by jwfacts 87 Replies latest watchtower medical
But you are fine with the same boy choosing to refuse blood a few weeks later when he turns eighteen?
yes because the state has drawn a line in the sand at age 18 - one is then deemed old to enough to commit medical suicide for religious beliefs - up until his 18th birthday, common sense prevails
Again I am not disputing there is a line in the sand legally, I am disputing whether it is right. What you call common sense is simply the prevailing orthodoxy, imposed on docile bodies by the force of the state. I would not agree with the state violating people's bodies in other circumstances so I would not in this case either.
Slimboyfat, do you consider it a similarly unacceptable violation of the person, should medical personnel force activated charcoal down the gullet of an attempted suicide-by-pills/poison/alcohol? If such a person is discovered, and that one's life can still be saved, is it immoral to negate the individual's choice to die, by administering an antidote?
Of course. Why should the state have the power to decide whether we live or die?
SBF, I hope I do not raise your hackles, by continued questioning. I only wish to understand the scope of your objection to the external exercise of uninvited mediation of personal will.
So, to continue: Not the "state," but an individual counteraction of a suicide attempt - is it immoral that a friend/family member/chance discoverer should attempt to negate a suicide in progress (e.g., cut down a hanged man, administer CPR, or bind self-inflicted cuts to prevent a bleed-out).
I apologize if my examples are too graphic, and cause distress to any reader's sensitivities.
Situations are infinitely complex of course and I don't know how I'd feel about every scenario. To intervene to stop someone you love from harming themselves is understandable. It's the exercise of the power of the state on our bodies I object to.
Thank you, SBF. I understand that the minutiae of possible situations can bog down the development of an all-encompassing rule.
Yet, I believe that one of original fundaments of legislation is an 'everyman rule'. That is to say, state law starts with the codification of recommended or acceptable acts, as would ensue from the deductions and morality of the ordinary, "reasonable" man (of a given time and society).
Therefore, if "everyman" would find it reasonable and understandable to contravene the deathwish of a loved one, if able, then the state [with initial authorization by the consent of the governed] acts for "everyman" in considering all of its citizens as a member of the national, family body, and subject to imposed efforts at salvation - if possible. The state has been empowered to care for, and act upon the generally perceived good of its subjects (life preferable to death).
Again, thanks for engaging!
Life is not always preferable to death. We all know this, that's the problem. Who gets to decide in each case? I think the individual's autonomy with respect to their body and their life should be respected.
Life is not always preferable to death. We all know this, that's the problem.
This is undoubtedly true, which is why I framed the parenthetical as a "generally perceived good" - and not an absolute good.
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.
Oh, I can assure you that these patients violently and loudly express their treatment rejections! They are not drooling idiots. Additionally, the treatment to which I am referring includes four-point restraints on hospital gurneys and electro-shock therapy.
And now I'm a little confused. You have repeatedly said that age (arbitrary lines in the sand) is not your issue, but the power of the state. But now you raise his close proximity to eighteen as an issue.
Nevertheless, I don't care how close he is to eighteen. As my oncologist friend posted, this particular cancer is highly treatable. Likely, the forced blood transfusions he has already had while the appeal is pending (and until his upcoming eighteenth birthday) were (will be) enough to allow him to have the more aggressive cancer treatments. If so, then they have already saved his life.
However, if he had a disease that had little chance of survival (unlike here), and that would require numerous blood transfusions well past his birthday (unlike here), then I would be less likely to agree with a court order.
Why should the state have such power to decide whose views in respect of their own body are valid or not.
Here, age makes a dramatic difference. If the person is a minor, the state, under doctrine of parens patriae, is required to step in. If a minor's parents are making bad decisions for them, whether that be too agressive discipline, leaving them home unattended to too young of an age, or making life-threatening medical decisions, the state is required to step into the shoes of the parents, and to make those decisions.
As I wrote earlier, I do not agree that adult JWs are coerced in the necessary extent to overide their treatment objections, and the state should not step in.
Of course. Why should the state have the power to decide whether we live or die?
There are easily hundreds, if not thousands, of people around the world, saved from suicide but now living productive lives, who are happy your view is the extreme outlier in the world.
