Printable View
The children would die due to their parents' beliefs. Sounds like child abuse to me.
Adults can believe whatever stupid stuff they want to believe, don't have an issue with that. But forcing these beliefs on their children is wrong, and the state has to protect children. How is withholding medical treatment any different from beating your children? The state would intervene in either case.
Am I the only one who thinks it’s a bad idea when the state and doctors interfere like this??? (Oh boy am I going to get flack for this)
Basically the state has said in no unclear terms that this multinational religious group is wrong and not considered capable to decide on their children’s future
now I am highly against any form a State interference which removes the choice from anyone - freedom to believe what they want is supposed to be a fundamental right in any democracy - the state has effectively said that the JW do not have this right.
Now I am probably going to be called heartless and other such nonsense - I don’t agree with the parents but it was their choice not mine, and unless they were proven mentally incapable of making it the state shouldn’t get involved.
i think the episode of Babylon 5 "Believers" 105 summarizes why i think its a bad idea for the state to interfere - while its fiction and i doubt the JW would do the same as the parents in the episode it is likely that if given back the children would never be accepted into the JW community and so would be ostracized by their parents and peers - not a good life to lead and so now the state will have to take responsibility for its actions...
How do you know that the children want to be bound by the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses? Have you ever met someone who has left the religious belief of their parents when they grew up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
:inquisitive:
Children are bound by their parent's beliefs. It's the natural order of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I'm not sure I see the alternative. We can't have the state or the neighbours setting the standards for how we raise our children, we set the standards ourselves.
Intervention by the state in family religious matters is a very touchy area.
i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last wordQuote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
:bow:Quote:
Children are bound by their parent's beliefs. It's the natural order of things.
I'm not sure I see the alternative. We can't have the state or the neighbours setting the standards for how we raise our children, we set the standards ourselves.
Intervention by the state in family religious matters is a very touchy area.
Maybe they are in terms of which school they go to or if they get thrashed by nuns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
But when it comes to a choice between life and death? What if the parents have perverted standards? There's a recent series of child abuse cases in the UK where children accused of being possessed by the devil have been beaten and starved to death by religious communities. OK by you? :inquisitive:
Even if the choice the parents make means the child will never grow up to be of legal age? (Such as the denial of medical intervention in this case).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Do you think children are property then, with no rights of their own?
No. No. No. Not perverted standards. We're talking about "normal" people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Then again, normal is ambiguous at best.
A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Hindu would have radical differences in how they raise their children. Some of these differences would be outrageous to the other religions, but that does not mean the children can be taken away. But if they can be taken away, who says so, who takes them, and then which religion are they brought up in before another person takes them away because that religion is also wrong?
Parents have rights over their children. Like I said, it's the natural order of things.
no i dont - but i dont think the state has the right to step in and take over
untimatly it is the Parents choice while we may disagree with their religeous doctrine we should not deny them their beliefs
How is denying your desperately ill children routine medical care not perverted?
Well this is the whole point-legally you don't have the right to deny medical care when it is not conceivably in your child's best interests. In the UK they won't even bother to wait for the courts if something like this happens, they'll give the transfusion and then get permission afterwards. It's that well established.Quote:
i dont but by law the childrens legal guardians (the parents) have the right to make the choice until the child is of legal age to understand the choice - ergo the Parents have the last word
This is child abuse, in the same way not feeding your children is. I am truly disturbed that some posters appear to think we should respect people's religious beliefs in this case. Why is that a more valid reason for letting your child die than, say, being a bit bored of them?
It is not routine according to Jehova's Witnesses. It's a violation of God's law.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
As I've mentioned before, I have many friends and co-workers who are Witnesses. I know a great deal about their way of life. I sure as shoot don't agree with a lot of what they do, but you would be underestimating them if you looked at them as mindless cult-heads. (That's a generalized statement, not one aimed at you.)
The law grants basic rights to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
Those rights cannot be denied or altered by anyone in any circumstance.
In this case, the right of parents to rule their children do not allow them to let their children die because of what they think being right or wrong.
They do not have a right of life and death upon their children and they cannot refuse them life saving medical help whatever their religious beliefs, this is a crime just like not acting to save the children’s life and letting them die is a crime.
This is not state against religious freedom this is personal belief against law.
Everyone is free to think that jews, blacks, englishmen, whatever are impure and shall not be allowed to live but if one starts pogroms then one leaves the domain of personal belief to break the law his actions shall be prevented by legal forces.
Until the children are old enough to state that they are and want to be part of that religion, 16?, than that religions belief should not be forced on them.
I have looked up what they believe. Excluding the weird blood transfusions bit, it all seemed fairly reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
But that doesn't change the fact it's abuse.
If, say, a new cult emerged which banned, say, painkillers, do you think there would be any question over whether ill children of cult members get painkillers or not? Being a long established religion doesn't prevent your views being abusive.
What's the alternative? Babysitters while mommy and daddy go to church? Most kids figure it out as they go along. They learn from what they see and from comparing it to other things they see, then they form their own opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
One man's abuse is another man's salvation. The one guaranteed aspect of religion is that they all think the other guy is dead wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Ideally. Sat through an Anglican service on Sunday a lot of it was offensive, crude, and totally unacceptable for the 21st century. And this was a kids' service, in a whishywashy Curch of England church. It really worried me. Teaching people that god's message is that it's ok to sell people into slavery and everyone who doesn't believe is an evil satanist? It really worried me that these people didn't even realise what they were saying. If you slightly rephrased it and said it on the street you'd be arrested.Quote:
What's the alternative? Babysitters while mommy and daddy go to church?
As I have stated elsewhere, I have no issue with Witnesses, having always found them to be interesting proponents of their faith. This particular issue however, is at the root of how religious beliefs can affect the lives of children - who by definition have not the mental capacity to choose their own value systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
You are quite right to say that naturally, the parents' ethic system is likely to be the one a child is brought up in. There's no problem with that - especially as a state "parent" is unlikely to bring the same positive environment to the child.
The issue comes when the belief system of the parent contravenes the rights of the child, or is likely to lead to grave damage to the child physically or psychologically.
Let me advance another example, not quite as life-threatening as the blood transfusion scenario, and from personal experience and a more "mainstream" religious group.
In my distant youth, I was sent to a very well thought of private boarding school in Ireland, run by Roman Catholic monks of whom my staunchly Catholic father approved. I was a remarkably well-behaved child, yet one day I found myself hauled in front of the class for punishment. My crime had been looking around during Mass, interested in the choir and other goings on behind me instead of dutifully praying. The headmaster of the school, keen to finally have a chance to demonstrate his Dominican view that the children of the nobility should be treated with the same vehemence as any others, duly had me stripped in front of my classmates and thrashed with a belt. Nearly forty years later, I still have three broad scars across my back.
Given my father's position, the monk had consulted with him beforehand (so I learned some time later) and had been given full parental permission for such a display. In 1960s Ireland, such beatings were rather common.
Nowadays of course, such an act would lead to criminal prosecutions all round.
So my question is: has my country and society progressed positively through the introduction of laws that deprive parents and their Church of the right to scar children for life, or should my father's Victorian views on morality, expressed through the leather belt of a priest in response to a clearly grave crime, be respected and allowed?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I think we went to the same kind of school. Doubtlessly, yours was worse than mine. My father had to sign a contract with the school that allowed corporal punishment. In this case delivered via a large wooden paddle with holes drilled through it to avoid any loss of speed during the swing. Some of the rugby players in school were big boys and had to be held in place by several teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
In answer to your question, no. Parents, and especially the church, do not have the right to physically scar a child.
Mind you, I do support a parent's right to spank their kid or give them a whack across the head (you know what I mean) when they're being an idiot. I got it and it smartened me up more than once.
Now, in the case of the JW children who got blood transfusions, I think the right thing was done. But I admit that a small part of my reasoning is based on the JW belief that what happens beyond your control is not your fault. If a JW is unconscious, and cannot protest his medical treatment, then he does not have to answer for it to God. The blood transfusion does not violate his faith.
I don't agree with their faith, but I do respect it.
Most of my JW co-workers carry signed cards in their wallets saying "do not give blood no matter what". They would rather die than receive a transfusion. If I was in a position to intervene if they were going to get pumped anyway, I'm not sure what I would do. On one hand, they are out cold and the transfusion cannot be held against them, on the other hand these are good men who feel they have a higher obligation to God. Who am I to question their faith?
I really don't know what I would do.
Sweet Jesus...Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Never had that before, but I'm gonna get me some today!
It's the standard side with Taco Bell meals.
Beruit, would it be ok for the parents of these children to put a gun to their heads and shoot them dead?
Edit:
Frankly I do regard Witnesses as a cult. Sorry.
Numbers of people and numbers of locations that they inhabit does not make their stance any more or less correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
If they want to live in the country they have to obey the laws of that country. If they want the laws changed then they should go through due democratic process.
Their belief system is not automatically right just because it is called a religion, nor should having a religion place you above or below the law. All should be treated equally.
Equal? The Witnesses already get special consideration for their religious angle. Someone refusing his child a transfusion for any other reason would surely risk charges of negligence, child endangerment, perhaps even attempted murder. But the JW are not only free but actually demanding an apology from the government! :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Reading the pro-JW arguments in this thread kinda reminded me of what I've been told of the etymological root of the word "family". Comes apparently from the Latin word famulus, which signified all the members of a household - wife, children, domestic slaves - under the authority of the (male) head...
Well, these days we got laws and all that say parents can be stripped of the custody of their children in the case they do not live up to certain specified minimum standards. In this case the parents' failure in the matter is quite manifest (two infants dead and three hospitalized, remember?), which duly brings about the standard response in functioning justice systems - the appropriate authorities strap on their jackboots and codpieces and intervene.
Which is what they're for to a large degree. Keeping citizens from doing stupid and harmful things to each other.
Depends. What caliber? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
That's entirely your right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slyspy
Many view the JW interpretation of God's ban on blood transfusions as... odd, but some other religions say God does not allow you to eat a hamburger. Others say the hamburger is ok, but not a cheeseburger. And bacon on the hamburger or cheeseburger is definitely out of the question.
All organized groups of people interpreting God's laws are, shall we say, eccentric to some degree.
Undoubtably, but these laws don't result in children dying pointlessly. They're all pretty flexible in extremes. Maybe if JW only allowed blood transfusions when strictly needed it'd be a better analogy.Quote:
Many view the JW interpretation of God's ban on blood transfusions as... odd, but some other religions say God does not allow you to eat a hamburger. Others say the hamburger is ok, but not a cheeseburger. And bacon on the hamburger or cheeseburger is definitely out of the question.
All organized groups of people interpreting God's laws are, shall we say, eccentric to some degree.
I understand your point. I wasn't comparing the gravity of the situations, only the oddities involved in any interpretation of God's laws for man.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDC
One of the JW's problems with blood transfusions, aside from their religious beliefs, is that they are inherently unsafe. AIDS, hepatitis, et al. They believe bloodless surgery and other bloodless medical procedures are either available or could be made available. They see all this as a fight against an inefficient medical profession that refuses to accept/explore inevitable and obvious advances in medicine.
I'm not saying the JWs should pursue their religious beliefs right through the bodies of their children. I don't agree with them, but I do understand them.
Look at any religious group in detail. They all have interpretations of God's laws that are outrageous, asinine, when viewed by other religious groups. The list is too long, as well as insulting, to write out here. So I don't see the JWs refusal to take blood as anything out of the ordinary. It's well in keeping with the standards of religious conventional wisdom. (How's that for an expression!)
The JWs are not the only people who put their children at risk "on God's behalf".
One aspect of all this is worth note; though they are willing to sacrifice themselves and their children in the name of God, they are not willing to kill others or other people's children in the name of God. That means something.
To avoid the upcoming misunderstanding, I'll say clearly, no, they should not let their children die for their religious beliefs. I'm also saying they are no worse and no better than any other religious group.
This document is an Irish Hospital's policy in JW blood transfusions. Quite illuminating, and shows that the topic arises often enough to necessitate a policy paper. Page 3 of the document addresses JW children:
I wonder if most hospitals/emergency clinics have similar SOP's.Quote:
Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses below the age of 16 years° The wellbeing of the child is overriding
Wouldn't that actually be easy to decide? You can only act according to your own faith and ethics. I suspect that your belief would tell you that this co-worker needs help or else he dies. In this special situation, assuming that you act according to your faith and help him, how could the JW question your faith and actions afterwards even if it's against his own? He would've to acknowledge that you're a faithful man yourself and have acted accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
If he expects you to respect his faith, so should he respect yours. I for one wouldn't stand by and watch someone die only because I knew that he has different ideas about the matter.
I've been in a comparable situation. The late mother of my girlfriend/fiancee was taken care of by me and my gf. The mother always said that when the time comes she wouldn't want us to call for a doctor. She was afraid of being towed to the hospital, connected to machinery to keep her alive and all that unnessecary stuff that's being done to prolong lives that are actually over. Do you have any idea how you feel when you actually have to make that decision? On the one hand we deeply respected her wish but on the other hand there was this deep feeling of responsibility and the wish that she wouldn't have to die just then. We didn't want it to happen, simple as that. Eventually when the situation got critical we called her doctor, the one she's always trusted and the one we did trust but we didn't call an ambulance. He convinced her that it would be best to make a proper examination at the hospital and she agreed because she was scared. I could see it in her eyes. The next day however she gathered all her strength and refused any care. When we came to the hospital, alarmed by nurses via phone, she sat there in her wheelchair ready to go. She was also pretty angry with us for letting it happen. It took a while to establish the trust we had before. When she died in the end, it happened in her sleep and she didn't have any pain. It also happened that we weren't there but my gf's brother and he only noticed that she'd fallen asleep. So, in the end she had her will but my gf still feels guilty for having disrespected her wish in the first place.
Am I making any sense? Can you somehow relate to that?
My point is that although I may know the wish of the person in question I may well decide against it because I have to answer to my own conscience. Trying to discuss different points of view in such a crisis seems out of the question. You just act.
Apart from all that, I agree that the opinions and beliefs of others should be respected, as hard as it may be to understand them at times.
R'as