Donate SIGN UP

Judge Rules Teen Jw Must Have A Blood Transfusion

Avatar Image
LazyGun | 16:35 Thu 18th Apr 2013 | Religion & Spirituality
172 Answers
What do you think to this case?

I am all for authorizing blood transfusions when the prognosis is such that the patient will almost certainly die if they do not receive a transfusion, and where there is a clear expectation that having received a blood transfusion the chances of survival are markedly released, and were this case about a young child, under 15-16 say I would probably not have any issues with the decision.

But a 17 year old only months away from being 18? Not sure we should be forcing patients to receive blood -having to sedate them to give them a transfusion - is warranted.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html
Gravatar

Answers

161 to 172 of 172rss feed

First Previous 6 7 8 9

Avatar Image
@Lazygun - the judge presumably decided he was not Gillick competent. More on it here.. http://www.kslr.org.uk/blogs/humanrights/2012/01/20/article-8-and-minors-right-to-refuse-medical-treatment/
18:34 Thu 18th Apr 2013
-- answer removed --
I wonder if JWs are ever grateful to the non JW laws which save them from the moral dilemma of whether or not to allow their child to die. Perhaps behind all the outrage they are glad that they have been dug out of a hole and they haven't had to put their child in one.
this case is Australian but seems to have been decided in line with English Law.

Under the Children Act 1989, the child's interests are paramount. And so in English Law the parents views erm dont count for much. You can see this is not so much a moral question (various courses of action all allowed but with various consequences) as Law - the correct thing is for the staff to transfuse.

The law is so clear I am surprised it went to court (but it was Oz)


Quality of Life was the subject of the Crazy Mother case - little Dylan with brain cancer needed radiotherapy which the mother said, 'would fry his brains'. Judge held that the child should be treated as the experts agreed this treatment would be life-saving. Reading between the lines, the Judge also took the child away from his mother.


I'm not sure most JWs see it that way jomifl -- if a belief is strongly held, and since too they have faith that their child will go to Heaven, I wouldn't doubt it if committed JWs found little to no dilemma at all.
Jim, surely a smidgin of humanity remains despite all the brainwashing? I suppose it has to be there to start with though.
It depends. When people who are Christians in general wrestle with difficult questions it often seems to be closer to "How far am I prepared to go to accept God's judgements?" than "is God right to ask me to do this?" or some similar question. It's about the starting point. A fundamental premise of "God is always right" means that the challenge is never to God's laws but to how you deal with the fact that you initially were uncomfortable with it.
Question Author
I would imagine this case may very well have gone to court had the situation been say here in the UK, Peter.

I may also very well be wrong - but where a medical procedure is felt necessary, to the point of restraint and/or sedation of the patient, that patient is a minor and patient and family object to the procedure, then I would have thought it would come to the courts attention here as well.

I have no knowledge of medico-legal ethics - but doesn't the minor have to be appointed a ward of the court prior to such a procedure being carried out?

Personally, I have no time for religion, and I would reject many of the precepts that some religions have as fundamental articles of faith - Like in this case what clearly seems to be an over-literal interpretation of the commandment not to participate in blood sacrifice - but, if you are a genuine believer - if you really believe in those precepts laid down by the church, and really do believe that your child will be condemned to an eternity outside of heaven, wherever impure souls reside in the JW faith - then the fate of the earthly vessel set against the eternal soul might very well make for a really difficult decision.

Do not condone it, and for all religions i really wish they would amend some of their sillier rules - but what might seem a no-brainer might very well pose a huge moral dilemna for some.
Yes LG, in the Uk the hospital would petition for the child to be made a ward of court, then the Gillick test would be applied, then the court would decide what to do. Depending on the outcome of the Gillick test, then the child's views would be taken into account to a greater or lesser degree. Depending on the urgency and risk to life, appeal might also be allowed.
I have already said that its possible/likely that the judge has taken into account the possibility that an appeal would take the young man to his 18th birthday and thus change the facts, also (and I have no way of verifying this) whether among some JW's, a legal decision which relieves the parents and child of making that decision is viewed (even privately) as an acceptable strategy, much like the wearing of very realistic wigs by some orthodox jewish women.
I suspect PP that the reason that it went to court was the drastic measures that will need to be taken to transfuse this young man. Forcible sedation is no easy or pleasant activity and I am guessing that it will need to be done more than once. I am also assuming that the use of EPO together with a specialised diet has been considered and ruled out.
Blood sacrifice is itself central to Christianity . . . not that I would expect an attempt to interject reason into any religious issue to be successful. Talk about your, "no brainer".
Any cases regarding blood with or without the use of blood, has risks but it mainly involves children. On occasion, when loving parents have respectfully asked that nonblood management be used, some medical personnel have sought court backing to give blood. Of course, Christians agree with laws or court action to prevent child abuse or neglect. Perhaps you have read of cases in which some parent brutalized a child or denied it all medical care. How tragic! Clearly, the State can and should step in to protect a neglected child. Still, it is easy to see how very different it is when a caring parent requests high-quality nonblood medical therapy.
goodlife your post makes no sense whatsoever.

161 to 172 of 172rss feed

First Previous 6 7 8 9

Do you know the answer?

Judge Rules Teen Jw Must Have A Blood Transfusion

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.