Medical and moral dilemma. What would you decide?

by BeautifulGarbage 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  BeautifulGarbage

  A few of us last week were discussing the Hmong in chat. For those of you that don't know who The Hmong are, they are an Asian people that live(d) and farmed in the mountains of Laos. During the Vietnam war, they were recruited by the CIA to fight a secret war on behalf of the US in Laos. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the Hmong were sold down the river.

  Here's a link that explains what happened in more detail:

  http://www.jefflindsay.com/Hmong_tragedy.html

  Because of their fighting on the side of the US, they have been targeted for extermination by the governments of Laos and Vietnam. Many fled to refugee camps in Thailand and eventually immigrated to the United States. Primarily settling in California and Minnesota. Because they knew little of western culture, they have struggled greatly to assimilate into US society. For instance they, especially the elderly, use Shamanism to cure sickness. And only recently has their language had a written alphabet.

  It was also discussed that their culture was being taken away from them. Anyone that has lived close to a large Hmong population, like I did in Fresno, CA, usually has a "story" about Hmong customs that we here, in the US, find repulsive or bizarre.

  For instance: I recall one Hmong man causing quite a stir in a Fresno neighborhood because when his wife was ill. He sacrificed a puppy on his front porch. This was suppose to help her get better. I'm trying to stay away from the details because I know this is quite a sensitive issue with some people on this board, but needless to say, the cries of the puppy were heard by the neighbors.

  On the other hand, they do things that I quite admire. They have very close family relationships. Those that were born in Laos also have deep respect for the older (I am avoiding the word "elder") members in their community. They value their old people and will defer to their experience. However, this is getting lost as the Hmong born here, in the US, are growing up.

  After having the discussion in chat, I recalled a court case of a little Hmong boy that was born with a club foot. It made headlines when it occurred in Fresno Ca in the early 1990s. It poses quite a moral dilemma and I thought I would pose that dilemma to the board. Please don't be influenced by what other posters may write. Just base your opinion on the information I offer.

  A little boy has been born with a club foot. He's 3 years old. Surgery to begin to correct his malformed foot needs to begin ASAP. However, this boy is Hmong. His family is very suspicious of westernized medicine. To them, the boy has been born with this condition for a reason. That being, to atone for the sins of the family's ancestors. That's right, the little boy is made to suffer because of wrong doings by some dead relatives. Thus, to correct his foot would jeopardize the family's future. His parents are sincere in this belief.

  Now, the local county child welfare department, and the local children's hospital, take the family to court to get a court order to begin corrective surgery on this little boys foot. Time is of the essence because the older the boy gets, the more difficult it will be, if not impossible, to fix his condition. However, would the ability to run and jump be worth the price of being outcast by his local community, and probably his family?

  And so the legal wrangling goes back and forth. The family, along with their shaman, are adamant that the boy be left with his club foot. Of course, their is plenty of publicity about the case, and the public is dismayed that any parent would allow their child to grow up having to cope with such a disability, unnecessarily.

  Looking as if they are going to "lose", the Hmong family and their Shaman offer a compromise. They will consent to the operation if their Shaman is allowed to sacrifice a live chicken in the courtroom while court is in session (Yes, I'm serious). This will allow the family to escape any repercussions that might befall them otherwise. The boy will have a normal foot, the family will be safe, and the county child welfare will get what they want. Of course, can you imagine watching THAT on court TV?

  So, what would you do if you were the decision maker in this case? Fix his foot and have his family reject him? Or do you realize this condition is not life threatening and the love and support of his family is more important than being able to walk normally?

  Then again, there is always the sacrificing of the chicken.

  So, any opinions?

  Andee
• 

  willy_think

  I must say I don't understand this.
  It's not life saving surgery nor is it a surgery with a 100% success rate, he may or may not be able to run after the surgery.

  Try to get a club foot fixed without insurance and you will find your self begging for help. Not ordered by the court to make it happen now, because it would be more difficult for the doctors to do it later than now, or face charges.

  It is my opinion that if the boy was not on public assistance his family would not be taken to court to make the family buy this surgery for the boy. But because he is on assistance the government (child welfare department) believe they not the parents have the right to make choices as the authority over the family.
• 

  JanH

  BG,

  Then again, there is always the sacrificing of the chicken.

  Sacrifice the chicken. Millions of chicken are slaughtered to be eaten in the period it took to solve this court mess. One more, no problem.

  If such a compromise was not possible, I'd say force the operation. Just because a superstition is more exotic, it should not be allowed to force a child to live as disabled.

  - Jan
• 

  willy_think

  If an attempt is made to allow their Shaman, to sacrifice while court is in session an additional constitutional issue would be rased and the case would be in court too long to do the boy any good.

  The case hinges on the authority of the state.

  It would be more expedient, In my opinion, to persuade the shaman to perform the sacrifice off state land while court is in session.
• 

  hillary_step

  BG,

  What an interesting dilemma.

  As the World becomes an ever more compressed village and populations shift across physical and cultural boundaries these sorts of issues will become more common. Attempting to drag what are traditional tribal instincts, kicking and screaming from mountain villages into the C21st will result in the same chaos that Christianity has burdened itself with by trying to fit a C1st picture into a C21st frame

  I think the issue here is not so much about a club foot but as to whether a person should be allowed to continue practicing, for whatever reason, what is perceived by the majority population as anti-social behavior. I believe very soundly that they should not. By all means practice their religion, but if in doing so this violates the sensibilities of the majority of the population, then it should not be allowed. For example, female circumcision, a barbaric mutilation in the eyes of the Western World has for centuries been part of the culture of many primitive ( and I use that word with care ) societies. Should it be allowed to take place when a person from that culture transfers themselves into a Western cultural framework? Well, I would hope not.

  I well remember an incident in London in the late 70's when a Islamic sect cut the throat of a lamb as a sacrificial ritual, an everyday occurrence in their own land. The problem is that they did it in public, in broad daylight, in the gutter of a North London street with horrified neighbors watching. The Court later ruled that this activity was a violation of the accepted social standards of the majority population in England and subsequently such acts were outlawed, despite heavy protests about the violation of the right to free practice of ones chosen faith.

  America has a bad conscience over this particular group of people and had done its best to make amends by bringing them into its home and treating them as family, but imho this does not give them the right to behave as they wish. My own choice. Educate the children, do it quickly, eventually the parents will change.

  As to the immediate problem at hand: enforced surgery. No chicken. Set a legal precedent and every animist in the US will come out of his corner with a blessed knife and a frightened animal. If this is unacceptable then first class tickets to a destination that will allow them to practice their religion how they like and in peace should be theirs by right!

  Kind regards - HS
• 

  closer2fine

  OT - but here is another thread where the Hmong were discussed - http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=12567&site=3
• 

  lauralisa

  Hi Andee,

  "Female circumcision" was the first thing that came to mind when I pondered your question.... thank you Hillary Step for the well-made comparison.

  I wonder what the situation would be currently for that family if the child with the club foot was female.......?

  America is SUCH an interesting country. Each "right" to which we are entitled under the constitution is open for moral debate; too frequently though there are irreconcilable issues - ends up being a power struggle in a courtroom...

  Still formattingly clueless,

  lauralisa
• 

  BeautifulGarbage

  Well, I suppose I should post what DID happen in this particular case.

  Before I do that, thanks for some interesting comments. Yes, the family was on public assistance. Willy_think made an interesting point about whether or not this would be an issue if the family had private insurance. It's not likely that the court system would encounter such a case because private insurance would probably mean that the parents would have jobs and be apart of the accepted culture. If such a family did refuse medical treatment, I'm thinking they would have to be accused of child neglect. Many times children go without necessary medical treatment in the US because the family does not have medical insurance, nor the funds to pay for such an operation out of their own pocket. To be able to have that type of treatment covered, and then the operation rejected by the parents, would cause a public outcry. I wonder if the court of public opinion would pressure child welfare officials to intervene in such a circumstance?

  Hilary, as always, great comments. The comparison to female "circumcision" is a good one. That topic alone makes my blood boil in it's brutality. However, the practices are related in that they are both tribal and ancient. I would agree that what is considered to be "antisocial" behavior by the majority should not be allowed to be practiced, even if it would otherwise be protected as freedom of religion.

  Ok, I will not hold you guys in suspense any longer.

  After a couple of more months of legal wrangling the county withdrew its request for a court order forcing the parents to allow corrective surgery for their little boy. The chicken sacrifice was never seriously considered by the court. However, it provided much fodder for the local media.

  Little information was given by the county child welfare officials. State confidentiality laws require them not publicly discuss any case that involves a minor. So, when my daughter was receiving chemotherapy at the same children's hospital that was also involved in the case, I asked the social worker that was assigned to my daughter why the matter was dropped.

  He stated to me that because the family was so fearful of the consequences of what might happen to them if their sons foot was corrected, that the boy would be outcast. The county feared the boy would be severely neglected and because he was observed to be very bonded with his parents, they decided that correcting his deformed foot would not be worth the loss of family.

  Either way, the boy takes it on the chin.

  Andee