On blood transfusion of Jehovah's witnesses --- "The Children Act" Movie

It is understandable that since the movie's main perspective is on the female protagonist's life and her struggles to balance life and work, that the story of the Jehovah's witness is more of a setup, not the primary focus on such a debate.

Nevertheless, I'd like to explore the medical perspective in dealing with such a dilemma, taking into account the current day medical consensus.

Doctors respect patient autonomy, that if there's a guarantee that the patient understood their conditions, the medical procedure proposed, the consequence of refusing treatment (in this case, highly likely death), and has the mental capacity to comprehend and reason their way to their decision, then as doctors we really wouldn't have any qualms about their decision.

And then there's the beneficence perspective. As doctors, educated with the current medical practise and mostly understands the medical consequences of people's decisions better than themselves, foreseeing the undesirable medical outcomes due not to our limitations in technology, but due to a personal choice, gives an unsatisfactory feeling almost as if we have failed to help them. Personally, I accept those personal choices of the patient, given the conditions mentioned above.

In the courtroom exchange, the lawyer for the parents brings up legitimate risks of transfusion. However, her citation was the WHO, which oversees statistics over the globe, which includes those of developing countries with less stringent testing standards for their blood, potential contaminations in the process of extracting, storage, and quality control of their blood product. Assuming the plot takes place in the UK, at the setting of the film still one of the highest quality healthcare any nation can provide, the more dangerous complications of transfusion are almost nonexistent. Even if they do occur, almost all the mentioned conditions (save for hepatitis C, CJD) are treatable, albeit more difficult in a leukaemic patient.

In this case, the leukaemic boy will almost surely die without treatment. His inability to generate any blood cell is the highest of emergencies for it is an imminent danger towards death. Which is irreversible, untreatable as far as we are aware. Under

From a religious perspective. They mentioned that blood contains one's soul, that transfusion is pollution. This view seemed illogic, since the blood bank, in their logic, represents the effort of all those people who willingly sacrificed parts of their own life, in hopes that in times like Adam's, their souls can help resuscitate someone in need. This sounds a lot nobler than what seems to be Mr Henry the husband's perception. His (and by extension, his church's) view that this somehow pollutes the recipient seems to take another person's kind soul, and crushes it.

It is also seen that the Elders the husband mentioned are giving him guidances of the church, guiding his choice, but why should some remote person who does not represent the interest of the child be placed in a position of such enormous influence. While religious persons like to consider their mentors in higher positions within the church holds more power and better represent god, they are ultimately still human, and by interpreting the texts they derived their own, "contaminated" versions of gods teaching. It is unreliable, especially in such a high stake situation. Mr Henry the husband also mentions that science like religion teaching is not always understood at the time. His following strong stance on homosexuality, masturbation, etc. seems extraordinary in that he is cherrypicking what he decides to be open to interpretation, and what is irrefutable truth in his view, without complementing any justification. This embodies a primary issue with religions. When practised by those without efforts in challenging the texts against empirical evidence in life, it becomes a convenient mental crutch. Whenever they're challenged by phenomena in life that goes contrary to their belief or faces with high-stake decisions, they always have the "god says so" and "god works in mysterious ways" shields to fall back on, and thus ends their own critical thinking and openmindedness. In effect, their lives become simpler, since they are no longer in the driver seat for their own lives. They shift responsibilities for god to decide, and at the same time killed their free will.

It is also peculiar that the lawyer for the parents continue to reiterate how close Adam is to his 18th birthday. In legal terms, if someone is underaged, he is underaged. There's no debate. Whether he understands the conditions and chooses to refuse or not is superseded by his parents' decision, who are at this point considered his legal guardian. What the hospital would be fighting for, then, would be whether the parents' decision demonstrates any competence in being the legal guardian. In this case, their decision is essentially murder, barring the chance that the proposed cancer therapy may not cure Adam. Nevertheless, to make a choice knowing the lessened chance of survival is the "murder" option between the two. It would be a guardianship case, not quite a life-or-death direct decision kind of case.

Therefore, I agree with the final judgement in overriding the parents and their church, to give the child a chance to live to the legal capacity that will allow him to make his own decisions. I enjoyed the exchange Fiona had with Adam, where Adam demonstrated exactly the rigidity in thinking that endangers those relying heavily on faith, and Fiona demonstrating the mental flexibility to understand and respect religious freedom. I also loved how Fiona conducts herself, in a mild, sophisticated manner. Furthermore, the pacing and atmosphere built in the film are very enjoyable.

Now I am versed, but possess no formal education in law, so I can't comment on how the procedures in the courtroom were, whether the judge has the discretion to choose what she wants to do. Someone else will be more competent in that regard.

Becoming a physician, couldn't've been anything else

Many people have cancer stories. I do not. My grandmother had nasopharyngeal cancer, but she maintained strong discipline throughout chemo/radio, and even to this day continues to exercise daily. 30000 steps a day, I'm the only one in the family that can keep up with her pace.

Many people have single parent stories. That I do. My mother gave up the chance to work at National Weather Service, instead compromised her career to get married only to experience domestic violence, with a loose tooth, took baby me away from that house. I was then raised among relatives all over China, and she climbed the company ladders to now a CEO in Telemedia.

Compared to these giants in my family, I was merely a reflection of a family tree that survived the Cultural Revolution that, for a generation, destroyed the wealthy and educated in the country, sending the society back into a darker age. The impact of such distrustful time with little education in mannerism is still felt today. I was raised to be adaptable. Being able to accept current scenarios and quickly adjust to a productive state was crucial to achieving any level of excellence in life, to function as the new kid on the playground, the transfer student to a new school in a new city that has more advanced education objectives. Every move meant I was falling behind in grades simply because there was a gap in my knowledge, and within a month I will catch up and return to the top 10 students in the class. Every move, on an average of 2 years, my ranking resets as thus, and I never failed to bounce back. 

Being a physician means the composite of having geographical freedom, contributing to society rather than taking from it, and the self-actualization towards what I believe I can become. When I learnt to play Go, I aim to win; when I fenced (or played badminton, table tennis, basketball, soccer, martial arts), I practise to get medals. I would coach my teammates just so I can get more challenges and be better. Whether I actually achieved such goals is irrelevant. It is myself that I'm constantly fighting to surpass. Without achieving the best one can be, there is simply no point of living.

My current lifestyle choices and results from annual physical

Health tips are rather prevalent now. That means most of them are junk, biased, and most of them are selling something.

I'm a medical student in Arizona, currently serving on the Committee of Scientific Issues of the AMA Medical Student Section. Previously I earned a Master of Science doing research on the protein structure of some of the most crucial components involved in human DNA repair, with implications in learning about how we get cancer or on the other end of the spectrum, why our cells eventually fail and we age. It doesn't make me an expert on health in general, but I do have some ideas, based on the education I've had the privilege to obtain and the literature review of biomedical sciences that I needed to do throughout my scientific studies. 

Recently I just had my annual physical exam, and I'm not ashamed to say...good job me. I forgot to fast for it so my lipids and sugar might be falsely elevated, but my doctor says "you're here, might as well take your blood and we'll take it into account". Well long story short, turns out I (almost) can't be any healthier (woohoo). My results attached at the end. Bask in the glory of my perfect scores on blood tests.

And now, for my economical, efficient, low-stress life & diet choices:

1. Don't stress about what you're eating. Seriously, the stress of checking the ingredient, the calorie puts constant pressure on you (and the labelled value is not even accurate, not to mention there is NO UNIVERSAL DAILY CALORIC NEED number that is true, everyone is different). This puts your body into a conservation mode, and the habit also makes you obsessed about food (not only about checking food, but food in general), so now food is on your mind all the time. And that's...going to make you hungry, and makes it harder control. This is partly why research shows counting calories don't do you any good, and it makes you prone to low self-esteem because sometimes you'll fail to hit that arbitrary mark.
2. Don't be picky. Maybe when your parents told you to eat your vegetables (when you are being a little carnivore), that was the best advice there is. Personally, I prefer having food tendencies rather than restrictions. I have practically no food that I don't eat, and whenever available I always go for a more "foreign", different type of food or cuisine. This allows me to maximize my diet diversity without actually doing much work (just pick that restaurant you've never been to before instead of the same one over and over). I have a tendency to eat less meat these days, especially beef/steak and those bigger animals, mostly because of the carbon footprint is quite high, and I get the same amount of joy from eating if the meat is fish or chicken, so it's an easier decision for me. But if a plate of free food is in front of me, you bet I'll happily dig in regardless of the content.
3. But...avoid high sugar, high salt, or pure fat. I eat very little cheese, it's not really in my vicinity other than pizza. I don't add cheese in my burger (if they cost extra...heh). I seldom drink soft drinks, juices pretty rare too since the commercial ones are basically sugar. I do eat fast food, but fairly occasional. Most of the time I eat at home via rice cooker. Not as fancy as these, just vegetables sprinkles with some meat (fish or sausage type stuff mostly) with little to no seasoning. I know that monk-style food is probably not for everyone, I do use packed japanese or Mexican style curry.
4. Most frozen food and, save for the sodium content, canned food are actually quite healthy. Due to the way frozen & canned food is preserved without additives, they are often much healthier than the "poor people" or "apocalypse" food choice they appear to be. Actually, the fact that they can store for a long time and be nutritious enough for people to survive during apocalypse is probably a point in their favour?
5. Don't snack. Or at least not that often. Personally I just don't think about eating all that much. I eat 3 meals a day, and rarely would I chew on an energy bar late in the morning or afternoon before regular meals. Not eating snacking really takes off the calorie intake. 

And things that you SHOULD probably consider doing:

1. Do eat at regular times. 3 meals a day, or break it up into 4 meal (not adding a whole meal, just spread out the portion size), always eat at regular interval so that your body doesn't experience hunger/starving phases all the time. Again, if your body experience stress it will shift into storage mode when food finally comes around. Your muscles atrophy, and fat storage increase - meaning you get weaker (harder to exercise), and more obese. The compounding effect of the two will put you into a vicious cycle so eat regularly.
2. Do eat until you don't feel hungry anymore. In Chinese there's a general rule of "if you're trying to lose weight, eat till you're 70% full". There is quite some truth in that. Your body starts producing CCK and other neuro signals that give you satiety, especially after fat has entered your small intestine. That's what makes you feel full (and satisfied) for the next 4 hours or so, even if you stop eating right there before you finish the portion. So you should not feel obliged to finish your food all the time. Instead save the leftovers to finish at the start of the next meal or something. I guess you also save some money this way?
3. Do exercise. And I say this with slight hypocrisy (let me go do 50 pushups before I continue)... Ok so currently, being a med student, I'm among the lazy type, just sitting around memorizing stuff. But before this, I was always on a competitive sports team - table tennis in primary schools, basketball/football (soccer for our American friends), then floorball (won 1st place in-school competition, fun) & badminton in high school (won a city champion during grade 11, that was cool); fencing epeé during undergrad, then a sabre fencer during grad school. I have always done well in sports, and it was a way to force me to keep fit (seriously, the pressure from the coach during body-conditioning...) and now without any competitive sport, I just try to do pushups, situps, pull-ups and stretch once a day. Nevertheless, being physically fit is an essential component. Most people at this point know that muscle burns more energy than fat, and offers better blood sugar control (muscle stores sugar as glycogen, fat cells turn them...well into fat), and a healthier body will improve your psychological well-being, too. So do weight training (also great for preventing osteoporosis), run around a bit, and keep that in your habit/routine.

That's about the intro to me. I might later update a post with all the more detailed choices that I make. Stay happy and healthy!

Will you look at this shit: