slimboyfat on this occasion I applaud the coercive power of the state in denying the teen the right to refuse a blood transfusion because would the 17 year old have felt the same about refusing blood if he'd been allowed to read something like the AJWRB website?
Jehovah's Witness boy fights court for right to die
by jwfacts 87 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Justitia Themis
In my view autonomy in matters relating one's own body is a very important principle, not to be disguarded lightly.
Legal
Valid point SBF; however, the young man’s autonomy is not being trampled because he is not yet autonomous. The state cannot trample what does not exist.
He will be autonomous when he turns 18 years old, and can make his own decisions. Until that time, his parents are his medical decision makers. If the parents are negligent medical decision makers, the state must step into their shoes.
A legal alternative to the above scenario is to rule him a mature minor, thereby granting him his legal autonomy early. To be deemed a mature minor, he must demonstrate adult-level decision making. Adults exercising good decision-making skills do ask the questions Besty outlined, and more. Being “cocooned” has hampered his ability to make good decisions by restricting his access to quality medical information, making him pro-blood information adverse, etc.
Nevertheless, even if he is a mature minor, his decision is coerced by shunning. Coerced decisions, made under duress, fail informed consent. Like adults, mature minors must provide valid informed consent to accept/reject treatment. Since he cannot provide valid informed consent, and his parents are making negligent medical decisions, the state must step in.
His minority is the dividing line that creates the different outcome between JW adults and minors in the coercion calculation. Adults are autonomous. They have the legal right to join a church, accept its theology, and subject themselves to shunning. Additionally, adults can refuse to exercise their informed consent rights, and can defer to a doctor's decision or a family member's decision.
Minors are not autonomous, and they lack the legal right to subject themselves to religious coercion; hence the state must step in.
Two different legal theories, but the same result: the state must step in.
Enforcement
This was an appeal from the decision that granted the Children’s Hospital the authority to transfuse. Likely, he has been receiving blood transfusions during this time, and most hospitals sedate the minor.
-
TD
Well if that counts as coercion, since every baptised Witness is subject to disfellowshipping, are all JWs are "coerced" to refuse blood?
Is there any doubt about that? What else are sanctions for noncompliance if not coercion?
On that basis should all JW adults also be forced to accept blood?
Of course not and isn't that a false dilemma? Removing the sanctions for noncompliance and declaring it a 'conscience matter' would not be coercive one way or the other, would it?
-
Justitia Themis
Well if that counts as coercion, since every baptised Witness is subject to disfellowshipping, are all JWs are "coerced" to refuse blood?
Is there any doubt about that? What else are sanctions for noncompliance if not coercion?
SBF raises the very same question that I recently debated with a pediatric bioethicists after a presentation I made at a local children's hospital.
As I stated in my post, the issue turns legally on whether the person is a legally autonomous person, over the age of majority. If they are, they have the right to subject themselves to a religion. It is not coercion if they subject themselves to the blood doctrine, and the law protects their decisions, both good and bad. They have the right to reject blood or believe in Santa Clause.
Those under the age of majority do not subject themselves, so it is coercion, even if the "cocooned" young person believes the theology. In such cases, the state must intervene to protect a minor's life if the parents, or the minor, are making bad decisions.
Or, as an oncologist friend just publicly posted on my fb page regarding this case: i have no issue when adults make decisions for their care no matter how stupid, but when it comes to vulnerable populations lik e children and teenagers, i have no tolerance for the church denying critical healthcare to them! and by the way, Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the highly curable cancers and has been the poster child for advancement in science and medicine
-
slimboyfat
I understand that legally a seventeen year old can be judged not to be autonomous, and therefore forced to receive medical treatment. That is of course clear. What I am saying is that I don't agree with it. Forcing a seventeen year old to have a(ny) medical treatment they don't want to have is nothing short of barbaric in my view. It doesn't matter how stupid anyone thinks his reasons are, it is his body.
-
jgnat
How about overdosing on alcohol to the point of poisoning?
-
slimboyfat
What about it?
Surely there is a difference between being forbidden a substance and being forced to undergo a procedure against your wishes. The first is merely a denial of a desire, whereas the second is an invasion and complete violation of your person. We should not blithely wish such powers in the hands of the state purely because its agenda happens to coincide with our own in this instance.
Whatever the legal age of majority in a particular jurisdiction, I simply find it ethically problematic to say that a seventeen year old should not have the right to determine what happens to his own body.
-
Justitia Themis
Forcing a seventeen year old to have a(ny) medical treatment they don't want to have is nothing short of barbaric in my view
Hhmmm...must disagree SBF.
Every civilized nation in the world forces treatment on people. Using your logic, every civilized nation in the world is barbaric.
They force treatment on the mentally ill when they, for whatever reason, seriously diverge from the treatment plans, and it gets them back on track. I have personally witnessed this multiple times. It saves the patients' mental health, and often their physical lives, and they are most appreciative afterwards.
There is no difference in forcing mental health treatment and life-sustaining blood transfusions. Both are groups of patients are not in a position to make the decision for themselves, and they need intervention.
I simply find it ethically problematic to say that a seventeen year old should not have the right to determine what happens to his own body
Some seventeen year olds are granted that right. In fact, most are because they and their parents are open to listening to all medical advice and considering all options. Sometimes, the parents and minors just disagree with their providers, and generally those decisions are respected.
However, if a parent or a minor said they refused treatment because they thought they would shortly be raptured to the tail of Haley's comet, the courts would likely not respect that medical choice. JW's reasonings against blood are hardly more rational. In such cases, one can argue that it is ethically improper for society not to intervene, and a possible violation of the physician's ethical duty to protect the patient, even from themselves.
Basically, this kid was an epic fail on the maturity-o-meter.
-
slimboyfat
But you are fine with the same boy choosing to refuse blood a few weeks later when he turns eighteen? Some psychiatric patients may be unable to express a coherent wish, in which case something must be done. That's not the case with this boy, the state simply disagreed with his view. Why should the state have such power to decide whose views in respect of their own body are valid or not.
Nations continue to do many barbaric things. (Lock people up for nonviolent crimes for example, or enlist seventeen year olds into the war machine, an even more relevant example) If the "every nation does it" defense was accepted, where would that have left slavery, torture, women's rights and gay rights?
-
Ruby456
you make some good points slimboyfat and this case does raise the issue of how far states can go. As I've already said I think the state made the right decision in this case because of the coercive and suppressive activities of the Watchtower.
In general though I agree with you and we need to be aware of the anarchic character of states in that they are a law unto themselves and history does show that barbarism is sometimes never far away. So I guess as citizens of anarchic states we need to be attentive to such issues as you are raising.