Should a 14 year old Jehovah's Witness lad be made to receive blood transfusions to treat his lymphatic cancer despite saying 'No' to that?

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/judge-forced...  

London, UK, private High Court hearing has ruled that a 14 year old JW can have blood transfusions to treat his lymphatic cancer.  His mother is a JW too and both had said “No” to blood treatments but the Judge is satisfied that he could be helped to live by the treatment. The teenager said that he wanted to live and return to “normal life”. Please check the link then say whether you think the right decision has been made by the High Court, and why.

Update:

The problem is ascertaining whether a school-boy knows his mind and has sufficient knowledge of medical and religious issues to make an unpressured decision. If medics treated him without any JWs being around, would he have had a different stance if his confidentiality was respected? After all, some governments legally help children have abortions (taking away life) without telling parents (patient confidentiality apparently) but parents can be allowed to influence their children to die? Really?

20 Answers

Relevance
  • 4 weeks ago
    Favorite Answer

     It is his choice. As a student of Med science I know there are multiple ways to treat this cancer without a blood transfusion. Although I don't think there is a cure. I believe God is capable of miracles and each of us has a limited time on earth no more and no less. God hears all prayers and can save him. At this point he is dying and his religion should be respected.

    Source(s): Orthodox Jew
    • ...Show all comments
    • fredda4 weeks agoReport

      It’s like helping a nazi who having psychological problems for his pleasure and duty killing Jews that’s not freedom of religion that’s just evil. You being orthodox should agree to that yoel 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 weeks ago

    I think the kid should have the right to say no. 

    • HarryG4 weeks agoReport

      Sounds to  me like he really wants to say 'yes', so uses the legal system 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    As I understand it, the JW parents were of course opposed, but finally agreed that when the judge had made his decision, they would abide by it.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    Your not eating blood dumbass and it be suicide you racist jw 

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Juli
    Lv 4
    4 weeks ago

    I'm so grateful to the secular authorities for stepping in to save these kids.

    The JWs claim that blood transfusions are no longer needed, but that is a lie.

    JWs are still dying for those 8 men in NY, but "Satan's World" is keeping the kids alive, thankfully.

    Our governments should always step in to help the kids in this cult and other fundie extremist cults.

    Hannah stated how the JWs could actually even consider allowing their own kids to die for the false teachings of their leaders.

    "Strip away all the emotion, the knee-jerk responses we exhibit when it comes to children."

    That's what they do because JWs have had their natural affection stripped from their minds and hearts.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • David
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    The JW response to blood transfusions has never made sense to me.  Even Hannah J Paul says that a transfusion is a type of medical treatment.  So how can someone confuse a medical procedure with consuming blood? It is beyond me.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    We are talking about a type of medical treatment. Strip away all the emotion, the knee-jerk responses we exhibit when it comes to children, the subjective opinions we spit out and we are left with this: blood transfusion is a type of medical treatment. Let me repeat that: Blood transfusion is a TYPE of medical treatment. It is not the end-all and be-all of medicine.  "What do you mean, Hannah?"  This:  A person who rejects a particular TYPE of treatment is not rejecting MEDICAL treatment generally. There is a difference between the two and it is a difference that a sober-minded person considers worth emphasizing, even if the detractors here do not. In the present case, neither parent nor child is rejecting medical treatment (and even if they were, so what). They are rejecting a particular type. I’ve got a really bad tooth. I can get an implant, a crown, or just do nothing. Now I tell the dentist: ‘Let’s go with the crown’ and the “doctor” (dentist) says: “No little lady. The implant will fix it perfectly. And you’re going to get an implant even if I have to tie you to the chair!” And if some feel compelled to introduce the line: “Well this is different! The boy is dying! It’s a matter of life and death!” I see, when that’s the case, it justifies forcing a treatment, is that right? And I guess since the doctor can GUARANTEE that the boy is going to die without the transfusion, he can also GUARANTEE that the boy will live with it. Right? No? Doctors cannot guarantee life? You bet they can't.  They will never say such a thing.  So riddle me this: how can he GUARANTEE DEATH? 

    Having said that, is it right for a judicial official or medical personnel to force upon a person – any person –a particular type of medical treatment? Are humans not free moral agents with bodily self-determination? Do humans not have the right to decide what particular medical treatment they will take for a medical condition? 

     “The Judge is satisfied that he [the boy] could be helped to live by the treatment” according to the private High Court cited. Really??!!  Is the Judge also satisfied that humans have a say in their medical treatment only when that say mimics what the Judge says? Only when that say mimics what the doctors say?  Because that is precisely what is being said here.  Why do we not get the sense of this? Why do we not understand the fundamentals of this issue?

    It is my considered opinion that no human being has the right to force another human being to accept a particular medical treatment because that first human being is “satisfied” that it is the proper thing to do despite what the patient has to say. And, in this case, despite what the parent has to say.

    This is the issue here. Divorce yourself from whatever you feel concerning the medical issues, the religious tones. What is the bald fact that remains? A person is saying “I think this is the best treatment and I am going to force you to accept it whether you like it or not.”  Seriously?   

    No decision that blithely dismisses or runs over one's inherent right to bodily self-determination is the right decision!

    Hannah J Paul

    • ...Show all comments
    • Hannah J Paul
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      If one trashes a person's right to bodily self-determination, it is ALWAYS morally wrong.  Asking whether it is legal is useless since the law of the land calls all sorts of immoral conduct legal.  The kid is not choosing to die.  He and parents choose which treatment to reject.  Fat difference.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    There have been religious sects that passed around poison. Should the government stop them? There is very little difference between someone's religious beliefs keeping them from needed medical help and urging them to take poison. Either way, death is inevitable. I believe that people have the right to commit suicide if death is iminent, painful, debilitating, a burden to loved ones, and expensive. It seems that the opinion of the public (average citizen) should matter in the case of suicide that doesn't include those various reasons.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    Yes, absolutely. Any parent who is willing to see their child die a slow horrible death from a treatable desease because an ancient book says so shouldn't be allowed to breed in the first place!

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • Otto
    Lv 7
    4 weeks ago

    True Christians will not accept a blood transfusion.  They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God's laws. - Matthew 16:25.

    • Log in to reply to the answers
  • 4 weeks ago

    Yes, I agree with the High Court.

    Only a crackpot cult would allow a 14 year old to die when treatment is available.... and I think the child and mother agree - you don't have read too much between the lines when they stated they would ".... respect the law and any decision made by a judge."!

    • Log in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.