Scandal of December 2005 km

by IT Support 40 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jgnat

  Hi, Skeeter. I found an AMA case study that references Prince v. Massachusetts.

  http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/10811.html

  Here's an excerpt.

  It is distinctly more uncomfortable for them to report parents who clearly care for their children but hold personal, cultural or religious values that are at odds with those of the medical community [1,2]. There is a wide consensus in the medical profession and in the courts that even caring parents should not be allowed to refuse life- or limb-saving medications, transfusions, or procedures. Major difficulty often arises, however, in determining when the prognosis is sufficiently grave to warrant judicial intervention.

  When parents hold a religious belief that leads them to refuse treatment for a child, at least 2 levels of understanding are needed in an effort to reach agreement. The parents need to understand the clinical situation as clearly as possible. This may sometimes be facilitated or augmented by obtaining a second (or third) opinion. It is ethically permissible to try to persuade the parents using honest facts and clear opinions, though it could be perceived as harassment if attempts at persuasion are frequent or authoritarian.

  In addition, the health care professionals need to understand the religious belief as clearly as possible. These beliefs may sometimes be well understood and clearly articulated by the parents. It is often helpful, however, to involve a "religious translator" in the conversation, ie, a chaplain or perhaps another person from the parents' own faith tradition, and preferably a person with some depth of education and position of authority. One reason for utilizing such a resource person is that parents (or anyone) may sometimes focus on one religious tenet while ignoring a balancing tenet; eg, waiting for a miracle versus an obligation to preserve life and relieve suffering. A more objective look at the entire faith tradition may sometimes allow parents the freedom to consent to procedures without feeling they have abandoned the teachings of their faith.

  Too often JW parents pin their hopes on "medical miracles" to pull their children out of a life-threatening situation. They need to understand that abstaining from blood transfusions can kill their child.
• 

  caligirl

  This issue hits home personally for me. When I was 16, we were in a very bad car accident on the way home from an assembly. My sister almost died and I broke my back. I had 2 options: surgery, which would have had me up and walking again within 2 weeks, or a body cast, e but I chose not to have it because I knew it would make my parents proud that I stood up. In hindsite, the hell that my recovery was, I would have been better off with the surgery and a rod in my back.

  But the indoctrination is powerful, and I was more afraid of what others would think. Pretty sad. I think that the whole experience made me really think about what I wanted for my future..
• 

  heathen

  ((( balsam))) I'm so sorry to hear about your loss . I think it horrible that a church would interfere with health care and investigate something so petty as a blood transfusion . I don't think God ever intended people to die in that manner over the blood doctrine . They like to use the mosaic law as some sort of reason for this but that law is abolished. These people should learn to mind their own buisness on these matters and leave people in peace .
• 

  GoingGoingGone

  You can just image the parents of a suicide bomber telling their kid that they love them more than anything else in the world, but their eternal life is even more important, so they should go, with their blessing.

  The only difference is that a suicide bomber is of legal age.

  GGG
• 

  IT Support

  blondie, thanks for posting this old article. Some things never change.

  Severus, thank you for this. Do you have, or can you get, a scan of the article?

  hideme, thank you. Similarly, do you have, or can you get, a scan of the article?

  ((((Balsam)))) We can only guess at the despair and agonies you must have gone through.

  skeeter1, are you referring to the 1992 km article, or the 2005 one?

  The 1992 article specifically refers to the 1944 Supreme Court decision, in the context that parents do not have unlimited authority over their children medical decisions, which ties in with jgnat's case study.

  The 2005 article refers to a case in the Illinois Supreme Court over a mature minor's right to refuse blood.

  However, I didn't understand where the Society was lying. Would you mind explaining it in layman's language? Sorry if I'm slow following your line of reasoning! Many thanks.

  (I hope you and the family are now feeling better.)

  ((((caligirl))))

  ---

  Can anyone confirm that the article appears in the British and Australian kms?
• 

  cyber-sista

  As one poster mentioned earlier the thing about blood fractions. They are now a matter of conscience right? What about a child's conscience? Could a little child make a decision to use blood fractions? What about hemopure? Can a child be expected to make a complex medical decison when confronted with the trauma of life threatening situation when they are scared and in shock? this is too much. Poor little kids...

  cybs
• 

  wednesday

  One thing I know for sure is there are unwritten rules for faithful LOYAL JWS. Years ago I figured out that the "conscience" laws were a test. Loyal jws would always stay with the original ruling by the WTS. A loyal jws would never take a fraction of blood. Even if they can't DF you, a loyal jws knows that it is just unwritten, the WTS is having to make this a "conscience" thing b/c they are being tormented by apostates and lawsuits. Real, loyal jws stick with the org. and know those "conscience" areas are to protect the WTS from trouble makers . I once told and elder that and he said that was right, THEY know who is a real jws b/c the real ones know the unwritten rules. (or are not looking for loopholes) Amazing I could not see it was a cult . It was us against the bad guys.
• 

  hideme

  
  Hi IT

  Of course, I already scanned the article. How can I send it to you? Do you want it as a 'picture' or as a text document?

  Hideme
• 

  IT Support

  hideme, I've sent you a pm. (By the way, I forgot to mention before that was a great point you made about the ages of kids getting baptised.)

  A poster who didn't want to be identified sent me the text of par 2 of the Australian km:

  2. What Does the Law Say? In general terms, legislation in each Australian state allows a minor’s (anyone under 18) refusal to accept blood to be overruled where one or two doctors believe the minor needs blood to prevent his death or serious damage to his health. Several Australian Courts have said that if a child refuses to consent to treatment and has sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand the nature and implications of the proposed treatment, it is relevant and important. But this does not prevent the court from authorizing the medical treatment where it feels that the best interest of the child requires it. In many instances, however, even although the law may permit a minor’s refusal to accept a blood transfusion to be overridden, doctors have been disinclined to take this course where the minor shows that he is sufficiently mature to understand the gravity of his medical condition, the consequences of his treatment options, and can clearly and firmly express his personal objection to taking blood. Doctors or officials will likely interview the child to assess the measure of maturity that he has attained. The minor therefore needs to be able to express clearly his own religious belief concerning God’s law on blood.
• 

  diamondblue1974

  This basic principle was reflected in the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court decision that said: "Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves." This same primary concern for the child’s physical health and welfare is embodied in child-welfare laws today. These laws, which are aimed at child abuse, are also designed to protect children from medical neglect.

  
  

  
  These laws are there to protect children from the abusive religious views of their parents...as it quite clear from the judgement; how can this case be wrongly applied, the ratio is quite clear in this respect.

  In the UK our leading case has to be Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and Others [1986] AC 112;

  The House of Lords held that on occasions doctors can replace the views and opinions of parents as to what is in the childs best interests;

  Applying this principle a more recent case before our High Court was Re P (Medical Treatment: Best Interests) [2004] 2 FLR 1117 which held (albeit relunctantly) that although the religious views of a Jehovahs Witness should be taken into account and given serious consideration, where illness or injury became life threatening the Doctors should have a wide discretion to determine the childs best interests.

  Another fantastic case in my view is Re L (Medical Treatment: Gillick Competence) [1998] 2 FLR 810 which held that although [the 14 year old's] beliefs were sincere, they had not been developed through a broad and informed adult experience, but through her sheltered upbringing within the Jehovah's Witness community. She knew she would die without the treatment but had not been informed of the likely gruesome nature of her death. She was therefore not Gillick competent and it was in her best interests for the treatment to be carried out.

  I would like to see the legal argument as to how the courts got it wrong above!

  DB74