I. Issue Should parents be permitted to refuse medical treatment for their children based upon their religious beliefs?
II. Facts Certain religions (specifically, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and a variety of small Pentecostal groups) prohibit many medical procedures, even when the procedure is necessary to save the life of the individual. Therefore, when an individual suffers from certain diseases, it is seen as “God's will,” and the individual essentially accepts that his or her life is over. However, in many cases, that individual is a child, and the decision is made by a parent.
III. Short Answer Parents do not have the right to place their children at risk by refusing medical treatments based upon their religious beliefs.
IV. Analysis It is well-established that a competent adult may refuse medical treatment for any reason, including religious ones, even if the treatment is necessary to save the individual's life. (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990); www.unhinderedliving.com/medicalrights.html). However, the situation is completely different when it is a child whose life is in danger. I concede that in the United States, we have freedom of religion, which generally cannot be infringed upon by the state. Nonetheless, the state may restrict religious beliefs if there is a compelling state objective for the specific regulation and the measure took is the least restrictive means possible. In cases where a child's life is jeopardized, I maintain that the state's interest is compelling. Thus, the state acts within a legitimate realm of authority when it invades the rights of the parent and orders appropriate care or treatment.
A. State Laws Many states have child welfare laws that provide that failure by the parents to seek medical care constitutes child endangerment and neglect.
B. The "Offending" Religions A principal tenet of the Jehovah's Witness’ religion is that the act of receiving blood precludes an individual from resurrection and everlasting life after death. (http://www.ajwrb.org/physicians/please.html) Unlike Jehobah's Witnesses, who take the Bible literally and can point to specific passages to support their medical refusal tenets, Christian Scientists simply believe prayer is the best and most powerful medication available. (http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/100198/It_s_freedom_vs_r6.html)
C. The Potential Consequences of their failure to obtain medical treatment Many children have died because their parents refused to seek medical treatment. Their “treatments” are absurd and well-intentioned, at best. For example, the parents of a nine-month-old daughter with bacterial meningitis treated her disease exclusively with prayer, fasting, and scripture readings. Bergmann v. State, 486 N.E.2d 653 (1985). In another tragic case, the parents chose to pray for their 23-month-old daughter's recovery from pneumonia rather than to seek medical treatment. State v. Miller, Nos. 86-CRM-30, 86-CRM-31 (Ohio C.P., Mercer County, Apr. 27, 1987). In another, the parents "relied on God" to cure their two- year-old son's Wilms' tumor. Commonwealth v. Barnhart, 497 A.2d 616, 620 (1985). Finally, a boy died after he was stung 435 times by yellow jackets. (http://www.sptimes.com/TampaBay/100198/It_s_freedom_vs_r6.html)
D. Court Rulings Now we all know how often I disagree with the courts, but looks like this time they got it right...State and federal courts have generally ruled that while adult individuals can make medical decisions for themselves, they do not have a right to place minor children at risk. When the parents' refusal is based upon religious grounds, most courts have held that the freedom of religion clause does not grant parents authority to expose their children to unnecessary illness and/or death. The child becomes a ward of the state, and then the child's doctor makes a determination.
E. First Amendment Religious Freedom Parents relying on prayer to treat their child claim that their conduct is protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. (I think this is the same argument that the Amish use for not sending their children to school beyond Eighth Grade.) While the Supreme Court has expansively viewed the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment (at least pre-September 11), the Court has also recognized the importance of competing governmental interests in placing limitations on the availability of First Amendment protection. When parents refuse medical treatment necessary to save their minor child's life, a court may authorize the treatment to be administered after weighing the child's best interests, the parents' interests, and the State's interests. Matter of McCauley, 409 Mass. 134, 136 (1991). “The best interests of a child are determined by applying the same criteria applicable in substituted judgment cases, namely (1) the patient's expressed preferences, if any; (2) the patient's religious convictions, if any; (3) the impact on the patient's family; (4) the probability of adverse side effects from the treatment; (5) the prognosis without treatment; and (6) the present and future incompetency of the patient in making that decision.” Care & Protection of Beth, 412 Mass. 188, 195 & n.11 (1992). (http://www.socialaw.com/appslip/99p0199.html) In cases where the potential for harm to the child is great, the state must interfere and restrict the harmful activity.
F. Arguments Against Allowing Parents to Withhold Medical Treatment Parents, go right ahead and make a martyrs of yourself. I’m all for your right to effectively kill yourself by refusing medical treatment (maybe you shouldn’t procreate anyway.) But that doesn’t mean that you are free to make martyrs of your children before they have reached the age of legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. (Loosely taken from Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)). Let’s not get too caught up in the parents’ hugfest of religious rights that we forget all about the child’s rights. A child's right to good health supersedes the parents' religious beliefs. Parents have an obligation to provide support for their children. If they can’t (or won’t) do so, then the state has an obligation to. Think about child abuse laws; there is NO SUGGESTION that the parents exercises exclusive control over their children, whether it’s for punishment or for medical treatment. I’d go into the whole state as parens patriae right now, but it’s late, I’ve been doing this a really long time, and I’m tired. Someone else can take up the mantle here.
V. Conclusion Based on the ideals of this country, everyone has freedom to worship and practice whatever religion they want. Moreover, parents are entitled to raise their children as they choose. Accordingly, parents should be permitted to refuse medical treatment for their children
s-
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
I believe parents should not have the right to deny medical treatment for children on religious grounds. Even Jesus said,
"Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Matthew 9:12)
The only non-Jewish author of a book (two, actually) in the Bible, Luke, was a physician.
I believe in divine, miraculous healing. I also believe there are times when medical treatment is appropriate and required. Using the Bible to deny medical treatment is, well, unbiblical!
I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
quote:Originally posted by acandrl: . . . "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Matthew 9:12) . . . Using the Bible to deny medical treatment is, well, unbiblical!
Not to destroy your logic that using the Bible to deny medical treatment is unbiblical - nu'uh.
Not if you STRICTLY ADHERE to the Bible, as do Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses (I can't make this argument to Christian Scientists) accept the majority of medical treatments available. (Luke 5:31) Like anyone else, when they are sick, they seek medical care. In other words, they do not believe in faith healing, as do Christian Scientists. (1 Corinthians 12:30; 13:8, making it clear that miracles were not an ongoing part of Christianity.)
In fact, the only life saving measure that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse are blood transfusions. To this extent, they request (demand) nonblood alternatives. Such practices are often widely used (and accepted) in the medical community. If such a nonblood alternative is not available, then they accept death, rather than receive the blood transfusion and be ostracized from heaven. Their request is directly based on the Bible. The Bible's commands to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." (Acts 15:29; see also Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:1, 2, 10-12; Deuteronomy 12:23-25); "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat" (Genesis 9:3-4); "[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with dust" (Leviticus 17:13-14); and "Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-21).
This close adherence to the Bible is widespread. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses avoid drunkeness, and do not have abortions (Life begins at conception. Deliberately induced abortion is viewed as the willful taking of human life.—Exodus 21:22, 23) (To this extent, they are quite different from Catholics, who in theory are against abortions, but in practice, many have had abortions, and are still considered Catholics not destined for hell.)
Therefore, their claim that they cannot accept blood transfusions is direcly based on the Bible - how can that be unbiblical?
s-
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
the Jehovah's Witnesses base their doctrine on blood transfusions on Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 7:26-27. In these verses, God forbids eating flesh that still has its life, that is its blood, still in it. How this morphed into preventing blood transfusions, and putting lives at risk, is a mystery to me. Also, 1 Corinthians 12:30 does not place a timetable on miracles, simply that different believers will move in different gifts of the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 13:8, reading through to verse 10 reveals that many things in this life will not end until 'perfection' has come. I'm sure we're in agreement that that hasn't happened yet.
I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
The freedom to receive or abstain from medical care based on religious belief exists, and rightfully so...for adults. Adults have had time to take in all the world has to offer and decide on a belief system that they can practice within reason.
A child, however, is not usually exposed to so many options of beliefs until they are older. Even if they were, a child's ability to reason is not fully developed, and therefore, a child cannot be expected to have a solid and self-chosen system of beliefs. In other words, abstinence from medical treatment is not the child's belief at all. Someday it might be, but not until the child has developed into a mature adult able to make decisions for him/herself. This being said, a parent does not have the right to force their innocent child to die for a belief that may not even be theirs.
In such matters, the state needs to take control of the situation and protect the child's life. If the child, upon reaching adulthood, decides to abstain from medical treatment, that is their choice. But in the event that the child eventually decides that this view of medical treatment is not for them, they would not have been killed for a belief they did not hold.
Posts: 3489 | Location: United States | Registered: 03-17-02
First let me compliment the quality of this debate question. I have never seen a question presented so well on QL. I am both impressed and delighted.
Regarding this question, I happily abide by the law of the land in my practice. With children I will get a court order to treat them against the parents will. Often, these same parents thank me later. In dealing with adults, I am one of the few physicians that I know that would let an adult die rather than ignore their religious beliefs. Go figure. To many of you that will seem harsh and uncaring. Surprisingly to those particular adults I am seen as very caring and sensitive.
A few years ago I had a woman come to me that was a Christian Scientist. She had a large cancer covering one eye. It had been present for over two years and her children had demanded that she come and have it treated. She told me that she had prayed daily to have her cancer healed and that she could not understand why her God had not done so. I thought for a moment and then I replied. Maybe your prayer was answered in that your God plans to use me to heal your cancer.
That seemed to convince her to have her healing surgery.
I know that this is an anecdotal reply to a difficult question that was well presented. I apologize and applaud the discussants simultaneously.
"Maybe your prayer was answered in that your God plans to use me to heal your cancer."
Surgeon50, I think this is excellent! I commend you for not belittling this woman's faith and perhaps, as you suggest, being an instrument in God's hands.
I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
Surgeon, from a medical person's perspective I think you did the right thing. But as far as things go is not the whole thing a dangerous situation. Should it not be that despite medical beliefs people get treated. I know it is impossible and far beyond human rights. But this is one of the very reasons why religion has become an obsolete and archaic practise. At one point in time all people could really do is pray and trust in 'God'... Now we have real treatments, real cures, and people refuse them because they're 'set in their ways'. I do not mean to disrespect anyone's beliefs, but if some chooses to withold their child's treatment on terms of religion then someone needs to walk up to them and tell them that there is the good chance that they are sentencing their child to death. And sadly, via religious mania, this message will be ignored.
It seems such a no-win situation until religion is phased out, and frankly, humans are so delusional and ultra-rational that that will never happen.
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° "Don't dwell on reality; it will only keep you from greatness." -Rev. Randall R. McBride, Jr.
Sole property of ~Twister~.
'Keep up the __insert_suitable_adjective_here___ work!' °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Posts: 5633 | Location: Aotearoa (New Zealand) | Registered: 09-22-02
I share some of your concerns, and it sounds like they are being addressed. If adults refuse medical treatment for their children on religious grounds, then yes, someone should tell them they may be putting their child's life at risk. If they still refuse, the child needs an advocate to argue for their best interests. Isn't this in place? As enola's initial examples point out, it is not mainstream Christianity that creates the religious mania that clouds this issue.
I'm just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
Posts: 204 | Location: right here in River City | Registered: 07-28-02
Enola~I did not forget about this…really…I only needed some time to ponder and do some research.
_____
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have an absolute right to deny their children medical treatment on religious grounds, saying in a 1944 decision that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves," "it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court reprised the same thought in a 1990 case.
But legal experts say that state and local officials have not seen the Supreme Court language as a clear directive for prosecution of child abuse and homicide cases. Congress did little to clarify the issue with a 1974 directive that required states receiving federal money for child abuse and prevention programs to have an exemption for parents who substitute spiritual healing for medical care. The requirement was rescinded nine years later, but by then, most states had enacted their religious exceptions, which effectively allow parents to treat ailing children through prayer without fear of prosecution if something goes wrong.
Then in 1996, Congress seemed to reverse itself in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, saying there was no federal requirement that a child must be provided "any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian."
Forty-three states grant faith-healing parents immunity from prosecution on child abuse and neglect, and six states grant immunity on religious grounds for manslaughter, homicide or murder by abuse.
According to the medical journal Pediatrics (April 1998), a study documents at least 172 faith-related child deaths in the United States between 1975 and 1995. At least 140 of the children who died had conditions with survival rates above 90% with medical care. The deaths occured in 23 religious denominations in 34 states.
In 1990, South Dakota became the first state to eliminate religious immunity for faith-healing parents, after Joni Clark led a grassroots campaign following her infant daughter's death from a condition with a 99% survival rate in a hospital. Clark's first daughter died days after her birth because her church, End Times Ministries, and her husband wouldn't allow her to call a doctor. Freethought Today 1-2/99.
Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 4 April 1998, pp. 625-629
Received Jan 13, 1997; accepted Jul 25, 1997.
Seth M. Asser* and Rita Swan
From the * Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, California, and Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), Inc, Sioux City, Iowa.
Objective. To evaluate deaths of children from families in which faith healing was practiced in lieu of medical care and to determine if such deaths were preventable.
Design. Cases of child fatality in faith-healing sects were reviewed. Probability of survival for each was then estimated based on expected survival rates for children with similar disorders who receive medical care.
Participants. One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death.
Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of 50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.
Conclusions. When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.
Spiritual Care Needs of Hospitalized Children and Their Families: A National Survey of Pastoral Care Providers’ Perceptions
Chris Feudtner, MD, PhD, MPH*, , Jeff Haney, BS and Martha A. Dimmers, MDiv, MSW||
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington || Department of Pastoral Care, Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
Objective. Although spirituality is viewed as a vital aspect of the illness experience by most Americans, little is known about this domain of pediatric health care. The objective of this study was to profile pastoral care providers’ perceptions of the spiritual care needs of hospitalized children and their parents, barriers to better pastoral care, and quality of spiritual care in children’s hospitals.
Methods. A cross-sectional mail survey was conducted of pastoral care providers at children’s hospitals throughout the United States, with a 67% response rate from 115 institutions.
Results. Respondents estimated that, among patients they visited, 34% were chronically ill and 21% were clearly dying. Half or more of patients were thought to have spiritual care needs regarding feeling fearful or anxious, coping with pain or other physical symptoms, and regarding their relationship to their parents or the relationship between their parents. Among patients’ parents, 60% to 80% were estimated to have felt fearful or anxious, had difficulty coping with their child’s pain or other symptoms, sought more medical information about their child’s illness, questioned why they and their child were going through this experience, asked about the meaning or purpose of suffering, and felt guilty. Respondents agreed on 3 barriers to providing spiritual care: inadequate staffing of the pastoral care office, inadequate training of health care providers to detect patients’ spiritual needs, and being called to visit with patients and families too late to provide all the care that could have been provided. Overall, respondents judged that their hospitals were providing 60% of what they deemed as ideal spiritual care.
Conclusions. Pastoral care providers believe that the spiritual care needs of hospitalized children and their parents are diverse and extensive. With system-level barriers cited as limiting the quality of spiritual care, considerable improvement may be possible.
I strongly believe in the philosophy of “live and let live”, this pertains to every aspect of other’s life choices, including religion, and I would be the last person to tread upon another person’s religion and beliefs. This does not mean that I condone, I merely accept. These beliefs (Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.), are foreign to me, I will not even try to say that I understand them.
As a parent, I find these numbers staggering, unnecessary and sickening. I simply cannot understand how a parent could sit idly by and watch their own child or loved one die for the sole purpose of their religious beliefs. If given the choice between the life of my child or my religion, I would choose my child without a doubt.
Congress has reversed the decision of the Supreme Courts, saying, “there was no federal requirement that a child must be provided "any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian." This in turn has granted permission to those parents to deny needed medical treatment to their children, without fear of prosecution.
But if a parent with these religious beliefs brings a dying child into a hospital, are the doctors not there to do everything in their power to save the life of that child?
Is that not the reason the parent brought the child in the first place? Medical care?
I think in a case such as this, the responsibility should be laid into the hands of the physician, to be able to make the decisions pertaining to what is often, a life or death situation. Yet, Doctors are left helpless, they must sit by knowing that their skills could save the life of that child and only the parents religious beliefs prevent them from doing so.
I think that if a parent that professes these religious beliefs, goes so far as to bring the child into the hospital or under a doctors care, they should then be expected to relinquish the responsibility to make any and all decisions pertaining to the medical care of that child.
”Tell em’ that I haven’t been here and I’m not leaving!”~Willie Nelson ”No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”~Eleanor Roosevelt ”I always wanted to be somebody, I should've been more specific."~Lilly Tomlin
Just call me Gena!
Posts: 1914 | Location: New England | Registered: 11-30-00
I think that inorder for any of us to fully understand how a parent could/would let their child die for lack of medical intervention on religious beliefs we would need to hear from one of this belief.
For myself I can't understand how God would have created the plants that heal but demand we not use them. He would have kept that knowledge to himself if he wanted "faith" to heal.
Now, having said that I don't know if I'd be willing to see my child suffer through medical practices IF I believed them to be doing no good and only prolonging her/his suffering. I also say this not being in the situation. I would also not let my daughter suffer needlessly if medication or treatment would cure her.
quote:Originally posted by Genevieve: Children Dying For Religion Forty-three states grant faith-healing parents immunity from prosecution on child abuse and neglect, and six states grant immunity on religious grounds for manslaughter, homicide or murder by abuse.
Gena, That was really impressive! I don't have much time right now to formulate a debate/reply, as I have three motions and a hearing next week, but I will get back to this. I wanted to say that I was really glad you brought up this point, because that way, I didn't have to respond to myself against that argument. Hey, I have no problem debating myself! But I will reply to this impressive, time consuming (I'm sure) analysis. I leave with a question though - if a tenat of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs is that blood transfusion are against God's will and if they have a blood transfusion they will not be admitted to heaven, what right does the state have to force a blood transfusion on a child, essentially barring that child from heaven, according to their beliefs? Until later... s-
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
quote: Twila wrote - I think that in order for any of us to fully understand how a parent could/would let their child die for lack of medical intervention on religious beliefs we would need to hear from one of this belief.
True, but so far the debate has not concerned itself with the beliefs of such parents per se. Perhaps it is agreed that, in order to forego medical treatment, a parent's belief would need to be sincerely held.
But it does raise an interesting question. There is, arguably a mens rea issue here. The state of mind of the parent might be relevant. There is a difference between, say, a Jehovah's Witness refusing to seek medical help on religious grounds, and a parent who simply fails to act when their child is critically ill.
Or is there?
From an external perspective, there are two dead kids, and two (sets of) parents who failed to provide medical assistance to those children, resulting in their deaths.
In the latter case, it is a fairly clear failure of a fiduciary duty to provide for the needs of the child. Possible criminal negligence.
On one view, the JW parent is different, because they are thinking differently. In their mind, it is not their ass on the line, it is their child's "best interests" they are calculating. This seems to be the likely basis of the 43 States Gena mentioned which grant "immunity" in cases of faith healing-related child deaths. It seems like a reasonable argument.
But is this argument really supportable?
Stay with me here: The JW parent might believe that their kid will not go to heaven if they have a blood transfusion. But they must also believe that medical intervention would work to keep their kid alive. So, they have a dilemma. There is not one possibile course of action open to them, there are two. Where there are two possibilities, you must choose the lawful one.
The most simple example would be: "I could steal to feed my family, or I could get a job, and feed them that way" - obviously, the person cannot choose to steal, and it is no excuse that the person's family needed feeding. Nor would the fact that the chooser believes stealing is a "superior" option provide any excuse (he/she might believe it gives them more time with the children, or earns more money for their education, etc).
What reasons might there be for a parent NOT getting medical care for a sick child?
1.) They think the illness is not serious. 2.) They do not care if the illness is serious or not. 3.) They believe the illness is serious but do not think that the medical care offered will be of any help or even be detrimental. 4.) Medical care is unavailable for their child. 5.) They believe a non-scientific treatment will work as well or better. 6.) They believe that getting medical care for their child will preclude their child’s salvation.
Of the first four reasons only the second is criminal and that is because it shows no interest in their child’s welfare. The second reason for not getting medical care for your child is prosecutable in all states in the US.
Therefore, I think the debate topic should concern itself with reasons 5 and 6.
They believe a non-scientific treatment will work as well or better.
Christian Scientists and many fundamental Christian religions believe that prayer and faith healing will heal their child. Likewise, many Native American religions have rituals for such healing. Non-religious people and religious people in the US often practice non-scientific healing methods such as aromatherapy, crystal holding, channeling for guidance, magnetism, manipulations and other non-medical treatments. In all the states of the US, a child’s legal custody can be stripped from the parents if a court can be convinced that said child’s health is a risk because of the parent’s failure to provided proper care for their child REGARDLESS of the parent’s beliefs or prejudices.
The problem comes when a social, legal or medical agency does not become aware of the problem until permanent harm or death result. When that happens because of a sincere religious belief of the parents, prosecutors will rarely prosecute the parents. In fact, forty-some states discourage prosecution by their laws. Although criminal prosecution may not occur, the parents often are relieved of custody for any other children they may have. I think there are many ways to address this problem besides prosecuting the parents of a dead child.
Because this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and because of an extremely strong desire to protect religion from interference by the state, the US has allowed religions great latitude under the law. If the US wishes to protect these values the government must not disregard sincere religious beliefs no matter how noxious or illogical others may find them.
In the case where parents believe that getting medical care for their child will preclude their child’s salvation, things are actually much easier from both a medical and legal point of view. Most of these cases concern the use of organs or blood products as in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although there are real and significant risks in using donated organs and blood or blood products, for only a few does this truly represent a belief in the damnation of their child. Almost all of these children are in medical care when these needs arise and therefore care can be taken to not use these human/animal products when not absolutely essential. When the use is required the medical team may then resort to legal action to treat the child. The parents no longer have any choice despite their religious beliefs.
When I have been forced to use legal action to treat children of Jehovah’s Witnesses to give them blood, I have received different responses. The parents have thanked me and the parents have shunned me. The irony is that if the same problem came up with the adult parents, I would not have transfused blood. Thankfully, I have never had to watch that happen.
I think the legal situation in the US is adequate already to deal with the problems this debate question raises. I do think much more public education and active discouragement of disproved and limited methods of healing be provided. I also think we should make sure that excellent health care is available and affordable to all our citizens regardless of their finances, religion,race or ability to raise their child.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
[This message was edited on 02-22-03 at 03:35 PM.]
"Where there are two possibilities, you must choose the lawful one."
I thought that was a really good take on it dav, but I also thought this. Wouldn't a JW say that it's not a choice? It's my experience that religious believers don't see obedience of God as reward/punishment choice, but as not a choice at all, in that you must obey your God. If that is true, then they really couldn't say it was a choice. They were required to withhold treatment by the law of their religion. Believers that I have ever met who say that they chose their religion to avoid some type of eternal damnation, rather than saying it's because they believe and must therefore obey, aren't seen as sincere. So to the JW, they are not withholding treatment simply to avoid hell, but because to them, obedience is simply a given.
As to the rest of the points, this is such a complicated debate. I don't have any good reason for my opinion or legal basis for it, but I nevertheless feel like there must be some way to prevent parents from withholding treatment. Maybe along the lines that the kid hasn't had enough time or reached a level of maturity that would allow them to make a religious decision or something.
I just don't know. I would feel bad if there was some parent going around thinking their child was going to hell, but ... it's just appaling that they will let their kid die based on a religious belief that, frankly, I don't see as being very valid or accurate.
sigh, just don't know.
"There are two rules for success: 1) Never tell everything you know." - Roger H. Lincoln
Posts: 1382 | Location: United States | Registered: 03-31-01
As reluctant as I am to step in front of the metaphorical firing range of well educated and expressive debaters here at QL...
What if they (Jehovah's Witnesses) were ultimately correct in their literal interpretation of the bible. Assume for one moment -for agruments sake- that there is a god in heaven (in which case I'm fked). Most of us agree that if we were in surgeon's place we would have chosen simlar ways of responding to such patients, provided we agree on the morality of said desisions. But what if we were to learn afterwards that in doing so we had in fact barred that child from ever entering heaven and eternally seperating him/her from their loved ones?
Yes, I realize that there is no garentee that the child would choose the JW belifs, but there is no garentee that they won't, and they may spend the rest of their lives knowing that they are damned no matter what -talk about depression!
Now, to go one step further, what if you knew now that by forcing these medical treatments on children it would bar them from heaven, would you still support the state forcing treatment and prosocuting the parents for refusing? Probably not, but somtimes in a debate we need to stop and ask ourselves "what if they're right?" for various reasons.
I swear, I am not trying to bring the "religion debate" here. But, the fact remains that just as their belifs cannot be proven correct, they cannot be proven incorrect. When we discuss the fate of a child's immortal soul, at what point does life take second tier to the afterlife?
As for me, I find the "if god didn't want us to use 'em we wouldn't have 'em" argument is flawed. Try applying that to nuclear/biological weapons. I feel that the JW's case has a valid argument and one that should not be so quickly and thouroughly disregarded.
Now, I must be honest, as much as I love to debate, I chose to add to this thread mostly to encourage new chains of thought and give some different perspective, that said take a look at this:
Imagine an unborn child in it's mother's womb. The womb is it's world, the umbilicle is it's air. One day, it is violently torn from it's world, it's air is taken. In it's mind it has died, to us it has been born. Such is the transition into heaven.
Hornet's nest, thy rock hath been thrown.
-I'm an atheist playing devil's advocate in support of christians, what a wonderful world we live in
"One man can change the world, one idea can change a man."
Posts: 21 | Location: United States | Registered: 07-22-02
I think all of the posts on this subject were made with very good intentions, and I hope the articles listed will aid in your forming a personal decision.
I thought both curly and cafe have made good points. Certainly, religions can be right and this may be the one. For Jehovah's Witnesses that is a certain belief.
In the state of Kansas if a JW seeks medical care and refuses blood transfusions the doctor performs battery on the patient if he transfuses him without permission. (I would like enola c to help us some with the legal aspects when she has time). In the same state of Kansas, if a doctor does not give blood to a JW child whether or not he has permission he can be criminally prosecuted under our child protection laws.
enola_catori stated earlier:
I leave with a question though - if a tenat of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs is that blood transfusion are against God's will and if they have a blood transfusion they will not be admitted to heaven, what right does the state have to force a blood transfusion on a child, essentially barring that child from heaven, according to their beliefs? Until later...
and curly wrote:
what if you knew now that by forcing these medical treatments on children it would bar them from heaven, would you still support the state forcing treatment and prosocuting the parents for refusing?
I am not a Jehovah's Witness but I have operated on many. I have been told I am on a list of recommendation for doctors for JW's. Over the last few days I have talked to several witnesses and looked over the Watchtower literature. The key seems to be the "willing" acceptance of blood transfusions concerning their disobedience to Jehovah.
Until 1960, violation of the injunction had supernatural consequences only. "We will not take any spiritual action against anyone", replied the Society to those who disagreed (34). The offender eventually had to stand trial before God. Even an "anointed sister", member of the elite of the 144,000 chosen, who had accepted a blood transfusion, did not face expulsion from the Society (31). All that was to change. In the "Questions from Readers" part in the Jan 15, 1961 edition of The Watchtower, it was stated that the taking of a transfusion would be followed by excommunication (in the Society's jargon "disfellowshipping"). If the offender would refuse to acknowledge his transgression or would persist in accepting or donating blood, he would be considered "a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members" and therefore should be cut off from them. It is likely that this rigid measure was taken in view of the increasing application of blood transfusions
Witnesses who have received blood without consenting are not shunned or disfellowshiped. This would apply as well to children who receive blood by court order. Therefore, even if I assume that JW's beliefs are correct, if I give a child a blood transfusion by order of the court, I have not hindered his obedience to his God. I also have not broken any law.
When JW's bring their child to me for an operation that could conceivably require blood or blood products, I tell them I will get a court order to circumvent their refusal for transfusion. So far, this has not kept them from choosing me as their child's doctor that I am aware.
As I stated earlier, our government gives great latitude to religious beliefs and practices. However, this is not carte blanche. A religion that believed in child sacrifice or human sacrifice would not be tolerated. I think the legal, social, and medical systems have dealt adequately with this problem in general. However, there are some real gray areas.
Scenario, pregnant JW is bleeding profusely from placenta abruptio and has a viable fetus which she wants to save. However, she refuses blood. Can a physician get a court order to require her to have a transfusion to save her unborn child. Now is when it is time for enola_catori to return.
quote:Originally posted by surgeon50: (I would like enola c to help us some with the legal aspects when she has time).
Now is when it is time for enola_catori to return.
Surgeon, I will, I promise! I have a trial tomorrow, and an arbitration brief, motion to sever, two memos, and an appellate brief (all due by weekend except the appeallate brief.) I've slept 10 hours total since Friday. I've finally learned what hell is. But I've been checking these debates so that I can respond once I get more time - I hope this weekend. FYI (b/c this is quick), the legal definition of battery is any intentional, unconsented, and harmful or offensive contact by one person with another. Therefore, if the JW says, "don't touch me," and the Dr. does, it's legally a battery. More later. Really.
s-
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
Ok, I have several comments, detailing back to the beginning of this debate. I've reversed my initial position and assert that the state does not have the right to force JW parents compel their children to receive blood transfusions.
quote:Originally posted by Surgeon With children I will get a court order to treat them against the parents will. Often, these same parents thank me later.
And are, consequently, excommunicated from the church. Parents are kicked out of the church if their children break any of the religious proclamations. My sister's friend is a JW and is gay...she can't tell her parents b/c they will be kicked out of the church.
quote:Originally posted by Fuzzies Religion has become an obsolete and archaic practise. . . Now we have real treatments, real cures, and people refuse them because they are 'set in their ways.' . . . There is the good chance that they are sentencing their child to death . . . It seems such a no-win situation until religion is phased out, and frankly, humans are so delusional and ultra rational that will never happen."
For you, maybe. But they believe in it. This isn't about the validity of their religion, it's about the right of the state to interfere in their religion. I don't think they are set in their ways as much as they have faith in God's will or believe that the alternative is immoral or whatever. Perhaps their religious views are set, but when I think of set in one's way, I think of people who refuse change and/or technology. I don't think this is refusing change as much as following their religious beliefs. They realize that they are sentencing their children to death. They don't need a doctor to tell them that. They know that without transfusions, their child will die. They also know that according to their religion, that they don't have a real choice. Delusion and "ultra-rational"? That seems contrary. Religion is faith, almost a lack of rationality.
quote:Originally posted by Gena Forty-three states grant faith-healing parents immunity from prosecution on child abuse and negliect.
The reason they do so is because they recognize the absolute lack of malice. The stories that you shared about children who have died because their parents refused medical treatment are horrible. But they also make the news b/c they are so out of the ordinary. They are so few in number.
quote:Originally posted by Gena I strongly believe in the philosophy of "live and let live," this pertains to every aspect of other's life choices, including religion, and I would be the last person to tread upon another person's religion and deliefs. This does not mean that I condone, I merely accept. These beliefs (Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses etc.) are foreign to me, I will not even try to say that I understand them.
This is the point. We don't understand such beliefs, but we (on this forum) have almost univerally condemned JW because of our emotional response.
quote:Originally posted by Davdoodles in order to forego medical treatment, a parent's belief would need to be sincerely held.
No question that is where my position is coming from.
quote:Originally posted by Davdoodles There is a difference betweenm say, a Jehovah's Witness refusing to seek medical help in religious grounds, and a parent who simply fails to act when their child is criticall ill. Or is there?
The simple answer to this question is that yes, legally there is. The law recognizes that a JW acts in what they perceive to be the best interests of their child.
quote:Originally posted by Davdoodles So, they have a dilemma. There is not one possible course of action open to them, there are two. Where there are two possibilities, you must choose the lawful one. The most simple answer would be: "I could steal to feed my family, or I could get a job, and feed them that way.
JW believe that putting one's life ahead of God's law is fatal. Mark 8: 35-36. Thus, the are not really two possibilities open to them. We have already agreed that these are sincerely held beliefs. Therefore, there is only one real option open to them. God's laws and man's law. One is above the other. There is no real choice for someone's whose beliefs are true and sincerely held. For this reason, this is a bad analogy. There is no reason to believe that stealing is commended by a religion or the Bible (i.e., the Ten Commandments). There is a reason to believe the blood transfusion thing.
quote:Originally posted by Surgeon What reasons might there be for a parent NOT getting medical care for a sick child?
I agree the situation we are looking at are the 5th and 6th. For JW, it is really only the 6th. They don't believe in non-scientific treatment (unless you consider non-blood tranfusion alternatives.) A few other comments. I'm not aware of a general rule that a child's legal custody can be stripped from the parents if a court believe that a child's health is at risk b/c they are JW and won't administer medical treatment. The court temporarily makes such decisions in the child's best interest, but the state does not resume responsibibility for a JW child, though it regularly does for parents who simply fail to act for no reason. You answered the why yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Surgeon Because this country was founded on the separation of church and state, and because of an extremely strong desire to protect religion from interference by the state, the US has allowed religions great latitude under the law. If the US wishes to protect these values the government must not disregard sincere religious beliefs no matter how noxious or illogical others may find them.
quote:Originally posted by The Tableist I would feel bad if there was some parent going around thinking their child was going to hell, but ... it's just appaling that they will let their kid die based on a religious belief that, frankly, I don't see as being very valid or accurate.
But this is my point, they honestly do believe that their belief is valid and accurrate. Just because you do not doesn't mean anything in terms of whether their beliefs are sincerely held, or, even if they are right. You can't attack the position and their beliefs because you don't believe it. If the government does that, it violates the separation between church and state. The state can't say that JW are invalid or inaccurate. Even if it secretly believes that.
quote:Originally posted by Curly Just as their beliefs cannot be proven correct, they cannot be proven incorrect.
You don't have to make that argument. It's enough that such beliefs are sincerely held. And the question is, what right does the state have to tell them what they can and cannot practice relating to their religion. And what right does the state have to tell parents how they can and cannot raise their respective children. BTW, your argument about "if god didn't want us to use them, we wouldn't have them" and nuclear weapons statement really thought provoking. Now I want to go and see where else that fits into my life!
quote:Originally posted by Surgeon In the state of Kansas if a JW seeks medical care and refused blood transfusions the doctor performs battery on the patient.
I think I already explained about why if a doctor performs any medical procedure on a patient without that patient's consent he performed a battery. That's not just in Kansas, by the way, but the legal definition of battery in every state. Any touching, without consent, is a battery. By the way, did you know that there is an entire JW organization solely dedicated BECAUSE of the Watchtower's stance on blood transfusions?
quote: Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood (AJWRB) has worked to promote reform of the Watchtower Society's (WTS) blood policy
Who knew there was all this dissent among JW? Anyway, I point this out b/c it appears that the Watchtower literature isn't necessarily the only view, and the view in relation to this debate is exactly opposite of other JWs. So we have to perhaps take both positions with a bit of skepticism. Though I concede, if you've talked to JW recently, you are actually one steo ahead of me in this debate. All my information is online, and from my sister's friend in relation to her own position, not this one.
But anyway, those other JW do, in fact, believe that in getting a court order, you have foreclosed heaven to them. They do not subscribe to the Watchtower's position, which is a bit updated to include life saving techniques.
Actually, in the U.S., imo, religion is the most carte blanche right we have. And the Bush administration is taking that away from citizens, so that's not saying much.
Now some other thoughts In the United States, freedom includes the right to do the irrational, stupid, even the wrong. Courts are forced to honor irrational choices that may even cut against a decision-maker's best interests. Even if that decision will result in death. We have all agreed that parents should have that right, but we get emotional when a child is potentially in danger. Why is that? We allow parents to make other decisions relating to raising their children and don't question them. Parents decide whether to raise their children Catholic or as athiests. We accept that. Why do we condemn this decision? Because we don't like the result? Where can that line be drawn? And does the state have the right to draw it? Legally speaking, when there is a death, the state has a right to intercede and punish the wrongdoer. But if the state has already decided that such parents have immunity, then they haven't done anything wrong. They haven't done anything that they can be punished for. So the state does not have the right to take over that in the best interests of the child. The state has already determined that if the child dies, the individual did nothing wrong.
The law also assume that parents act in the best interests of their children. We do so when Amish take their children out of school, or parents send their kids to reform school. That is the starting point of the law. Therefore, to say that JW are somehow different and do not, in fact, act in the best interests of their children is to discriminate based on their religion.
JW absolutely believe, without question or hesitation, that if they have a blood transfusion, they cannot enter heaven. Therefore, the state, in forcing a child to have a transfusion, they are condeming them to a fate that JW believe is eternal damnation.
The simple fact is that the state is acting in forcing the individual (or their children) to undergo to blood transfusions. In the United States, separation between church and state is absolute. Therefore, states can't interfere in one's religion, even when they do not agree with it, even when the results of that religion are negative. The state does not have the right to interfere.
Again, JW believe that putting one's life ahead of God's law is fatal. Mark 8: 35-36. Therefore, they accept death for themselves. Since this is what they belive, they also belief that putting their children's lives ahead of God is also fatal. I think that is is easier to let go of one's religious beliefs when tested in they manner, and save their child; it is easier to have the earthly pleasure of their child and not have the pain of their loss. But they stick with their beliefs, telling themselves that they do not have the right to question their God. That isn't selfish; quite the opposite.
Finally, even if you believe the children cannot make the decison, and therefore, the state should intercede...What age would you suggest that we allow children to make that decision? If children as young as 14 can be sentenced to life in prison b/c we recognize the are mature enough to form criminal intent, we have to allow children of that same age to refuse medical treatment. We cannot decide that they are mature enough to spend the rest of their lives in prison b/c they are mature enough, but at the same time, not mature enough to make this decision.
s-
Ok, I really did try to present a debate in favor of the Jehovah's Witnesses. In reading this over, I clearly failed; it lacks any type of convincing arguments. I apologize to the JWs, and if anyone can make a strong argument - and I know that there are strong arguments - then please, take up the mantle here.
*** I would rather die of thirst than drink from the cup of mediocrity. *** A man can't deny what he is. He can convince everybody else he is someone else, but never himself.
Hey, I have no problem debating myself! 
But I will reply to this impressive, time consuming (I'm sure) analysis. I leave with a question though - if a tenat of Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs is that blood transfusion are against God's will and if they have a blood transfusion they will not be admitted to heaven, what right does the state have to force a blood transfusion on a child, essentially barring that child from heaven, according to their beliefs? Until later...
ked). Most of us agree that if we were in surgeon's place we would have chosen simlar ways of responding to such patients, provided we agree on the morality of said desisions. But what if we were to learn afterwards that in doing so we had in fact barred that child from ever entering heaven and eternally seperating him/her from their loved ones?
But I've been checking these debates so that I can respond once I get more time - I hope this weekend. 
Religion is faith, almost a lack of rationality.