Options
Should the courts intervene when a lifesaving transfusion is denied by a JW parent?
~Twinkle~
Posts: 8,166 Forum Member
✭
Judge allows Jehovah's Witness baby to have blood transfusions despite parents' objections. Link
I've quoted the headline as it appears in the newspaper and my first point is that I object strongly to the baby being described as being a Jehovah's Witness, the baby is not a JW, the baby is just that, a baby, it's the infant's parents who are JW.
Now to my second point which is, had the courts not intervened and the baby had died because of his parents' objections and misguided beliefs, should they themselves be brought before the courts and charged with manslaughter, or even worse, murder?
I've quoted the headline as it appears in the newspaper and my first point is that I object strongly to the baby being described as being a Jehovah's Witness, the baby is not a JW, the baby is just that, a baby, it's the infant's parents who are JW.
Now to my second point which is, had the courts not intervened and the baby had died because of his parents' objections and misguided beliefs, should they themselves be brought before the courts and charged with manslaughter, or even worse, murder?
0
Comments
On your second point... If they were informed of the risks of the baby not receiving a blood transfusion, and they still refused, then that sounds like a chargeable offence to me.
I'm not talking about a child here, I'm talking about a defenseless baby who could, potentially, be murdered through pure ignorance and the gullibility of its delusional parents. Even worse is your claim that children should be allowed to make their own decisions. Lord of the Flies, anyone?
What in my post would say the baby shouldn't be saved ? and lord of the flies ? surely you missed then the law changes recently in other countries allowing children to end their lives if they understood and were facing death ? We have to listen to children when they are old enough to speak for themselves.
Babies cannot speak for themselves, they're at the mercy of their misguided parents and that's what my thread is about.
When it comes to children, okay, children can always speak for themselves but most of us, who reached adulthood, know that what we believed as children wasn't always the case when we grew to maturity.
What about mentally ill people - we intervene at any age if someone is putting their life at risk due to a deluded state. I would argue that someone who puts their life at risk due to the disputed interpretation of three or four sentences in a book written 2000 years ago in a foreign languauge is deluded - should we therefore intervene, or look at it as Darwinism in action?
Babies cannot speak for themselves, nor can children until they reach a age of real understanding, so yes the state should step in and protect the child
Well I apologise for actually putting some thought into the question.
Parents should always do what is best for the wellbeing of their child, and if they believe that religion plays a part in that fair enough, but not to the point where physical health - which at least can be measured - is put at risk. Mental health...well, that's another question.
Once an individual is old enough to make a personal informed choice, then they should be allowed to do so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/witnesses/witnessethics/ethics_1.shtml
It is on the BBC website and it written up in a very easy way to understand.
It is not biased one way or the other.
and... your point is? Are you defending those who would happily see their child die, or are you trying to convince the rest of us that those who do are above the law because of their misguided belief in fairy tales?
Pardon me?
I linked an article that I found on the net that I actually think is very interesting about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Some people will join in a thread like this without any proper knowledge of what certain religions even believe.
That was my point in linking it Twinkle.
No need to be so aggressive now.
I think twinkle just wants a yes or no answer, no further thought put into it.
To me, the article you linked just enforced my belief that JW really are nutters.
No kissing until your married ? What's all that about ?
There interpretation of biblical texts is absolutely mind boggling.
No mastibation either
Indeed but in a free country they are allowed to believe and follow whatever religious rules they wish, only time we should interfere is with children who cannot make their own decisions.
That's 99% of DS members out then.
I agree.
In all cases I have seen in the media about this subject the courts does intervene and blood will be given.
Are we all ******* then? ;-):D
Oh that word is banned, it begun with W.
Agreed !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How anyone can sit and watch their Child die because they need blood is just mind blowing and wrong on every level to me
Yeah I agree. Just look at the amount of aborted babies.
A foetus isnt a baby.