parent murder due to medical negligence: Dateline

by Thegoodgirl 13 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Thegoodgirl

  Did anyone see the dateline special tonight: a mom was accused of murder because her diabetic daughter died, and the mom wasn't controlling the girl's blood sugars at all? (The mom was taught and literally said "Don't tell me how to take care of my own daughter.") The girl dies at like age 9 or so, and her hemoglobin A1C was 16.1. Normal is about 6.5, and 12 would be really high, 16.1 is astronomical. That is a measure of the blood sugar control over the past few months, so clearly it was chronically high.

  I was so thinking, if this one goes through, how many Witness parents will go on trial for not giving blood to their kids who needed it? Do you think they should be charged for murder? And how fast would that blood policy be changed, do you think???
• 

  Lady Lee

  You know what?

  I think the WTS would applaud parents who refused to give blood to their children and were convicted of murdering their children for the "cause".

  The WTS would milk this for all they could as proof of persecution. And they would say that it was a personal choice of the parents and therefore not their responsibility. They would hang them out to dry and try to make martyrs of them.
• 

  Super_Becka

  I was so thinking, if this one goes through, how many Witness parents will go on trial for not giving blood to their kids who needed it? ; Do you think they should be charged for murder? ; And how fast would that blood policy be changed, do you think???

  Personally, I think that if you refuse a readily-available and safe medical treatment for your child and the child dies because of your decision, then yes, you should definitely be charged with murder. You could have saved your child easily, but instead, you thought it over and decided to let the child die, in civilized society, we call that "pre-meditated murder". If you let your child die when you could easily save them, then yes, I think that qualifies you as a murderer, plain and simple. You're not just letting your child die, you're killing them with your decision. Congratulations, in a perfect world, you'd be serving 25 to life for that offense and they'd toss you in prison so fast your head would spin.

  If this case with the diabetic child and her mother goes through, I don't think it'll have any bearing on JWs and their child-sacrifices for their insane and outdated blood rule. The WTS has too much money and too much clout to let anything happen to their members. I also don't think that it would have any bearing on the blood policy, that would be conforming to society's norms, and JWs aren't known for that.

  The way things are going with the blood policy and the periodic relaxing of certain parts of it - like the fact that "blood fractions" are now permitted - I'd say that eventually, the WTS will change the blood policy enough so that it doesn't even apply anymore. It'll go from "no blood whatsoever" to "some blood components are OK" to "if you need blood, you can choose to accept it" to "Jehovah gave us the ability to transfuse blood, this is a gift from Him and we should avail of it".

  Thoughts?? Opinions??

  -Becka :)
• 

  Sentient

  This will not be considered as the same situation in a court of law. In the Dateline mother's case it was simple negligence, in the Witnesses' case it is a carefully thought over religious decision that results in the death of the child. I know, it's the same result, but in the case law so far it is sometimes justifiable for parents to make decisions based on this kind of thing because their religion is "real to them". Now that I'm out of the Org, it makes absolutely no sense to me how a parent can be allowed to make that kind of decision, the law should protect the life of the child above the parent's opinion. But the older the child is the more complicated it gets. Save their lives now, let them work out their conscience and their beliefs when they are older and hopefully more sane.
• 

  Saoirse

  I think the WTS would applaud parents who refused to give blood to their children and were convicted of murdering their children for the "cause".

  I agree. They'd probably put their pictures on the cover of a Watchtower.

  I think parents who refuse blood should be charged with neglect. Murder might be a little too strong. Don't they charge Scientology parents for refusing treatment? Why can't they charge JWs then?

  I will never understand how a parent could do that. It's so sick, twisted and evil.
• 

  Thegoodgirl

  It's true, somehow, because it's a religious decision, it's off limits to mess with, and everyone just has to sit back and be tolerant. And yes, I agree, I think the blood rule will slowly be chissled away until it becomes more of a "eyebrow-raised" but technically conscience matter. (You know, like college.)
• 

  A Paduan

  You know what?

  I think the WTS would applaud parents who refused to give blood to their children and were convicted of murdering their children for the "cause".

  Quite likely - it's like what happened during WWII - heirarchy rallied the plebs to stir up a fuss and become martyrs

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  "I'm speaking of the Palestine Jew, not the hooked-nosed, stooped-shouldered little individual who stands on the street corner trying to gyp you out of every nickel you've got" Judge Rutherford
• 

  Scully

  how many Witness parents will go on trial for not giving blood to their kids who needed it? Do you think they should be charged for murder?

  Because the JWs have been groomed from birth that blood transfusions are a violation of God's law, they very sincerely hold to this teaching unwaveringly, regardless of how insane it is, and how riddled the publications are with misinformation and distortion of secular facts. Courts will not cross that boundary that regards articles of faith as sacred and fundamental rights. In Canada, they have placed limits on these however: the Supreme Court recognized that a minor child's right to life supercedes its parents right to free expression of religion, where the child is not of a stage of maturity where they are considered able to make such a decision on their own behalf. The Court recognizes that the adult JW has the right martyr him or herself, but they do not have the right to martyr a child who may not, if given the opportunity to live to adulthood, choose to martyr themselves in this manner or even become members of the religion.

  Do I think the parents should be charged with murder? No. But I do think that the WTS needs to be called to account for thousands of senseless and needless deaths over this policy.
• 

  rebel8

  In the Dateline mother's case it was simple negligence, in the Witnesses' case it is a carefully thought over religious decision that results in the death of the child.

  Sentinent, I generally agree with your comment. I can think of one important exception though, having been the victim myself.

  The JW blood refusal does not begin and end at the hospital bedside saying no to blood products. It affects much more than that. In my case, here are the things my mother did that I'm fairly certain would have gotten her convicted on child neglect charges if someone had reported it. These were all things recommended by and endorsed by the elders.

  • Keeping me at home often when I was in potentially deadly condition, instead of bringing me to a physician/hospital.
  • Trying to manage my condition with herbs instead of taking me to an ER when circumstances were dire.
  • A lot of "provider hopping"--when I finally did get emergency care, I was brought to different hospitals/physicians with the intention to find ones that didn't know my history and were less likely to suggest transfusions. She would intentionally avoid hospital ERs who didn't have a hematologist on call, so the medical decision making would be left to an ER physician or pediatrician. Those types of Drs. are less likely to know the best way to treat my condition and more likely to take treatment advice from my mother.
  • Coercing me (at the threat of physical punishment) to not tell the school nurse or healthcare providers how bad my condition was--for example, lying about how long I had been bleeding, telling them I didn't feel weak, refusing to tell them why I fainted, etc.
  • Promising ER physicians she would comply with follow up care and never doing it.
  • Not allowing me to access preventative care.
• 

  Mary

  I was so thinking, if this one goes through, how many Witness parents will go on trial for not giving blood to their kids who needed it? Do you think they should be charged for murder? And how fast would that blood policy be changed, do you think???

  It's not really the same thing. This child died because the mother was negligent and apparently couldn't be bothered to try and save her daughter. She'll probably be charged with Negligence Causing Death.
  
  The Witnesses are slightly different. While I don't agree with the Borg's policy on blood, Witnesses will generally try every other means possible to save their child's life and their decision is based on religious grounds (no matter how misguided). It's not a matter of negligence.

  Rebel8 said: These were all things recommended by and endorsed by the elders.

  • Keeping me at home often when I was in potentially deadly condition, instead of bringing me to a physician/hospital.
  • Trying to manage my condition with herbs instead of taking me to an ER when circumstances were dire.

  Rebel, it sounds like your mother wasn't all there. While the Borg doesn't permit blood transfusions, they certainly do not endorse anyone keeping their child at home and trying to treat them with herbs instead of going to a hospital. Like I said above, they will try all other avenues open to them.......and the elders in your Hall endorsed this treatment? Christ Almighty........yeah, they should have been charged. That's absolutely pathetic.