her age was not mature enough to make this decision. However, she was fully aware of the consequences that would …show more content…
By forcing the transfusion upon her it is a strict violation of her right to religion. The right to religion is a basic right that everyone should be able to obtain, but in this case her right was taken from her despite her concerns. In “Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.” By doing so the doctors have violated Section 2 of the Charter which clearly states that every individual has a right to religion and these freedoms can be upheld against the government. It is her right to be able to practice her religion and this transfusion was against her faith so she declined the order. She gave full consent to her death, yet the doctors go against her decision and forcibly go through with the transfusion. Although this decision to not have the transfusion goes against the Canadian Human Rights Act, her reason is justifiable as she is the one who gave consent it was not her …show more content…
Her security as a person is threatened due to the force of the doctors. Despite her protests, she is forcefully given the transfusion and this threatens her security. In “Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” As stated in Section 7 only the person of the body has say over what goes in and out of their body. In this case, the doctors did not heed her instructions and infringed her security by putting things into her body without her consent. Despite it being an emergency she did not give any consent and the doctors still went ahead with the transfusion. The patient was fully aware of the situation and did not give consent for her own personal reasons, then why should the doctor go ahead without her permission. In this scenario, the doctors are wrong for the reason being that they violated her right to security by infringing her legal
The doctors infringed her rights to equality by forcing her to have the transfusion. Her rights are restricted due to her age, and this goes against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The doctors force her to have the transfusion as they believe that her age was not mature enough to make this decision. However, she was fully aware of the consequences that would …show more content…
By forcing the transfusion upon her it is a strict violation of her right to religion. The right to religion is a basic right that everyone should be able to obtain, but in this case her right was taken from her despite her concerns. In “Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.” By doing so the doctors have violated Section 2 of the Charter which clearly states that every individual has a right to religion and these freedoms can be upheld against the government. It is her right to be able to practice her religion and this transfusion was against her faith so she declined the order. She gave full consent to her death, yet the doctors go against her decision and forcibly go through with the transfusion. Although this decision to not have the transfusion goes against the Canadian Human Rights Act, her reason is justifiable as she is the one who gave consent it was not her …show more content…
Her security as a person is threatened due to the force of the doctors. Despite her protests, she is forcefully given the transfusion and this threatens her security. In “Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.” As stated in Section 7 only the person of the body has say over what goes in and out of their body. In this case, the doctors did not heed her instructions and infringed her security by putting things into her body without her consent. Despite it being an emergency she did not give any consent and the doctors still went ahead with the transfusion. The patient was fully aware of the situation and did not give consent for her own personal reasons, then why should the doctor go ahead without her permission. In this scenario, the doctors are wrong for the reason being that they violated her right to security by infringing her legal