Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
A deadly verdict
A 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness died from leukemia Wednesday after a judge ruled that the state couldn’t force the boy to have a blood transfusion, even though it might have saved his life.
The case forced the judge into a difficult balancing act: weighing Lindberg’s right to make his own decisions with the need to protect him, medical ethics experts said. Adults have the right to refuse medical treatment, and courts typically will defer to the decision of a child’s parent or legal guardian, said Sharona Hoffman, co-director of the Law-Medicine Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
But courts have frequently forced young children to have blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah’s Witness parents. Several ethicists questioned whether a 14-year-old was mature enough to decide to refuse treatment.
“The critical question is: Was this decision voluntary and knowing?” said Robyn Shapiro, director of the Center for the Study of Bioethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
“These issues give me pause,” she said. “I’m surprised and I’m concerned” about the judge’s decision.
What do you think about the judge’s ruling?
back to top58 Comments to “A deadly verdict”
I can remember back to when I was fourteen. I am sure that I would have wanted to make my own decision about the matter.
I think that if I were having to judge the case, I would want to be as certain as possible that the boy understood the risk, that he understood what death is, and that nobody was coercing him. If those things were true, I’d rule in his favor.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Kyle. I don’t like it, but if he’s sincere and uncoerced with the support of his legal guardians then the state has no business interfering. There’s no social interest that would justify interference. Indeed, the fact that such foolish people are taken out of the gene pool probably means the decision is for the best.
Report comment to moderator
I was briefly thought to be seriously (possibly fatally ill) at his age. I had vehement arguments with various doctors about possible courses of treatment. The doctors were often surprised I was more than reasonably informed about my situation and my choices.
I was a believer even then, and can remember my parents (who were nominal believers at the time) being far more distraught than I. I understood the risks, understood death, and so forth.
Thanks be to God, we finally found an expert who who ran conclusive tests to determine I would be fine. (For those who are curious and/or know how to Google, I have unilateral nonprogressive hydrocephalus).
Report comment to moderator
So the child was allowed to commit suicide based on religious beliefs? This is certainly a difficult case. Both sides of the debate could use the stupid “slippery slope” argument.
I consider this case a suicide since intervention may have prevented his death. Intervention was denied and the child died.
Sad. I hope the family is at peace. The boy’s spirit is now in the hands of a merciful and loving God.
My understanding of the Jehovah’s Witness faith is that only 144,000 individuals are truly saved. The rest of the just are resurrected and remain on Earth. The unjust simply cease to exist. Am I correct on this?
Report comment to moderator
I also agree. I was fourteen when I chose to convert from the vague spirituality of my mother and the liberal love-your-neighbor-but-believe-what-you-please religion of my father, to belief in the Bible and that Jesus died for my sins – much to my parents’ dismay, as they considered the fundamentalist Baptists I joined to be self-righteious obnoxious bigots.
I eventually came to see that fundamentalist church in a more critical light myself (they are extreme even for fundamentalists, and criticize fundamentalism for compromising too much with churches that do not adhere to the Bible as strictly as they do). But that was a decision I came to on my own, as a result of observing the church as an insider, not from being taken away from it by force.
Perhaps if the boy had been forced to have the transfusion, and if he had lived more than the five years he might have lived with the transfusion and other treatment, he might have come to change his beliefs later. But it’s also possible that the coercion against his strongly held beliefs would make him hold them even more strongly, and greatly resent what had been forced on him.
Report comment to moderator
Now he’s in heaven, right?
Report comment to moderator
Steven: “Indeed, the fact that such foolish people are taken out of the gene pool probably means the decision is for the best.”
Thanks for showing us your true colors.
—————————-
Theo Godwyn, he didn’t actively take his own life, he refused medical care. We had better make a clear distinction between those two things in our society.
I have a sister who is enduring cancer treatment. Her cancer is pretty far advanced, and she just recently said that if the radiation treatments she just had were to go on longer, she could not have faced it. If she reaches a point where she no longer wants her treatments–for whatever reason–she will have my full support.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle, if you can demonstrate that societies are improved by stupid people I’d be happy to listen.
Report comment to moderator
Stephan, Why specifically do you call Dennis Lindberg “stupid”?
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure about this one. Certainly an adult has a right to refuse life-saving medical treatment (for any reason, IMO — it would be unfair for the state to declare that only religiously informed reasons are valid).
But it would be the rare 14 year old boy who is emotionally and intellectually mature enough to make that decision. In 3 years of teaching 8th graders, I’ve only met one who I might consider mature enough to decide such a matter for himself.
But this puts the state in the uncomfortable business of deciding who is mature and who isn’t. Which leads me to see two possible solutions:
1) The federalist approach. An absolute age limit of majority. 18, at which you are an adult and can legally make adult decisions. No exceptions.
2) The “constitutional” approach. The boy’s parents have responsibility for him, which may only be superseded in rare cases by a local authority (like the community’s lower court). The state and federal courts have a responsibility to uphold the rulings of the lower courts — even if they personally disagree — unless they see evidence of mistrial.
I prefer the second. Tough issues require local decisions.
Report comment to moderator
JJF:
Bravo, right down the line. But I’d like to offer two observations:
1) In all likelihood, the boy probably didn’t “decide” this one himself, but under the auspices of his parents. If they are devout JWs and raised him in that religion, we would expect both the boy and his parents to hold the same aversion to blood transfusion.
2) I see no “either/or” dichotomy between your federalist and constitutional approaches. It can be both.
Before the child reaches the age of majority, the parents (not the State, in the majority of circumstances) get to make such decisions. After he reaches 18, he makes his own decisions.
(But since I don’t see the two options as being mutually exclusive, and you apparently do, perhaps I’m misunderstanding your point. Would you clarify for me?)
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
I agree that active suicide and passive suicide are different. Both could technically be classified as suicide since the individual is intentionally terminating his/her own life.
Are all suicides wrong? This is a moral, ethical, and religious discussion.
Factors such as quality of life, pain, and prognosis should be considered. So there is no one answer to this question. A 90 year old cancer victim being kept barely alive on life support and heavy pain medication is different from a child who will die if forbidden treatment for religious reasons. Since no medical details were provided for the 14 year old boy it is difficult to know whether the decision was right or wrong. Perhaps it was very unlikely that he would survive the procedure or that his leukemia was highly advanced. In these cases, perhaps an honorable death following the precepts of his faith was preferable to a slower death in opposition to his beliefs.
The question in this case is whether a 14 year old should be allowed to end his life and who has the right to prevent it.
I prefer JJF’s second choice as well although I see a potential for cases that are not resolved in an expediant manner.
Report comment to moderator
When I read the first account of this, it was reported that the boy was influenced by his Aunt, a devout Jehovah’s Witness, who for some reason was his legal guardian. The child’s parents wanted him to have the transfusion but due to the complicated and unstated legal issues were prevented from interfering in his decision.
Tragically the prohibition of transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses depends on a misunderstanding of the Bible’s commandment against murder expressed in English as “thou shallt not take the blood of another.” The boy died needlessly.
Report comment to moderator
Kevin, good catch. Given his beliefs it may very well be true that allowing himself to die was the best thing he could have possibly done. I will, however, stand by my assertion that I judge those beliefs of his to be foolish and therefore society to be better off with less people who hold to them.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen (sorry for typo last time), I’ll ask the obvious follow-up questions:
Why do you consider his beliefs to be foolish?
Why do you consider society better off without people who hold such beliefs? and,
Do you think anything should have been done based on your view of what is better for society?
My opinion is that it is a sad situation, but given that both he and his legal guardian were in agreement I see no basis for the government to intervene. I confess to being a bit curious about the guardianship issue, but it is what it is and his parents had no legal standing. It might be different if he was at odds with his legal guardian.
I think this aspect of JW belief is greatly and tragically misguided, but I defend their right to hold it.
Report comment to moderator
Theo,
Why is it “passive suicide” to refuse medical treatment? Blood transfusions haven’t even been available all that long; why does their availability bring a moral requirement to use them?
It is suicide to starve oneself to death. It would be suicide to inject oneself with a killer virus. But to find oneself dying and choose not to take medical treatment (esp. for religious reasons, no matter how misguided) is not suicide. The point in refusing the medical treatment is not an attempt to die.
For the record, I’ve long told my family that I don’t ever want chemotherapy or an organ transplant. Both of those seem, to me, in the cases I have seen, to be more cost, pain, and problems than the slight chance of saving a life is worth. Is that a “suicidal” decision? No, it’s a cost-benefit analysis. (And no, I don’t have any kind of illness that would warrant one of these treatments.)
Report comment to moderator
I too don’t know what to think. There are many ways of looking at it and each point would be valid. Ultimately I guess we have to trust that the court came to it’s best judgment based on the facts of his case. I only know that I’m sad that this young man got a disease that necessitated such a profound decision.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t people usually die from leukemia? What’s the big deal how they agree to be treated for this terminal illness?
Report comment to moderator
I too don’t know what to think.
And this is supposed to be news? You sit on the fence, Anlir, just like most Americans. You have yet to learn that, although there are two sides to every issue, it’s okay to pick one.
Report comment to moderator
I believe the family, with the their son had the RIGHT to make this decision. We have freedom of religion, and although I don’t believe what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, they have every right to refuse ‘blood transfusions’ –
I don’t consider this suicide at all, the JW’s believe it is wrong, and they have that right –
Cheryl makes some good points – these are choices, which each person has the right to make.
A 14 year old boy, knowing the facts has a right to make such choices -
Report comment to moderator
#18 “Don’t people usually die from leukemia?”
Outkast,
No, not anymore.
Only 20 years ago, children diagnosed with leukemia had a 50 percent survival rate. Today, due mostly to clinical trials, the cure rate is 85 percent and still improving, says Valerie Castle, M.D., a pediatric oncologist and chair of the Department of Pediatrics at the U-M Health System. from http://www.leukemia-research.org/
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
It’s also OK to say “I don’t know,” and better to do that than to choose just for the sake of choosing.
Report comment to moderator
I think, it is really sad that a 14 year old teen has been taught not to value his life here on earth; and at such a young age.
Report comment to moderator
Who gets to decide which medical treatment is the correct one in the state required “you must accept medical treatment until the age of eighteen” theory?
Report comment to moderator
Kevin,
Don’t worry about the typo — I get it all the time and couldn’t care less, though I find it to be less aesthetically pleasing.
Why do you consider his beliefs to be foolish?
I don’t believe them to be justifiable.
Why do you consider society better off without people who hold such beliefs?
Perhaps it would be better stated that I would consider society to be better off if such beliefs were not held. Sensible people should subject their beliefs to rigorous critical examination and reject those which cannot be reasonably justified.
Do you think anything should have been done based on your view of what is better for society?
Yep. Stop trying to prevent people from dying if they choose to.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – “Ultimately I guess we have to trust that the court came to it’s best judgment based on the facts of his case.”
I think it sad that courts have any say whatsoever in these personal matters and the last thing I’d trust is the opinion of some judge hearing/reading/weighing depositions and then deciding exactly how it is that a young man should live his life—with or without disease. No one should have that much power given to them by the state.
When we abdicate liberty via our responsibility to make these personal decisions we will get and deserve the despotic regimes that will fill that void.
Report comment to moderator
Leukemia is no longer a guaranteed death sentence. The wonderful work of St. Jude’s in Memphis is testament to that.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Anlir. Your thoughtful and sincere response elicited a personal attack. I think it says more about the attacker’s inability to see things as having more than two sides than it does about you.
I agree this is a tough one to grasp. The kid obviously had deeply held religious beliefs that I think are foolish, but it isn’t up to us.
Report comment to moderator
Rond,
If I’m not mistaken, the judge agreed with you that it should be the individual’s choice. No?
Report comment to moderator
The judge shouldn’t have been involved in the first place. His choice doesn’t matter.
And how is anything I said “about” Anlir personlly? Or are you mistaken?
Report comment to moderator
RonD,
We live in a system, where if a dispute cannot be settled privately, we let the judiciary settle it for us. When one has multiple interested parties, as there was in this case, we Americans turn to the judiciary for help. If Americans don’t like that setup, we can change it I suppose. Until then, we accept it’s rulings as the best solution.
Report comment to moderator
We’ve become a society which now must run to the judiciary with every little squabble. When there wasn’t a trial lawyer lurking under every rock eager/needing to make a buck by going to court at the drop of every hat, we were a society that somehow managed to live with itself and it’s decisions. The system wasn’t always as it is now nor are we the better for it now.
Report comment to moderator
Rond,
In #28 I was referring to #19, not your respectful and thoughtful comment addressing the subject….
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, if an adult can make such a decision for himself, then why can’t an adult make such a decision for his child? And if the parent and child agree, then the court certainly shouldn’t be involved. (Somebody said something about parents in this case disagreeing, but not having custody, and that does make a court case probably inevitable.)
I’ve always felt that if I had a baby gravely ill with cancer or other probably fatal illness, I’d want to show mercy to the child and not treat aggressively. (I’m not saying I WOULD do that, since I haven’t been there, but I believe that would be best.) That should be a parent’s decision to make, NOT a judge’s. What makes a judge more qualified to decide than a parent? Nothing at all, and the judge has no legitimate jurisdiction.
Report comment to moderator
Yep, Some religions will just get you killed real dead licketty split – just for fun.
Report comment to moderator
Couldn’t they have transfused the boy after he lost consciousness and been protected under good Samaritan laws, or am I just not understanding how dying from leukemia works?
Report comment to moderator
I have to say that for a 70% chance of survival, if I had been the judge, I would have decided in favor of the transfusion and let them blame me if he survived.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, that’s an interesting thought. Given the situation it was probably considered to be a “Do Not Resuscitate” order.
NJL, I’m surprised to hear that response from you. Interesting.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – In your comment, #16, you say you would not want to have chemo.
I understand your position on this, but ask you to consider that these days not all chemos are harrowing experiences. And there are medications to help with nausea (though not all chemos make people nauseous).
A woman in our congregation several years ago had leukemia which had been treated, then returned. Part of her treatment the 2nd time around was chemo. Not only that, but we strongly believed that the Lord was helping her through the treatments. She could come home from a dose of strong chemo & bake a pie.
The 80-yr. old mother of a close friend has incurable bone cancer. (It’s a “really bad” type; I can’t think of the name.) She has willingly undergone some difficult treatments to give her some more time with her family. This lady has such a love of the Lord & love of life that even in her weakened state, she is still happy, & a blessing to those around her.
Now she is in a remission that the doctors say doesn’t happen with this kind of cancer. But we know God made it happen.
So I’d strongly suggest earnestly praying about it, if you should ever find yourself in this situation. It may be that God would want you to endure a difficult treatment, but would give you the strength to endure, or would lessen the effects. (Which is what He did with my husband when he went through radiation treatments for his prostate cancer.)
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to mention that the lady who had leukemia several years ago survived. She was cured & healed.
Report comment to moderator
Just one more piece of evidence that religious beliefs promote child abuse. There are a litany of others. I have seen many personally.
Now if he had had a teddy bear named Mohammed….
Report comment to moderator
I can hardly pass up the opportunity to comment on Outkast’s comments above.
This guy frequently rails against the loss of life that occurs in abortion. Yet he accepts the death of living 14-year-old boy with calloused disregard merely because the boy has a disease that is occasionally fatal.
Is it ok for a pregnant mother to say that she’s killing her child because her feminist/secularist religion counsels her to abort? But in this instance, a minor is denied the opportunity to live because his parents have brainwashed him with their cult-like belief system.
Under the First Amendment, people have the right to be members of cults. But they have no unfettered Constitutional right to urge their minor children to accept death from curable diseases. See Jehovah’s Witnesses v. King Cty. Hosp., 390 US 598 (1968); cf. Swann v. Pack, 527 SW2d 9 (Tenn. 1975), cert. denied, 424 US 954 (1976).
I find it interesting that evangelicals are willing to accept unnecessary death of a child when that death results from the parents’ practice of a conservative-friendly religion. But when the death of the child results from the parents’ practice of radical secularism, we express outrage.
Outkast proves once again that, for evangelicals, the central issue in abortion is not preserving life, but is preventing promiscuous sex. His callousness toward the death of this young boy belies his feigned concern for the lives of the unborn.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi – 14 is considered “old enough” for life and death decisions (a 14 year old girl can decide to have sex or to abort, why not a decision about one’s own life?). A little consistency on your part would be nice.
Report comment to moderator
Hamachitwo, I’m surprised that you’re surprised. Didn’t Jesus say something like the law was made for man, not man for the law? I’ve watched two elderly parents die. A hundred years ago, they wouldn’t have lived as long as they did, but if my 89 year old mother with Alzheimer’s had developed cancer, I doubt that I would have insisted that she have surgery or chemotherapy. There’s no point to putting a truly dying body through that. But this was a minor, not an adult making this decision. And that makes the difference for me. In a situation like this, I’d choose life. The kid had a 70% chance for 5 more years, and who knows what treatments would have been developed in that time. If he had been an adult with odds like that, I would probably think him stupid, but you have the right to be stupid as an adult, to refuse treatment, to belong to a cult, to do all sorts of stuff.
I am offended by Kiyoshi’s comment: “I find it interesting that evangelicals are willing to accept unnecessary death of a child when that death results from the parents’ practice of a conservative-friendly religion. But when the death of the child results from the parents’ practice of radical secularism, we express outrage.” This “evangelical” doesn’t accept either decision. And to say that abortion results from practicing the religion of secular humanism — well, it doesn’t. A society that kills its young is a callous society.
Legal arguments can be made for either side, but this isn’t simply an intellectual argument. I don’t understand how a judge faced with those 70%odds could look at a mother and say fine, the kid understands what he’s doing. Even if you really want to hang your hat on the free exercise clause, I personally would have ruled in favor of the transfusion and let some other judge reverse me on appeal. I would have worn that reversal as a badge of honor.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: “The state and federal courts have a responsibility to uphold the rulings of the lower courts — even if they personally disagree — unless they see evidence of mistrial.”
What? Evidence of a mistrial? But mostly, what if the lower court is wrong???????
Report comment to moderator
‘a society that kills its young is a callous society’
word salad thrown out with the contents of the chamberpot as Johnny goes a-marchin off to war.
Kiyoshi you nailed it.
14 years old is not old enough to legally have sex in many states.
one more reason that religion = child abuse.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
I said I was surprised by your comment simply because you advocate for judicial activism to restrict the practice of one’s religious beliefs. That’s all. I happen to agree that with the odds for success would lead normal people to undergo treatment, but people and their religions can lead to strange and irrational behavior. I agree with the judge, given freedom of religion, but understand why you disagree. You do not practice that brand of religion and feel the boy should have not been allowed to decide his fate based on his belief in God.
Report comment to moderator
Karen O., I do understand that situations differ. If I had children, I’d go for a few extra years of life. If there was a good reason to believe chemo would save my life AND it wouldn’t be excessive, I might go for it. I simply have seen too many people go through two or three miserable years of treatment and then die. My “default” position is thus no chemo.
I know that doctors are often less than honest about chemo too–people die from side effects of chemo all the time, but it’s not considered in survival rates because they didn’t die “from cancer.”
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer, a 70% chance of living five more years is hardly something to jump up and down about. For a simple procedure such as a blood transfusion, sure, most of us would do it. But let’s make it YOUR religious scruples that are in question. Let’s say that you will get a 70% chance of five more years with embryonic stem cells. Would you do it? Would you trust the judgement of a 14-year-old who said, “No thanks”?
I think such decisions really need to be left to parents, and that 14-year-olds are old enough to have a voice in such decisions (though I don’t think their voice should necessarily be decisive).
Report comment to moderator
One of the important considerations in this case was that the boy would need multiple transfusions over time in order to treat his leukemia and survive the needed chemotherapy. As the ethics director of the hospital (who I know and who goes to our church) said in an interview, when a teenager truly does not want a treatment, what do you do to force the treatment on them? Would you be justified in strapping him down, including his arms and legs, multiple times, to force transfusions on him?
This case is different from many transfusion-related cases which result from traumatic injuries and/or occur from a problem in surgery. Then the need for a transfusion is immediate and the patient themself is not conscious and/or cannot make a considered decision. This young man would have required many different transfusions over a long period of time, all while conscious.
I don’t agree with the JW teaching, but I think the judge made a correct decision in this case. I assume that they talked with the young man in private to make sure that he was making this decision of his own free will.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – That sounds better to me. Thanks for clarifying.
My dad, who did eventually succumb to cancer, had several rounds of chemo. His “positive attitude” got him through so much. In fact, his oncologist gave him 2 rounds more than the usual max, because Dad was so strong mentally & emotionally.
Even though Dad eventually died, I was thankful for the extra time with him.
I don’t advocate treatment at all costs for the sake of not dying, but rather doing all that is reasonable to not give up on living.
A dear lady, who has cancer, wrote to me, “One foot in the grave & still dancing.” I hope I have the same attitude if I ever face that kind of situation.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD, I’m an adult and therein lies the difference here. I wrote to President Bush when the first veto on embryonic stem cell research was on the horizon and told him I agreed with that decision. I have every chance of suffering with Alzheimer’s, diabetes. My mother had Alzheimer’s, her mother diabetes. My best friend’s mother had Parkinsons. We face all of those. My letter stated that I doubted these women would be in favor of embryonic stem cell research, they’d lived their lives, and my friend and I who face those diseases agree. I am mindful of what my old judge used to say: “find another way.” And that’s what happened with embryonic stem cell research.
I’m all for letting the parents decide: life for the sake of life alone in the face of extreme suffering probably isn’t the best choice. But the situation here is that the parents (who didn’t have custody for whatever reason) wanted to decide in favor of a transfusion for their minor child. Most of these situations do not end up in court. As someone noted, in this society, court is the forum for disputes such as these, and therefore a judge must decide. Many decisions are judgment calls. The judge I worked for made a decision as a single appeals court judge to allow someone to remain out of jail on appeal on a habeas petition. Technically, the law was that the guy should have gone back, and ultimately when a three-judge panel wrote the decision that’s how it came out. The truth is the guy was innocent of the crime he was serving time for, the govt. had withheld exculpatory evidence, and the way things played out he never went back to jail. In his judgment, the judge felt the guy would prevail at trial back in state court, and that’s what happened. The law isn’t always a “bright line.” Fundamental fairness comes first.
I still say if I had been the judge here, with these competing interests between the parents and the aunt, I would have decided in favor of the transfusion. The kid wouldn’t have violated his religious beliefs — I would have violated them, tipping the scales in favor of life as against his First Amendment rights. If the odds had been let’s say 30%, I may have, probably would have, decided the other way because that would have been a different factor in the decision. I’m not saying that the First Am. kicks in at 30%. I’m saying there are many factors that get different weight depending facts.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi (42): [Outkast] frequently rails against the loss of life that occurs in abortion. Yet he accepts the death of living 14-year-old boy with calloused disregard merely because the boy has a disease that is occasionally fatal.
Frank: “One of these things is not like the other …”
The JW boy acquired a disease that (I think) is always fatal if left untreated. The recommended treatment is against his parents and his own religious beliefs. Thus, the parents and the boy have declined medical intervention.
In abortion, on the other hand, the parent(s) are employing medical intervention to end the life of a person who would presumably is not dying.
In the first case, the child dies of a natural condition without medical intervention. In the second, the baby dies because of unnatural medical intervention.
The two are not the same, and thus Outkast’s clear and consistent thinking is, IMO, vindicated.
Report comment to moderator
Kiyoshi (42): Is it ok for a pregnant mother to say that she’s killing her child because her feminist/secularist religion counsels her to abort? But in this instance, a minor is denied the opportunity to live because his parents have brainwashed him with their cult-like belief system.
Frank: In the first case, the pregnant mother is taking action to end the life of her healthy child.
In the second, the parents are refusing action to save the life of the dying child.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that, because several of us are arguing in favor of the parents’ (and child’s) religious rights in this case, you might think that we agree with their actions. This is not the case — for me, at least. In my opinion, they are sinning by refusing medical treatment for their son, and will have to answer to God for it. But I’m unaware of a biblical argument that their actions constitute a crime — which is really just a sin which demands the intervention of the civil magistrate.
Biblically speaking, all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes.
I think that the root of some of our culture’s ills is a lack of trust that sinners will have to face God in the next life. E.g., we’d rather see somebody executed for a heinous murder, while not admitting the possibility that he could be innocent, rather than see the crime go unsolved and the perpetrator “escape justice.”
Man’s justice is necessary and commanded by God. But He also commands certain rules of evidence and testimony, many of which we have discarded to make it “easier” to get a conviction.
It is more just to see a guilty man go free because the case against him didn’t pass God’s rules of evidence and testimony, rather than to bend the rules just a bit because, after all, everybody knows the scumbag is guilty. IOW, a truly guilty person may escape man’s justice, but he shall not escape God’s justice.
So back to the case at hand. It is better to allow the family to decline medical intervention because of their religious convictions (thus protecting everyone’s religious rights) and trust that God will hold them accountable, than to allow the State to trample their (and thus everyone else’s) religious rights.
Report comment to moderator
#22: But Anlir never says “I don’t know,” but rather likes to sit on the fence — and therefore “have it both ways.”
My point therefore stands.
Report comment to moderator
I am a hospital chaplain. The difficulties in the case here-in referenced surfaced the day before this news story was made public.
Sadly, ethics in medicine have become a bit complicated. There are several standard “steps” that are followed in order to make a medically ethical decision.
But even when these specific issues are addressed & the “steps” followed, not all decisions are ethical or even moral.
When these decisions are made, Constitutionality must be considered. Generally, it is the Constitutional right of US citizens to practice their religion in the manner they choose.
I say “generally” because sometimes those religious freedoms are not permitted. The practice of smoking peyote comes to mind.
But there are other factors. The “rule of 7’s” is one. Between 0-7 years of age, the courts generally do not consider a child to be mature enough in his/her cognition to make the decision permitted to the 14 year old boy of this discussion.
Between 7-14 years of age, children are somewhat mature enough to make such decisions, but not all.
Between 14-18 years of age they are considered mature enough to understand the import of many deep issues, such as life & death.
Yet we know that the frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully mature until around 24 years of age. At that time most people have the physiological ability to make full, cognitive decisions.
We also know that there are some 14 year olds who make more mature & rational decisions than some 25 year olds.
Often a psychologist is called in to make a determination. But there are pitfalls with this, as no psychologist can make a certain decision about the psychological health of a person in only one, two, or even three sessions — about all the time usually given to these cases.
When it comes to this boy’s religious views, one would like to have questioned the boy out of the presence of his JW aunt, or any elder in their church.
There is a landmark court decision involving Jehovah Witnesses, that holds that we cannot know for sure that a child will choose to be/remain a JW when he/she turns 18 years old. Therefore almost 100% of the time, the children are given treatment against JW beliefs.
But even the JW’s split hairs. As medical technology has become more detailed, they are willing to accept some blood products, but not all. Will they accept more in the future?
We also do not know who brought the case to court. It was likely the medical facility, as they wanted to be sure that they were not going to be liable for the outcome.
It is a complicated thing to figure out.
Maybe there was religious coercion, maybe not. But if the boy was found by the judge to be of sound & rational mind, & in good emotional & psychological health, there would not be any good reason to violate the boy’s religious beliefs.
I personally do not agree with the JW’s not accepting blood based upon their mis-reading of scripture, just as I don’t agree with those Christian churches that refuse medical help of any kind, instead relying wholly on faith (another mis-understanding the clear teaching of scripture).
But I agree that they should have the freedom to make those decisions based upon their religious beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
I scrolled down the thread looking for the obvious and did not find it until #42 and then again in #46 by Erasmus. An individual’s religious sincerity is accepted at 14 but his sincerity in love is not? Old enough to refuse blood but young enough to be refused a beer. You can’t vote for your political rights but you have medical and religious rights. However, in America you can’t vote but they will let you sign up for the army before your 18th birthday and to make your life easier, an army recruiter can cruise your school.
Genetic testing can determine if a disease will occur post natal. Would JW parent’s be justified in an abortion since they knew the fetus would post natal acquire a disease which required a blood transfusion? Is abortion allowable if the fetus has a fatal disease? and if not, why not, especially given the support for this decision? I may support a woman’s right to choose but I marvel at the disregard for human life shown by some in the pro-life movement, ie pro-war, pro-death penalty, etc.
Report comment to moderator
hrw (57): I may support a woman’s right to choose but I marvel at the disregard for human life shown by some in the pro-life movement, ie pro-war, pro-death penalty, etc.
Frank: The difference between abortion on the one hand, and war and capital punishment on the other, is that the latter two are examples of legitimate action taken by the civil magistrate within the context of doing justice. I.e., he has the authority to call out/marshall the militia/troops to fight in the legitimate defense of the community or nation when they are unjustly attacked. He also has the authority to execute those who are found guilty of certain crimes, most notably murder. In both cases, the sword is being borne — violence is being resorted to — in response to unjust (i.e., aggressive) actions.
In the case of abortion, the mother is aggressing, not defending, against her own child, who has not been deemed guilty of any offense worthy of violence.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!