View Full Version : Court forces Jehovah's Witness to recieve blood transfusions.
WINNIPEG (CP) — A Jehovah’s Witness teenager with Crohn’s disease says she may end up leaving Manitoba for treatment after the province’s highest court denied her the right to reject blood transfusions.
In a unanimous decision released Tuesday, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled a lower-court judge was correct in allowing doctors to give the 15-year-old Winnipeg girl a transfusion they considered medically necessary.
The girl, who can’t be identified, says she was overwhelmed and scared when she was given blood against her will last April during a flare-up of her Crohn’s, a chronic illness that can affect the entire gastrointestinal tract.
She went to court to make sure it would never happen again.
"Really the decision is almost forcing me to move out of the province if I want to make my own medical decisions that would keep in mind my religious beliefs," the girl told The Canadian Press.
"I wanted to be viewed as a capable person and really not have a government decide for me what should happen."
Some Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose transfusions because they interpret certain passages of the Bible as forbidding the ingestion of blood.
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Canada/557600.html
She should have known better. Till your 18 you have no rights. Still 2nd case of JW and blood transfusions I've heard of in 2 weeks.
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Canada/557600.html
She should have known better. Till your 18 you have no rights. Still 2nd case of JW and blood transfusions I've heard of in 2 weeks.
I would say let the idiot die if she wants, but she is only 15. I agree with Canadian Law here.
Crazed Rabbit
02-08-2007, 09:47
http://www.herald.ns.ca/Canada/557600.html
She should have known better. Till your 18 you have no rights. Still 2nd case of JW and blood transfusions I've heard of in 2 weeks.
So the government controls you until you turn 18, then? How very freedom loving of you guys.
Who cares about freedom of religion, or plain freedom, anyway? Better to force someone to do something they feel is a terrible tarnish on their eternal soul to convince yourself you are 'helping' them.
CR
I would say let the idiot die if she wants, but she is only 15. I agree with Canadian Law here.
:yes:
She's too young to know better, but if an adult wishes to refuse a transfusion and die then that's their decision and I wouldn't think of stopping them
So the government controls you until you turn 18, then? How very freedom loving of you guys.
You should know that she's not a person until she pays taxes.
Watchman
02-08-2007, 10:46
Restricted civil rights before legal adulthood are the norm anyway, aren't they ?
Restricted civil rights before legal adulthood are the norm anyway, aren't they ?
Sadly. Although the state has to protect children - like her. I'd expect her opinions to be taken into account at 15 obviously, but if she's going to die unnecessarily then I don't see what the choice is.
It's rather different from the other case though. This is more about when you have a right to be treated like an adult and do something stupid, rather than if you have a right to kill your ill babies.
Watchman
02-08-2007, 11:01
15 should already be at the stage where the vast majority of people become incredibly stupid and short-sighted... I see little wrong with ignoring their opinions when they avidly demonstrate the phenomenom.
It's not like people who attempt suicide are actually allowed to die if the medical services have any say in it either.
I would say let the idiot die if she wants, but she is only 15. I agree with Canadian Law here.
And then there the bit where she says she'll go else where. Assuming that courts in other provinces wouldn't agree with Manitoba.
So the government controls you until you turn 18, then? How very freedom loving of you guys.
Who cares about freedom of religion, or plain freedom, anyway? Better to force someone to do something they feel is a terrible tarnish on their eternal soul to convince yourself you are 'helping' them.
CR
It's the governments job to provide for the common good. Even if they are a stupid teenager who doesn't want it. But if she'd been 17 they might have agreed and let her commit suicide.
Better to force someone to do something they feel is a terrible tarnish on their eternal soul to convince yourself you are 'helping' them.
CR
Just FYI, Jehova's Witnesses don't believe in eternal souls. After you die you are dust and nothing remains except the memory of you in God's mind. It is that memory that will be resurrected after Armageddon.
They also don't believe in Hell. To them, Hell is the "common grave of mankind". Nothingness.
Kralizec
02-08-2007, 22:16
Didn't the JW have some belief that 144,000 people would attain eternal life though?
On that note, is this doctrine based on some passages in Revelation?
Didn't the JW have some belief that 144,000 people would attain eternal life though?
On that note, is this doctrine based on some passages in Revelation?
The 144,00 are those that will be made judges and princes to sit alongside Jesus in governing the Earth after Armageddon. All the rest of will be resurrected from God's memory to take human form on a paradise Earth.
The JWs actually have a list of the people already chosen. It's very hush-hush within the ranks and they don't speak of it much.
ajaxfetish
02-08-2007, 23:27
As I understand it, and Beirut may be able to clarify this, the 144,000 is based on the passage in revelation and the current interpretation is that there will be 144,000 [not sure what to call them, kinda like saints in the Catholic tradition I suppose, especially holy followers of Jehovah] who will be resurrected to dwell forever with Jehovah, while the rest of the faithful will be resurrected to a peaceful eternal life on a renewed paradise earth.
Ajax
edit: and he beat me to it, anyway :bow:
Kralizec
02-08-2007, 23:46
Ah, thanks for the clarification Beirut and Ajaxfetish.
Goofball
02-09-2007, 00:03
So the government controls you until you turn 18, then? How very freedom loving of you guys.
Who cares about freedom of religion, or plain freedom, anyway? Better to force someone to do something they feel is a terrible tarnish on their eternal soul to convince yourself you are 'helping' them.
CR
I want to make sure I understand.
You think the government should not allow 15 year olds the freedom to take the morning after pill on their own recognisance, but should step aside when a 15 year old decides to kill herself based on her religious beliefs.
Okay.
That makes sense.
Crazed Rabbit
02-09-2007, 00:15
I want to make sure I understand.
You think the government should not allow 15 year olds the freedom to take the morning after pill on their own recognisance, but should step aside when a 15 year old decides to kill herself based on her religious beliefs.
Okay.
That makes sense.
I'm against abortion altogether - and that is different, as people are not dealing solely with their own lives. Requiring parental permission is hardly too much to ask for minors to get abortions.
And this is not someone deciding to kill themselves - there are many more treatments than just blood transfusions for Chron's disease -http://www.webmd.com/hw/inflammatory_bowel/uf6004.asp . Any information on what her parents say?
Beirut - thanks for the enlightenment.
CR
Goofball
02-09-2007, 00:42
I'm against abortion altogether - and that is different, as people are not dealing solely with their own lives. Requiring parental permission is hardly too much to ask for minors to get abortions.
You need to make up your mind on this one.
So you think parents should be able to kill their living children by denying them blood transfusions (as in the other JW thread), but not abort an unborn baby?
Also, AFAIK, the morning after pill is not actually causing a pregnancy to be aborted. It is simply preventing the egg from being fertilized. But I may be wrong on that. But even if I'm wrong about that, I find it strange that you would provide government protection for a day old clump of cells that are in no way human, but not provide protection for a baby that has survived the womb and birth process, and is already breathing on its own.
So let me see if I can sum up:
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on personal morality/judgement = Not allowed
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on religious beliefs = Right that must be respected
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2007, 01:05
You need to make up your mind on this one.
So you think parents should be able to kill their living children by denying them blood transfusions (as in the other JW thread), but not abort an unborn baby?
Also, AFAIK, the morning after pill is not actually causing a pregnancy to be aborted. It is simply preventing the egg from being fertilized. But I may be wrong on that. But even if I'm wrong about that, I find it strange that you would provide government protection for a day old clump of cells that are in no way human, but not provide protection for a baby that has survived the womb and birth process, and is already breathing on its own.
So let me see if I can sum up:
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on personal morality/judgement = Not allowed
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on religious beliefs = Right that must be respected
Ok, man. CR is against one person making a life ending decision for another person. period. it isn't too hard to understand.
He is also for religious rights being respected - i'm sure that goes up to, but not including, the point where a religion would call for infant or adult sacrifice.
As long as it isn't the parents trying to force their daughter not to have a transfusion, i believe that the girl has a case. You see, human life is the main point.
An embryo is a human being, therefore it should be respected as such. main point.
im not really againt you committing suicide legally. I am agaisnt anyone else becoming involved with the administration of "your" suicide.
Why respect religious views? They're especially irrational and always influenced by older people, who are equally irrational and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
If a 15 year old decided to refuse blood transfusions for their own reasons, there is no way it'd get into court. They'd have been given blood sooner or later and told to stop being silly.
AntiochusIII
02-09-2007, 10:37
Ok, man. CR is against one person making a life ending decision for another person. period. it isn't too hard to understand.Actually, no. He supports the Death Penalty and believes that the government should not interfere in that case where some nutjob parents wanted to deny their infants crucial blood transitions that, should they not be carried out, the infants would've been dead.
im not really againt you committing suicide legally. I am agaisnt anyone else becoming involved with the administration of "your" suicide.Somebody has to clean up the mess. Want freedom to die? Take responsibility for it.
__________________
My opinion on this case has been made clear by others: she's a frickin' teenager. We want to commit suicide every Friday night after a session of MySpace emo woes. Cutting wrists and having ADD/ADHD/OCD/right-to-suicide-as-a-teenage-idiot has never been so popular.
I don't think we should allow that now, should we?
Banquo's Ghost
02-09-2007, 10:56
Why respect religious views? They're especially irrational and always influenced by older people, who are equally irrational and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
If a 15 year old decided to refuse blood transfusions for their own reasons, there is no way it'd get into court. They'd have been given blood sooner or later and told to stop being silly.
Well, one would hope we can respect everyone's views as long as they don't hurt others. If you read the Regarding Atheism thread, you'll see some pretty convincing arguments that science is irrational too.
And as far as I can see, much of the resurgence in Christian evangelism is rooted in young people's enthusiasm.
Having said that, I agree with your second paragraph and Antiochus' more colourful examples - a 15 year old is not really in a position to decide on whether she prefers to die for a belief or live. Death is awfully final as decisions go.
Though personally, I would be in favour of a court discussing the matter of her beliefs with her in an adult manner, with perhaps a view to having the right to seek other methods of treatment. Not possible in an emergency of course, but the right to seek other treatments more in line with belief? In the right environment, a 15 year could engage with that process on her own merits.
Well, one would hope we can respect everyone's views as long as they don't hurt others. If you read the Regarding Atheism thread, you'll see some pretty convincing arguments that science is irrational too.
It involves humans, it will be at least a bit irrational. Religion does rather take the biscuit though. Claiming absolute rights with no supporting evidence at all?
I have no issues with people's views, as long as they only affect themselves. But a child is the responsibility of their parents, or the state. They can't be allowed to kill themselves.
Watchman
02-09-2007, 12:19
The state doesn't tend to be too hot about adults killing themselves either - suicide attemptees are normally patched up like everyone else, no ? AFAIK at least some steps are also normally taken to keep them from trying it again too soon.
Mind you, there was also once a time when attempting suicide was a capital offense punishable by death... :dizzy2: Basing laws off Old Testament values can net some pretty kooky results.
Duke of Gloucester
02-09-2007, 18:15
Giving someone medical treatment without their consent is a very serious matter because it violates their person. Therefore the only question to be answered here is whether the girl is competent to give or withhold her consent. An important freedom is the freedom to make bad choices, which is why treating an adult without consent is considered assault in the UK, so the fact that this is a "bad" choice is not relevant. All that counts is does the girl understand enough about her condition, the consequences of refusing transfusion and does she have the necessary maturity to make such an important decision. Whatever decision is reached, it has to be done in a spirit of respect for the girl and her convictions.
I am afraid we have had some nonsensical reasons for overruling her on this thread:
It is a religious conviction so it is irrational
15 year olds are too stupid to make decisions
Children should be controlled by the state (and perhaps their parents) until they reach 18 and magically transform into a different being, and adult.
I have said before that religion is not irrational, it is just based on different premises. Here we have:
Premise 1: We must obey God's laws
Premise 2: God says we must avoid blood
Premise 3: Transfusions involve blood
Deduction: We must not accept blood transfusion
Perfectly rational, even if you do not accept the results
As for 15 year olds being stupid, being a teacher I work with children and encounter stupidity every day at work, BUT I could not predict with any certainty whether the stupidest thing will be done or said by an adult or a child. Since the children outnumber the adults 10 to 1, I think they are doing pretty well. My daughter is 16. She can be pretty stupid, for example when she tries to give reasons why she should not clear up in the kitchen after the evening meal, but I would trust her good sense and judgement when it comes to moral issues, even those which involve life and death. If she made the same choice, I would be distraught, but I would find it difficult to overrule her.
Surely the truth is that people gradually develop and should be given more autonomy gradually. Adult = competent to decide, child = just sit back and things will be done to you is surely too simplistic. Telling children that they are the responsibility of their parents or the state will undo what I say on a daily - that young people should take responsibility for themselves, their future and take the consequences of their actions. Therefore the decision needs to be taken on an individual basis. Is this girl ready to make this serious decision?
It involves humans, it will be at least a bit irrational. Religion does rather take the biscuit though. Claiming absolute rights with no supporting evidence at all?
I have no issues with people's views, as long as they only affect themselves. But a child is the responsibility of their parents, or the state. They can't be allowed to kill themselves.
Insisting on evidence is itself a dogmatic position. What systems of rights can you quote that are based on evidence? I suspect that an insistence that religion is irrational is itself irrational.
I didnt read the whole entire thread,.
I can barely imagine myself being held down to receive a blood transfusion. Dont you have to be completely still for that to work?
Insisting on evidence is itself a dogmatic position. What systems of rights can you quote that are based on evidence? I suspect that an insistence that religion is irrational is itself irrational.
Good question really.
It gives me a headache.
Crazed Rabbit
02-10-2007, 20:56
You need to make up your mind on this one.
So you think parents should be able to kill their living children by denying them blood transfusions (as in the other JW thread), but not abort an unborn baby?
I never said I support the JW parents denying their children blood transfusions.
Though everyone seems to assume my position, I have been wrestling with myself on what is right and wrong in that situation.
I pointed out that if one is against one person 'killing' someone by denying them care, then why not be against all examples of that?
Also, AFAIK, the morning after pill is not actually causing a pregnancy to be aborted. It is simply preventing the egg from being fertilized. But I may be wrong on that.
I believe in some, maybe most, cases you are right. But there are times where the drug could cause a fertilized egg to be aborted.
But even if I'm wrong about that, I find it strange that you would provide government protection for a day old clump of cells that are in no way human, but not provide protection for a baby that has survived the womb and birth process, and is already breathing on its own.
See above, please.
So let me see if I can sum up:
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on personal morality/judgement = Not allowed
Person wants to kill herself or her child based on religious beliefs = Right that must be respected
This person does not want to kill herself, and blood transfusions are not necessary to her survival. The JW parents do not want to kill their babies, but as I have said before I am not condoning their actions.
Actually, no. He supports the Death Penalty and believes that the government should not interfere in that case where some nutjob parents wanted to deny their infants crucial blood transitions that, should they not be carried out, the infants would've been dead.
I support the death penalty, but please see above for an explanation of my position on the JW parents.
CR
I believe in some, maybe most, cases you are right. But there are times where the drug could cause a fertilized egg to be aborted.
So can a lot of drugs. Damn that evil paracetamol, tool of Satan.
Crazed Rabbit
02-11-2007, 00:13
But for all those other drugs, that is not their intended purpose.
:rolleyes:
CR
Tribesman
02-11-2007, 11:53
I have said before that religion is not irrational, it is just based on different premises. Here we have:
Premise 1: We must obey God's laws
Premise 2: God says we must avoid blood
Premise 3: Transfusions involve blood
Deduction: We must not accept blood transfusion
Perfectly rational, even if you do not accept the results
Not bad Duke , but there is a bit of a problem with premise 2, premise 3 and the deduction .
If it were perfectly ratonal and clear cut then it wouldn't be a contentious issue within this particular religeon would it .
To paraphrase Fr. Dougal . It's a bit hard on all those people who got sent to hell for eating meat on a friday before the church changed its mind and said it was OK to eat meat on a friday .
Since the JW view on blood and medical proceedures is and has gone through changes then it does reduce the rationality of the arguement .
Duke of Gloucester
02-11-2007, 20:57
"Rational" and "clear cut" are not by any means synonyms. I am not sure whether JW teaching on blood transfusions has changed so if they have and if the JW are saying the teaching represents some invariable truth, then they are on dodgy ground. However they are not being irrational.
"Rational" and "clear cut" are not by any means synonyms. I am not sure whether JW teaching on blood transfusions has changed so if they have and if the JW are saying the teaching represents some invariable truth, then they are on dodgy ground. However they are not being irrational.
They are refusing blood transfusions, well accepted by the vast majority of the world, on the basis of some millennia-old lines from a book. They're hardly explicit either.
Tribesman
02-11-2007, 22:43
"Rational" and "clear cut" are not by any means synonyms. I am not sure whether JW teaching on blood transfusions has changed so if they have and if the JW are saying the teaching represents some invariable truth, then they are on dodgy ground. However they are not being irrational.
I was just pointing out that the rules on what can be done with blood and what sorts of blood is actually blood are regularly changing in this faith .
It would be a bit of a bugger for this girl (or anyone else) to refuse a transfusion and end up dying because they have been taught by the church that to recieve the blood would be a sin that would cast them out from the church , and then to have the church change its policy 6 months down the line .
Its a bit of a dilema isn't it , yep she has her faith and religeous ideas , but those are what is handed down by the Watchtower direct from Jesus .
So if the Watchtower once again changes its position (on the orders direct from Jesus of course) does she have faith in the religeous ideas of the old rules or does she change them for the new rules ?
rory_20_uk
02-12-2007, 11:25
Obviously the new ones, just like every other Church. The Catholic Church has had enough edicts over the years altering things, one of the most massive was the creation of the Bible where all other texts were overnight not permitted any more. Coz God said so... :inquisitive:
~:smoking:
The laws set the age of religious freedom to the age of 15.
Yet overrides this law by saying: Sorry we can't let you live according to your beliefs because you are too young to know what is best for you.
Hypocritical!!
I guess she's not a true descendant from Vikings :sweatdrop:.
***
A little sidetrack with the 144 000...
Is it not so that the 144 000 consists of 12 000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel?
Now.. Do the JW consider themselves part of Israel or the 12 tribes? Anyone with an intimate knowledge of the JW doctrines care to elaborate?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.