should the parents of JW's be overruled from life saving blood transfusions for their kids?

There have been cases where Jahovah Witness parents have had their wishes overuled in relation to life saving transfusions. Now assuming the parents arent play acting to keep their church happy in the full knowledge they will be overruled, should the state respect their wishes? even though it is clearily a religion/cult with "dangerous" practices although I couldnt describe them as criminal.

My view is that they should be allowed this choice as the price of intervening would be greater for the rest of society as it implies the need for a large state that regulates everything.

 

This wouldn't be an issue if hospitals were fully private; the hospital would be fully within its rights to stipulate in a treatment contract that the parents would be unable to stop treatment due to their own religious beliefs.  So long as it was clearly stated in the contract I see no problem with such a clause.

 

hadnt thought of that, however would a private hospital have the power to detain a child against the wishes of a parent? Assuming JWs wouldnt have the critical mass for a hospital based on their own "ethics"  I can understand that professionals wouldnt want to have their hands tied in such a way.

In such a situation could it still revert to being a court issue?

If it was included as a provision of the contract, then yes.  But I find it hard to believe that it would come to that in the vast majority of cases.  As soon as the hospital realized that the parents were JWs they'd probably tell them to go somewhere different. Or maybe tell them some sort  of boilerplate message such as: "This hospital reserves the right to treat the patient to the fullest extent of its abilities, and will not, under any circumstances, take the opinion of a patient's guardians' and/or parents' philosophical or religious reservations into account.  Furthermore the hospital reserves the right to take temporary custody of said patient should the parent/guardian's actions danger the welfare of the child." 

 

endanger, not 'danger'

endanger, not 'danger'

So under private property circumstances the hospital owner will clearly have a stated policy and as long as there are options the partents can choose to sign a contract with the hospital or go somewhere else.

Surely there would be a private hospital somewhere that has a contract that says under no circumstances will we administer blood transfusions and we will be indemnified by a mechanism of sorts.

Now the question becomes does the "JW religious hospital" have the equal right to refuse a bloodtransfusion to a child in their hospital too? What if they believe they are endangering the child's soul by giving blood? Can they overrule the parents on their own private property? What if they are the only hospital available in that town?

 

 

Extended family, not the State.

</thread>

Clayton -

The child is not the property of the parent's their wishes are not paramount.  Doctors should be free to treat the children of JW's without fear of legal, criminal or financial repercussions.

Now the question becomes does the "JW religious hospital" have the equal right to refuse a bloodtransfusion to a child in their hospital too?

Yes of course.  An organization can practice medicine however they see fit as long as they are not engaged in fradulent activities.  

The child is not the property of the parent's their wishes are not paramount.  Doctors should be free to treat the children of JW's without fear of legal, criminal or financial repercussions.

False. See here for more info.

Clayton -

Your link did not seem to be on point, nor do I feel citing yourself on an internet forum to be a particularly compelling, for whatever it is you are trying to prove.

Nor have you indicated which premise you think is false.  Do you think children belong to their parents?  Or that doctors cannot treat children against their parents wishes?

Nor have you indicated which premise you think is false.  Do you think children belong to their parents?  Or that doctors cannot treat children against their parents wishes?

Children are not the property of their parents. Nor should any stranger - however well educated - be allowed to induce medical procedures on a child, whether surgery, drugging, enema, stomach pumping, etc.

As for linking to the other thread, there is a lot of really great discussion in that thread and I would invite you to simply read the whole thread - I linked to my post because that is the beginning of my contributions to the thread, but please do scroll up and start from the top.

Clayton -

What is dangerous about JW practices?

Frankly the Christian Scientists would have been a better group for this example, but JW's don't accept blood transfusions.

 

"Children are not the property of their parents."

That's true, but it's also what I said.

"Nor should any stranger - however well educated - be allowed to induce medical procedures on a child, whether surgery, drugging, enema, stomach pumping, etc."

Surely you cannot mean this - perhaps you mean, without the parents consent?  Or only doctors the child knows well are allowed to treat them?  Must they first be invited over for tea?  

Surely you cannot mean this - perhaps you mean, without the parents consent?  Or only doctors the child knows well are allowed to treat them?  Must they first be invited over for tea?  

By "induce", I naturally mean over the parent's objections. Parents may compel medical treatment on their children, that is, they may authorize a doctor to compel the child to receive medical treatment. For the doctor to go ahead against parental objections would almost certainly be a tort under free market law.

Clayton -

depends on the cost

. For the doctor to go ahead against parental objections would almost certainly be a tort under free market law.

 

So, kid has some illness, parents are crazy and don't want the doctors to treat the illness, you think the doctors shouldn't be able to treat the kid?  What if the kid wants the treatement?  The kid doesn't belong to the parents.  They're not allowed to harm the kid - they're not allowed to prevent other people from healing the kid either.

So, kid has some illness, parents are crazy and don't want the doctors to treat the illness, you think the doctors shouldn't be able to treat the kid?

That's all a matter of perspective - why are the parents saying no?? After all, this is their flesh and blood. We have every reason to presume that they are inclined towards saving their child's life and preserving its health. There are those horrific people out there - thankfully tiny in number - who either don't care about their children or even harm them. In this case, then neither the doctor nor the State are the appropriate individuals to intervene, the appropriate persons to intervene are the extended family.

What if the kid wants the treatement?  

Kids can't want or not want treatments... what they want is the approval and care of their parents and other caretakers.

The kid doesn't belong to the parents.  They're not allowed to harm the kid - they're not allowed to prevent other people from healing the kid either.

They are allowed to do precisely that - they are allowed to prohibit anyone from providing any sort of care they do not want the child to receive. That's precisely what guardianship rights are. You would be familiar with this concept if you had read the thread I linked above where this topic is discussed at length.

Clayton -

Frankly, if you're a parent and have a certain set of beliefs regarding medical treatment you should make the effort to find out which hospitals in your area provide medical care in accordance to your belief.  There are hospitals, for example, which perform surgical operations which don't require blood-transfusions. 

 

Should parents be allowed not to vaccinate their children? Should parents be allowed to pump their children with aluminum-filled vaccines? At some point we have to solve the problem that there is no final arbiter of truth on the one hand and that we want to protect children from abuse on the other.

The answer is in the parents' life insurance policy.  You have to read the fine print. 

 

FlyingAxe:

Should parents be allowed not to vaccinate their children?

Imagine if every single one of their neighbors did not care what those parents did to their children.