South Australian court forces Jehova's Witness to have blood transfusion

[Sir Kenneth]

The article can be found here: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...lood-transfusion/story-e6frea83-1225875658322

What do you think of this? Should people be allowed to reject treatment on behalf of their children, or is it okay for the courts to intervene? Personally I believe that everyone should be allowed autonomy over their own body. When it comes to children however, especially in potential life and death situations like this, I think it is a different matter.

Children obviously don't have the authority to choose for themselves, nor should they, but I don't think they should have to suffer under beliefs held by their parents either.

 

[der Astronom]

Wow, this is so stupid. I feel sorry for the kid, not because of the dilemma he's facing, but because of the stupid way in which he's been indoctrinated to believe such nonsense. Blood transfusions never killed anyone, and they're not "unclean". People need to stop believing in silly tribal rituals, and get with the times. Ja, I am saying that belief in religion can be dangerous to people's health. Just look what it did during the Dark Ages--it made the Bubonic Plague several times worse because they thought the cats caused the plague (and that's not true; rats caused it), and killed all the cats. Meanwhile, they applied "cures" that didn't do anything, and might just have made it more painful and worse for whoever got the plague.
And nowadays, some people are denying medical treatment in favor of religious cures that don't do anything, and they're either dying or suffering as a result.
The problem I have with this is that children are too young to decide for themselves if they want religious cures over medicine--instead, their parents are deciding for them. But people need to be educated on this. They need to know the success rate of religious cures (which is not very high, contrary to initial appearances), and they need to realize that religious cures do not substitute medical attention. If they are in ignorance of these facts, and continue to neglect medical attention for their children, then they are abusing the child, and the court should probably intervene.

 

[SaShman]

I believe that people should be able to reject treatment. However obviously a child would not be informed or mature enough to make this kind of decision. At the same time parents shouldn't be able to reject treatment for a potentially fatal illness/injury (Providing the treatment has no inherent risks to their child's well being).
By sending your child to a hospital you are putting him/her in the care of the doctors because you are unable to treat him/her yourself. Therefore the doctors should hold authority over these kinds of decisions.

Ja, I am saying that belief in religion can be dangerous to people's health. Just look what it did during the Dark Ages--it made the Bubonic Plague several times worse because they thought the cats caused the plague (and that's not true; rats caused it), and killed all the cats. Meanwhile, they applied "cures" that didn't do anything, and might just have made it more painful and worse for whoever got the plague.

In my opinion, your example indicates the short falls of science at the time more so than the dangers of believing in a particular religion. Unless of course you are suggesting a correlation between the two? Regardless, I agree with the main point you were getting at (to a certain extent).

 

[Saints&Storms]

I think that the hospital did the right thing and that those horrible parents will live with what they almost did to their flesh and blood. I see nothing wrong with how they intervened and thank God they did so.

This would have been suicide and its worse than murder in my opinion, and it was going to be murder on behalf of the Parents part had no one stopped it.

~ But if having the right to refuse treatment should be, then what if fasting was a part of my "religion" and I forced my baby (about three months old) to fast with me? Said baby would slowly die a horrifying death most likely.

Bottom line, it was wrong and I think those parents should get some kind of charged for even trying.

 

[Rydia]

Ok I did not read the article, so sorry if it was mentioned there. But did the child give their opinion on this matter?

 

[Sir Kenneth]

Ok I did not read the article, so sorry if it was mentioned there. But did the child give their opinion on this matter?

The child was on the same page as the parents and did not want the blood transfusion either for religious reasons.

 

[Rydia]

Well since the child agreed with the parents I'm torn about this. On one hand, the child may be too young to make that big of a decision. But, the parents and the child did not want the transfusion, and shouldn't they be allowed to decide that? Yeah it's for religious reasons, but they should be able to follow their religion even if the rest of us think it's wacky. For us it's a myth but for them, it's real. But then, from what I understand, this is a life and death situation...

If it was only the parents refusing and the child was scared and wanted to live, I would have sided with giving the child the transfusion.

 

[AddleBoy]

The child was on the same page as the parents and did not want the blood transfusion either for religious reasons.

Yeah, but the kid seemed pretty torn, too. He didn't want the blood for religious reasons, but he also wanted to live. All-in-all, I think the court made the right decision in this case. The father said that he would still love his son whether he had the transfusion or not, and would obey the court's ruling. So, the boy gets to live for a while longer, though with maybe a guilty conscience for breaking his moral code.

 

[der Astronom]

In my opinion, your example indicates the short falls of science at the time more so than the dangers of believing in a particular religion. Unless of course you are suggesting a correlation between the two? Regardless, I agree with the main point you were getting at (to a certain extent).

Well, even if they had science, there are always going to be the religious people who choose to kill the cats anyways--just like now, we do have adequate science to know what's good for us and what isn't. Generally speaking anyways. But people still choose religion over science when it comes to health; it still happens at this day and age. So maybe it doesn't change much. I guess I considered the plague a good example because if you amplify the concept of religion having a say over what is healthy and what isn't, and there is no science to give people a better idea of what's actually going on with them, you end up with something like the plague. There went about a third of Europe's population.

 

[Kandy-Sugar]

A similar incident occurred in my family.

I won't go into detail, but this is nothing new. This isn't the first family who's gone through this.

Jehovah's Witnesses are very very into the old ways and they really need to update their handbook.

When I was told of what happened in my family I nearly felt sick.

The child in my family was only given a blood transfusion because they were unconscious and something happened and I think the father backed down and allowed the blood transfusion.

I don't believe that parents have the right to make that sort of decision for anyone including their child and I don't believe that the child should be able to make such a decision either.

They've been shown nothing but what their parents have taught them to believe and aren't capable of making their own choices as yet until they've seen more of the world and what it has to offer.

Jehovah's Witnesses are so against murder and abortion etc, and yet they can do this sort of thing to their own family? Regardless of their 'religious reasons' they are killing their child. They're letting their child die when there are so many ways to keep them alive.

 

[akfek]

An adult I'd be fine with rejecting treatment like this, because an adult would hopefully be informed enough to choose. But with a kid, especially one with little to no knowledge of medical procedures besides the poison and lies taught by their parents, should not have a choice in the matter, and neither should the parents. Faith shouldn't kill people.

 

[Rasputin]

As a member of a religion growing up that used spiritual healing, I didn't have any form of medical treatment until I was 17 years old. Most people don't have a bloody clue about how spiritual healing works or how successful it is, but I can assure you that in most cases taking medicine against your ingrained spiritual background is very psychologically painful and will often induce even more fear for further medical treatment. I'm still unwilling to take so much as a Tylenol and the few times I got vaccinations it made my blood pressure skyrocket. I hate to think how this boy would feel when he has to see other people going through the same process.

Of course, nobody gave two shits when this happened to me because I wasn't in some big name religion like Jehova's Witnesses, but I suppose I can hardly expect compassionate strangers to exist in this world. Whatever.

 

[der Astronom]

Most people don't have a bloody clue about how spiritual healing works or how successful it is,

It's not very successful. There have been multiple studies done on this, and about the only thing it is good for is the placebo effect. But it's not a true cure for anything; it's just an alleviated feeling. Which is why testimonial accounts don't amount to much.

but I can assure you that in most cases taking medicine against your ingrained spiritual background is very psychologically painful and will often induce even more fear for further medical treatment.

But staying with spiritual healing won't improve your condition any. The only difference is that you just believe it works. Of course, if you believed something worked, and it really does work (like real medicine), it goes much better than if you didn't believe it worked, but generally speaking, medicine does more for you physically than spiritual healing ever would. If you believed something works when it doesn't, you'll feel better about it, and if your body can heal itself, it probably will, but if it can't, your condition doesn't improve. And there have been cases where people have had spiritual healing, believed it worked, and died or suffered from their condition anyways.
The placebo effect is NOT a true cure. It is just psychological conditioning that either enhances or makes whatever cure you're using slightly better or slightly worse--it won't change the fact that the cure itself works or doesn't work.

I'm still unwilling to take so much as a Tylenol and the few times I got vaccinations it made my blood pressure skyrocket. I hate to think how this boy would feel when he has to see other people going through the same process.

If you read the labels carefully and do your research, it is almost impossible for any given medication not to have side effects. If you take medication without reading the labels, you risk taking medicine that won't improve your condition because you may be taking medicine that is not suitable for whatever condition you have. If you are not honest to yourself about what conditions you have (high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. whatever they may be), no doctor in the world can prescribe you medicine that will help you.
Even if you are prescribed the right medication, there may still be side effects.
Well okay, even if it's not listed as a side effect, everybody's system is different, and they react differently, even if it's the same medication. So it may work for one person, while having a different effect on another person. That's probably also why it's important for your doctor to have a complete and accurate history of your health.