Jehovah's Witness mother dies after refusing blood transfusion after giving birth

[Shimmer]

Way to take it over the line. That's not what I said, and to imply otherwise is ludicrous.


Rape, domestic violence, injury, etc. are all illegal activities.
It is not illegal to decline medical care.

Parents are allowed (within the States) to raise their children within the law's boundaries as they see fit...if they, as parents, decline medical coverage for their minor child, they are allowed to do so.

They are NOT allowed to beat, rape, etc. a child for any religion, faith, belief, spirituality, whatever. Those are not protected acts.

 

[user79]

Shimmer, I understand your viewpoint fully. I just happen not to agree with it. And, while the USA might not have laws regarding this issue (I'm really not familiar, someone said there were so I don't know if there are laws or not), there are other countries that do. In those places, denying medical care to a child is illegal, and I am glad of that. So I'm just trying to discuss this issue from that viewpoint. And even if there are no laws in the States pertaining this matter, I still think the situation is highly unethical.

 

[Shimmer]

Telling someone they have to live their lives a certain way because you view what they do as unethical is the definition of of unethical.

Is it sad?
Yes.
Is it something I would *never* want to be faced with?
Yes.
Is it something every parent dreads?
Yes.


At what point does it stop?

Does the gov't get the right to tell parents sorry, you have to pay for something you didn't agree with to begin with, oh and here you go, we're going to go ahead and start birth control on female children at age 8 to prevent unwanted pregnancies, boys will receive hormones to slow down the onset of puberty and allow them to develop at a more regulated pace, oh and here, we're going to give them inoculations for all kinds of diseases (whether these inoculations are related to the increase in Autism and Asperger's, we're not sure but just in case they aren't, you're still required...), AND we're going to go ahead and make sure that anyone with an IQ of less than 130 simply not be able to breed at all...oh...wait...here, if you have a family history of cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, alcoholism, etc...well...you won't be having children either because bringing them into that kind of hereditary situation is completely wrong and unethical and we're not going to allow it.


Where does it stop? Where does government intervention and 'protection' become government control?

 

[SparklingWaves]

I just looked at their official JW webpage. You can see their views about receiving blood.

 

[SparklingWaves]

Could someone post the link? I don't know why, but this browser gives me problems.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Telling someone they have to live their lives a certain way because you view what they do as unethical is the definition of of unethical.

It's funny you mention this, because this exact argument can be used on the parents who deny medical care to their child. They are essentially telling their child how to live their life a certain way becase of their own views.

The difference is that I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. I'm just passively voicing a viewpoint, but I am not taking any action and trying to get others to do what I believe is the right thing. Whereas in such a case, the parents are taking action for another person.

Quote:

At what point does it stop? Does the gov't get the right to tell parents sorry, you have to pay for something you didn't agree with to begin with, oh and here you go, we're going to go ahead and start birth control on female children at age 8 to prevent unwanted pregnancies, boys will receive hormones to slow down the onset of puberty and allow them to develop at a more regulated pace, oh and here, we're going to give them inoculations for all kinds of diseases (whether these inoculations are related to the increase in Autism and Asperger's, we're not sure but just in case they aren't, you're still required...), AND we're going to go ahead and make sure that anyone with an IQ of less than 130 simply not be able to breed at all...oh...wait...here, if you have a family history of cancer, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, alcoholism, etc...well...you won't be having children either because bringing them into that kind of hereditary situation is completely wrong and unethical and we're not going to allow it. Where does it stop? Where does government intervention and 'protection' become government control?

This is an interesting point you bring up. The main difference is that in giving a child a blood transfusion, you are saving their life. The right to live is a basic human right nearly the world over. And the government is doing that because a child cannot choose for himself. In all the instances you are mentioning, one is constraining their choices on how to live that life. Ethics and morality has always been a huge issue in medicine for a variety of practices (abortion, stem cell research, etc), but I highly doubt that any of those practices which you described would come into affect in the foreseeable future.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SparklingWaves Could someone post the link? I don't know why, but this browser gives me problems.

Is it this one? I don't know...

http://www.watchtower.org/e/archives/index.htm

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Regardless of religious preferences, it should *never* be legal to perform medical procedures on someone who refuses them. Just because a doctor says so, regardless of what the procedure is, a patient should NOT be forced to go through it, provided the patient is of sound mind and mental faculty. One could argue that refusing lifesaving treatment isn't of sound mind, but if refusal is made after being made aware of the consequences and understanding them completely, then...that's it.

i agree, in addition, any doctor who had gone ahead against the patients explicit instructions would be liable for battery (at least here in the U.S.). it is really sad that two children are going to grow up without their mother, but hey what can you do? it's their belief system and it isn't up to the doctor (or us) to tell them that their beliefs are right, wrong, or anything. they can choose to believe what they wish, and in this case, pay the ultimate price.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous It's funny you mention this, because this exact argument can be used on the parents who deny medical care to their child. They are essentially telling their child how to live their life a certain way becase of their own views. The difference is that I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. I'm just passively voicing a viewpoint, but I am not taking any action and trying to get others to do what I believe is the right thing. Whereas in such a case, the parents are taking action for another person.

That's the role a parent plays.
That's a parent's job.
That's what a parent is supposed to do.
Parents who abdicate their roles and responsibilities to governments and doctors often wind up with messed up kids seeking boundaries and limits. Among other things.

Quote:

This is an interesting point you bring up. The main difference is that in giving a child a blood transfusion, you are saving their life. The right to live is a basic human right nearly the world over. And the government is doing that because a child cannot choose for himself. In all the instances you are mentioning, one is constraining their choices on how to live that life. Ethics and morality has always been a huge issue in medicine for a variety of practices (abortion, stem cell research, etc), but I highly doubt that any of those practices which you described would come into affect in the foreseeable future.

[/quote]
By stopping someone who has a family or genetic history of mental affliction, neurological affliction, or whatever, you're saving the unborn child the trauma of dealing with that in life.
By mandating chemical birth control on young female children, you're stopping them from having unplanned pregnancies and therefore facing the serious potential of limiting their lifestyle in the future. That's not constraining their choices, that's looking out for them, preventing them from things they haven't the mental capacity to understand.


You say it can't be done, or won't be done soon, but the thing is, once the ball starts rolling, the momentum gains quickly.

 

[SparklingWaves]

The part on minors was not clear to me legally speaking or do I need some tea?

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissChievous Shimmer, I understand your viewpoint fully. I just happen not to agree with it. And, while the USA might not have laws regarding this issue (I'm really not familiar, someone said there were so I don't know if there are laws or not), there are other countries that do. In those places, denying medical care to a child is illegal, and I am glad of that. So I'm just trying to discuss this issue from that viewpoint. And even if there are no laws in the States pertaining this matter, I still think the situation is highly unethical.

actually, there are laws in the U.S. that denying proper medical care is grounds for child neglect and abuse. and while generally a parent has the ultimate right to raise a child, a state can step in under certain circumstances (and this includes intervening in medical procedures which may be against a parent's chosen religion). while some may not agree that this is the right thing to do, i think it is important that society provides protection for those who are unable to protect themselves.

 

[SparklingWaves]

I am going to try and get it. I don't know why I can't just copy and paste it here. I don't get that option. I have to copy & paste it to a word document, then print it up and type it up from there to here. Then, I hope that I type it correctly. It's soooooooooo frustrating.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by purrtykitty actually, there are laws in the U.S. that denying proper medical care is grounds for child neglect and abuse. and while generally a parent has the ultimate right to raise a child, a state can step in under certain circumstances (and this includes intervening in medical procedures which may be against a parent's chosen religion). while some may not agree that this is the right thing to do, i think it is important that society provides protection for those who are unable to protect themselves.

True...but defining 'proper' medical care is a hazy line.
Usually when the state intervenes, isn't it because of a disagreement between the parents? (As in there's a divorce and one parent wants it one way and the other wants it the other?)

 

[SparklingWaves]

Finally, I think that I got it. Alrighty, there is the section regarding minors there.


[URL="http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_02.htm"]http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index...article_02.htm

 

[SparklingWaves]

It's under the JW - The Surgical /Ethical Challenge

 

[Shimmer]

*bangs head*
Old Testament. Blah.

 

[SparklingWaves]

If you are bleeding out and need blood, you will die. I don't care if it's on the surgical table, after a car accident, during labor, etc. You are as good as dead. Expanders are not going to do any good at that point.

 

[SparklingWaves]

You have to replace what is lost or die.

 

[purrtykitty]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer True...but defining 'proper' medical care is a hazy line. Usually when the state intervenes, isn't it because of a disagreement between the parents? (As in there's a divorce and one parent wants it one way and the other wants it the other?)

sure, sometimes is the case that divorced parents drag their disputes into the court, but sometimes it is the parents' religion that is at issue. in all cases, the state will look at what is best for the child. if the procedure is elective, but will improve the life of the child, then the court will look at all the surrounding facts and make its decision. but when religion is the issue, and the life of the child is at stake, then it gets very dicey. on the one hand, like you have said, the state does want to respect the perogative of the parents to raise the child as they see fit (including religion), but on the other hand, the state has a compelling interest to protect the child from harm or potential harm, which includes parents withholding life-saving medical care. in many cases, when the state has intervened and given the child the medical care the parents refused due to religious reasons, the parents end up being grateful that their child is alive. using experimental treatments on terminal cancer is one thing, but when something as simple as a blood transfusion can save a child's life, that's a whole different ball of wax.

basically, the states see the issue of medical care as a necessity and if a parent is unwilling or unable to provide this basic necessity (whether due to religion or being indigent) the state will step in and decide what is best for the child. after all (i think this was brought up earlier) it is not the child's choice what religion he/she is brought up with, and that child then has to suffer the consequences of the parents' religion-based decision because the child ultimately has no voice against his/her parents. well, the state gives the child a voice.

 

[*Stargazer*]

It isn't always divorced parents. This is where it gets sketchy. I'm trying to remember the details about the case of the teenage boy who didn't want chemo but wanted to keep going with some crazy treatments that weren't going to help him. He had some crazy hippy name. Why can't I remember this?

Anyway, while I understand and appreciate the freedoms afforded us in this country, I am 100% uncomfortable with children dying because of their PARENTS beliefs. You can't rationally argue that a young child chooses the religion their parents follow. Maybe a teen, yes, but a young child? The needless death of children does not sit well with me.