[AUS] Jehovah's Witness boy ordered to have transfusion
The parents should be allowed to make the decision, not the state. His rights are being violated; even if he's nuts.
In this case I agree, but only because he is 17 and should decide for himself. If he were 18 no one would care.
But what do you think of very young children that don't really have a serious religion yet, such as children aged 2? Should the parents be able to refuse such a child treatment? I'm not a big fan of the government interfering in personal matters, but there are cases were people may not have their child's best interest at heart.
Ironic ... a devout Creationist insists on exercising his religious freedom, and thereby wins the Darwin Award.
One less for the gene pool.
And one less for the meme pool... one fewer person spreading creationist lies.
I also think creationists should be offered the old TB medicine as a choice, since many don't believe the virus has evolved to resist it anyway.
Basically, it's more of a statement.
In other words, it means: it doesn't really matter what he thinks. He can't think anything because he's dead and the death is as a result of his own actions.
OliveOilMom
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
When I worked in NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) every so often we would have a JW family with a baby in there who needed blood. The way it usually worked was the neonatologist would explain to them what the baby needed and why and what would happen if he didn't get it. She would tell them that she understood that it's against their religion to allow blood to be given to their baby but she could get other doctors to sign off on it to override the parents wishes and give the baby the blood, that way the parents didn't have to go against their religion, but their baby wouldn't die. In all but one case that worked just fine. Most parents were very happy that it could be done that way, with a loophole, giving them a clear conscience and their baby getting the blood. Yes, it's very hypocritical but your childs life is much more important than following your religious beliefs, at least to almost every parent we had in that situation. Most signed the paper they were given saying they do not consent to the treatment and it was being performed under protest but they were perfectly ok with it because it saved their baby. One family actually made a big stink and tried to legally stop it but their baby died from other complications before it all blew out of proportion. He was very premature and the prognosis wasn't good to begin with.
I think that really until you are 21 or over, you shouldn't be able to decline life saving medical treatment. Even though at that age you can legally sign up to go to a foreign country and get shot in a war, even though you can legally do lots of dangerous or stupid things, I don't think that a 21 year old can fully grasp the whole idea of "if you don't do this you will die" on an emotional level even though they can on an intellectual one. While this isn't life or death, my oldest son couldn't pee after he got his appendix out. He was 20 and in the hospital and they would let him go home after he peed. Anesthesia sometimes makes it hard to go afterwards and you need a catheter for a while. His bladder was so full when the nurse ultrasounded it that she said it could literally burst if they didn't cath him or do a SPA. He did not want either the catheter nor the needle into his bladder through his abdomen and he refused. I was there and the nurse was upset because he was being irrational, the doctor was in surgery and it could take an hour or two to get him to come get it signed off on, and meanwhile his bladder was getting fuller and fuller. I told her to go ahead, I'd give permission. He said no. She said she can't actually take my permission since he's over 18 but his bladder would burst soon if something wasn't done. He said no. She explained what the results of that would be and the repercussions for him the rest of his life and he still said no. She was upset, I was upset, my son wasn't making sensible decisions and I told her that I'd take whatever consequences came from it but go ahead and put the damn catheter in. He said no. She used the portable ultrasound again. She went and got the catheter and put it in him while he was still saying no and squeezing my hand so hard he almost broke it but not fighting her because he couldn't move his arms really because he had an IV in one and a huge phobia about that. I told her that he wasn't going to sue anybody, he wasn't going to file a complaint at the hospital, he wasn't going to do anything except get better and go home. He was mad, but his bladder did not bust and he was able to go home the next morning I believe. He got over his mad within a few hours when the same nurse told me she would look the other way while I took him downstairs in a wheelchair so he could smoke. (that dr doesn't ever give permission for his patients to leave the floor to smoke and my son was throwing temper fits about it). So, if a kid can't really make a decision that would save his bladder and prevent a whole lot of problems in later life just because he's afraid of a little pain, I'd be pretty sure that he is in no position to decide whether or not he will go through something to stay alive.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
I think that really until you are 21 or over, you shouldn't be able to decline life saving medical treatment. Even though at that age you can legally sign up to go to a foreign country and get shot in a war, even though you can legally do lots of dangerous or stupid things, I don't think that a 21 year old can fully grasp the whole idea of "if you don't do this you will die" on an emotional level even though they can on an intellectual one. While this isn't life or death, my oldest son couldn't pee after he got his appendix out. He was 20 and in the hospital and they would let him go home after he peed. Anesthesia sometimes makes it hard to go afterwards and you need a catheter for a while. His bladder was so full when the nurse ultrasounded it that she said it could literally burst if they didn't cath him or do a SPA. He did not want either the catheter nor the needle into his bladder through his abdomen and he refused. I was there and the nurse was upset because he was being irrational, the doctor was in surgery and it could take an hour or two to get him to come get it signed off on, and meanwhile his bladder was getting fuller and fuller. I told her to go ahead, I'd give permission. He said no. She said she can't actually take my permission since he's over 18 but his bladder would burst soon if something wasn't done. He said no. She explained what the results of that would be and the repercussions for him the rest of his life and he still said no. She was upset, I was upset, my son wasn't making sensible decisions and I told her that I'd take whatever consequences came from it but go ahead and put the damn catheter in. He said no. She used the portable ultrasound again. She went and got the catheter and put it in him while he was still saying no and squeezing my hand so hard he almost broke it but not fighting her because he couldn't move his arms really because he had an IV in one and a huge phobia about that. I told her that he wasn't going to sue anybody, he wasn't going to file a complaint at the hospital, he wasn't going to do anything except get better and go home. He was mad, but his bladder did not bust and he was able to go home the next morning I believe. He got over his mad within a few hours when the same nurse told me she would look the other way while I took him downstairs in a wheelchair so he could smoke. (that dr doesn't ever give permission for his patients to leave the floor to smoke and my son was throwing temper fits about it). So, if a kid can't really make a decision that would save his bladder and prevent a whole lot of problems in later life just because he's afraid of a little pain, I'd be pretty sure that he is in no position to decide whether or not he will go through something to stay alive.
That was an excelent post! An example ilustrating why kids under 21 can't always decide what's best for them in a responsible manner. We're all idiots when we're 18 or 20 (sorry to the people here of that age; you'll understand that in a few years; just like you look at when you were 12 and think you were a stupid imature kid).
The idea that government interference is bad in its nature is what's reaaaaaaaly stupid. If a government intervention is reasonable enough to save a life (without being at the expense of another), that is intrinsicaly good. In this case, the kid is just brainwashed or too dumb to make a good life or death choice. The governmwent should protect him just as people in mental institutions that are in an acute psychotic break are put in a room with pillows on the walls and with the jacket put on, so that they don't harm themselves.
Not legally.
The law doesn't affect someone's ability to know what they're doing. Whether the law thinks he is old enough is irrelevant to whether he actually is.
If someone declines lifesaving treatment at 20, what makes you so confident they'll accept it at 25? Or 40?
I think the law should be consistent, at the very least. If someone is old enough to consent to having sex or taking drugs, and the consequences that come from their decisions, then they're old enough to make medical decisions. In fact, the age of consent for sex should be higher than that for drugs, since the potential fallout directly affects more than the individual concerned...? Anyway, I digress, apart from saying that if someone is old enough to risk parenthood, they're old enough to make other important decisions about their life.
Kraichgauer
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,185
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Then again, where would you draw the line? Committing people to psych wards because their beliefs forbid them from having rejuvenation therapy to extend their life?
If someone wants to commit suicide by refusing treatment, then I don't think there's much one can do to stop them...
This is a particular problem with Jehovah's Witnesses.
I think that any life-threatening decisions made on religion is no longer a religious matter, but a mental health issue (as you say).
The parents should be allowed to make the decision, not the state. His rights are being violated; even if he's nuts.
In this case I agree, but only because he is 17 and should decide for himself. If he were 18 no one would care.
But what do you think of very young children that don't really have a serious religion yet, such as children aged 2? Should the parents be able to refuse such a child treatment? I'm not a big fan of the government interfering in personal matters, but there are cases were people may not have their child's best interest at heart.
I would let the parents decide.