Death sparks debate on Jehovah's Witness transfusion ban

Enough already, if they want to refuse treatment based on religion then fine, one less door knocker. As long as her family isn't seaking damages from anyone for her fatality then RIP and move on. I don't see why we have to force medical treatments on people that don't want them.

The problem is not when adults decide not to accept transfusions, it's when adults decide to refuse transfusions for their children.

Should we, as a society, let parents decide if a child will live or die?

The parents are the legal guardians of their own children and thus hold authority on these sort of decisions. Whether or not they are from their own reasoning, ignorance or religious beliefs.... them's the breaks.

Children don't get a say if they don't want to goto the dentist, or have an operation, or goto school, or goto church... the parents make these decisions for them.

In this case, if I remember correctly, the parents' didn't refuse any and all treatments, they simply refused the blood transfusion treatment and were seeking other alternative treatments.

Docotrs are supposed to present you with the options, tell you which one's stand the best chance of success, you pick which one you or your loved ones will be put under and they do their job.

They are not there to decide what's best and do it without your approval. They shouldn't be allowed to simply think that because one thing has a better success rate then other treatments, they should default to that treatment for all their cases, regardless of the various differences in cases, personal, mental and physical.

Doctors are supposed to do their jobs, they're not supposed to be the final say in what's more morally accepted.... regardless if their own personal feelings don't match your own.

If people want to believe it's wrong to accept human organs, blood, tissue due to some old religious belief, so be it..... if they die, one less human on the planet.

And in most of these cases I have come accross, the children believe the same way as their parents in regards to blood transfusions. Add it up to life long brain washing and pressure, it matters not, because usually once they hit 18 years of age, they'll still believe exactly as they do now.... that it's wrong. They're adults at that time, they can make their own decisions and come to the same conclusions... being adult or not, their religious teachings don't change, thus why would their thinking change?

Until then, the parents hold responsibility over such decisions, and if the child dies because of those decisions, then they should be held responsible. Since in this case they were seeking alternative treatments, rather then out right refusal of all treatments (thus resulting in the child's actual death) then there'd be a case..... but seeking other treatments, whether their success rates are 4% or 80% was still something people were allowed to do last I checked.

Heck it's been done for a long time in many other medical cases.... why should the hospitals and such be able to over step their authority on this? Emotional appeal? Me thinks not.

And last I checked, Hospitals wern't a dictatorship over our health. If they don't have the authority to force medical procedures apon adults, where do they get the right to do the same on children, when their parent's are responsible for those decisions?

Added:

But back to your question:

"Should we, as a society, let parents decide if a child will live or die?"

^ That's a bit skewed as the parents wern't deciding apon the child's death, but deciding apon which procedures to use to save the child's life without going against their beliefs. Just because parents don't opt for the most suggested treatment by doctors and goes for another one that shows a success rate, doesn't automatically mean they want their child to die.

If society as you put it is allowed to make all the parenting decisions over the actual parents, then how about everybody just pass their children off to the government/society to take care of if they want to do it so badly?

A teenage Jehovah's Witness who triggered a cross-country court battle when she refused blood transfusions as part of her cancer therapy has died, renewing debate about the religion's blood ban and its impact on children.

She decided, as a teenager she is deemed old enough to make this decision, she based it on her faith of which she was obviously dedicated to, her parents backed her up. As a society we have deemed that a girl 16 years of age is old enough to consent to sex, but we can't accept the fact that her religion and her decision is to not have a transfusion.
I can agree with the argument as far as young children who have no idea the implications of their parents decisions, but as a teen you have to think that she knew the end result.

Well said Praxius!

That's subjective enough to guard most of the children who are threatened by their parents "superstitions".

I suspect that will keep the door open for most courts to protect a child�s life by forcing a necessary transfusion.

The government of BC made the right decision in forcing the transfusion and over-ruling the religious wishes of the parents. In our system, the pater familias does not have the power of life or death over his children because they are individuals and not his property.

However, at the same time, the children are not the property of the State.

I always feel there should be a seperation of Church and State and the only time they should ever mix is when one or the other interferes with the basic human rights of an individual or international law.

So long as the parents are seeking treatment, such as in this case, I don't see a warrent in the government over riding parent's decisions.

The only justification I see in this one is an emotional one.

I think of it as similar to "assisted suicide" ~ Even in cases where elderly or terminally ill people who are suffering and have a very low quality of life because of it, I have seen people try and impose their own morals and values on the situation to make them live as long as possible and any attempt to shorten one's life is somehow wrong, regardless of how much that person is suffering.

Yet with animals, they're put out of their misery all the time, usually without a second thought.

Who else should have the right of such decisions of life and death other then the individual themselves?

The Public? The Government? The Church?

Don Cherry??

Death is a part of life we all have to accept eventually.... trying to avoid it at all costs in certain situations can seem like a fool's errand and sometimes prolonging one's suffering just doesn't seem anymore logical then letting that person end their suffering.

In relation to the topic, The same rules should apply.

But what about minors? Well they should be questioned to see how much they truly understand about such decisions and what actions they'd be comfortable with. If that can not be done, then the parents should be allowed to make the decision by default.

They don't own the children as property, but they helped create that life and spent years of their own lives developing that life, one would think they'd have some sort of say. They are their children afterall and it's not a simple decision to make, let alone live with after the decision is made.

I doubt people would be making the same argument if parents/child said they didnt want to get treatment because Santa said they wouldnt get presents if they did.

The parents and their religious belief simply dosen't have presidence over the life of their children. We don't allow muslim parents to kill their children because they have transgressed the religous belief of their children. This is the same.
Denying the medical care that would save their life is comparable to euthanasia and that isn't legal either.

I think that until you reach the ripe old age of 21 a person�s theological beliefs should not stop them from a life saving procedure. It should be treated like any other psychosis.

Religion is a psychosis?

I think it can be.

If the belief in a supernatural being/creature commands you to end your life or take mortal risks what else could it be?