Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

[Marked 197]

This topic is about Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses allow transplants but the faith is strict in rejecting the inevitable blood transfusions

 

Due to this aspect of their faith, if ever a guardian (usually the parent) needs to give consent on whether or not the patient in question can have a blood transfusion, in most cases they say no and this results in Doctors having no choice but to let them die.

 

The was a recent case in New Zealand about a 2 year old who needs a Kidney transplant + blood transfusions, but without the blood transfusions she's going to die (she's currently being kept artificially alive in hospital). Her parents refuse to let her have them. The health board took it to the High Court and this was the result

 

Justice Winkelmann ruled that the girl should be placed under the court's care but both her doctors and her parents would be appointed as agents for the court.

 

The doctors would be in charge of giving consent and treating the girl as they saw fit but her parents would be in charge of all other aspects of their dau)ghter's life.

Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7280558/Judge-steps-in-to-save-sick-girls-life

 

So I want to know what a few of you think about the decision, and generally this aspect of Jehovah's Witnesses in general (not the validity of religion itself, i don't want one of those pointless debates).

 

To sum up:

-What do you think about parents placing faith before the lives of their own children?

-Most of us have the right to refuse medical treatment. Should we allow parents to reject life saving treatment to a child in any circumstance?

-How far should the law go in protecting the right to faith? What if I created a faith where I killed all the non-believers? Where is the line drawn?

-If not for the courts action, the 2 year old girl would die.

The doctors estimated that she had a greater than 50 per cent chance of a transplant being successful and, if successful, she would have a normal life expectancy and quality of life.

Do you support the courts ruling?

[isaacsol 10]

To sum up:

-What do you think about parents placing faith before the lives of their own children?

-Most of us have the right to refuse medical treatment. Should we allow parents to reject life saving treatment to a child in any circumstance?

-How far should the law go in protecting the right to faith? What if I created a faith where I killed all the non-believers? Where is the line drawn?

-If not for the courts action, the 2 year old girl would die.

 

Quote

 

The doctors estimated that she had a greater than 50 per cent chance of a transplant being successful and, if successful, she would have a normal life expectancy and quality of life.

Do you support the courts ruling?

 

To answer your summary with my own views (as a parent).

 

- I am a faithful person (Orthodox Israeli Jewish), but I would do everything in my power to interpret my faith in a way that would benefit my children's life and if that isn't possible, I'd take my children's life over my faith. To me, their life is more important (and I think G-d would agree there).

- As a parent of children who have epilepsy (and a person with the condition also), I would never reject any life saving medical treatment, or any treatment for that fact that would help them unless I was sure it wouldn't help them or the chances of it working were too low for it to be worthwhile.

- The right to faith should be allowed as long as it doesn't contravene anything to do with the law. Most religious law is that out of date it is hard to follow any more anyway and many doctrines are also a bit out of date too.

- I do support the court's ruling as the parents have the responsibility to look after their children and to seek medical help when they are ill if it is available. People who believe in G-d (in Abrahamic religions) should believe in the sanctity of life, so they should seek to preserve their children's life in respect of this.

[Joko 1]

I think what the court ruled should be a new law. Doctors should always be able to say what's best " in the medical side" for the patient, seeing as I don't think parents should be allowed to basically give their child a death wish when they could of easily been saved. It's complete BS and it enrages me that parents are allowed to choose what a doctor can do for their child when they don't have a medical degree.

 

A child's live should always be worth more then their "parents" religion.

 

*edit* made it a little cleaner so you can read through my rage.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Joko

[ForeverZer0 44]

My line of thinking is pretty much the same as isaacsol's, as is the 99+% of other people.

 

This case made headlines because it is an exception to the norm, not because there is some epidemic of religious zealots indirectly killing their children. To say that parents should have their rights removed pertaining to their child's medical care is opening a Pandora's Box that will lead to much more bad than good. If it comes down to a definitive life-death situation, then I don't disagree that some form of intermediary should have say in the decision, but other than that, the decision SHOULD be in the hands of the parents. The world needs to use more common-sense instead of the need to set strict guidlines and regulations on every thing. You can't generalize and change an entire way of doing things because of a few minor exceptions that are far removed from the norm.

[Marked 197]

*edit* made it a little cleaner so you can read through my rage.

I saw this on tv where the parents let their daughter die who was nearly an adult herself. She was in a car accident or something. The fact she was older just made it so much worse, she would have been thinking about her future, uni, etc. And to satisfy their own faith they decide that she is to die. And that's how I look it. The loss of life is so preventable and you intervene, then you're responsible. It sickened me.

 

It truly is a primitive part of their faith. I think the law should step in and prevent them from making these decisions in relation to their children. I have no problem with them making the decision about their own blood transfusions.

 

- I am a faithful person

Most religious law is that out of date it is hard to follow any more anyway and many doctrines are also a bit out of date too.

I couldn't help but notice this Isaac :P I can't help but read this like you're a person of faith and acknowledge that its man made?

[FranklinX 37]

They sound like very bad parents. I would put my child before my faith. If your faith infers with your well being then maybe you should question your faith.

[isaacsol 10]

I couldn't help but notice this Isaac I can't help but read this like you're a person of faith and acknowledge that its man made?

 

Scripture is man made, whether given to you by G-d or not, some person has written it down and translated it no doubt. At some point it has been corrupted and after a while, become antiquated.