Seminar - Forced Transfusion of Children of Jehovah's Witnesses

Dogpatch

Event Title:	Forced Transfusion of Children of Jehovah's Witnesses
Event Date:	October 25, 2007
Event Time:	12:00 PM - 12:50 PM
Event Location:	Gray seminar room in Lurie Map
Event Description:	This lecture will discuss the ethical dilemmas that arise when the children of Jehovah's witnesses require blood transfusions. When, if ever, is it right to act against the family's wishes in the interest of the child's health?
Web Page:	http://bioethics.northwestern.edu/lectures/
Contact Info:	Bryan Morrison (Phone: 312-503-1927)
Group:	Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program

compound complex

Thanks, Randy! Will peruse and spread the word ...
CoCo
llbh

Hi Randy,
Thanks for the post will keep for future reference. Interesting considering recent events in the UK
llbh
cabasilas

Looks like he's on their side:
http://www.dushkin.com/catalog/0072430826.mhtml?SECTION=TOC
ISSUE 10. Do Parents Harm Their Children When They Refuse Medical Treatment on Religious Grounds?
YES: American Academy of Pediatrics, from Religious Objections to Medical Care , Pediatrics
NO: Mark Sheldon, from Ethical Issues in the Forced Transfusion of Jehovah's Witness Children , The Journal of Emergency Medicine
The Committee on Bioethics of the American Academy of Pediatrics states that all children deserve medical treatment that is likely to prevent substantial harm, suffering, or death, regardless of the parents' religious objections to treatment. Professor of philosophy Mark Sheldon assesses the case of Jehovah's Witness parents who refuse to allow their children to undergo blood transfusions and concludes that they cannot be said to be truly harming or neglecting their children. Rather, they are placing their children's spiritual interests above worldly ones.
Enjoying freedom

Medical treatment should only be proposed for a child of any age (ie a person under the age of 18) if the treatment is considered to be in the child's best interests. Case law has established that the patient's best interests are not limited to best medical interests (Re: MB (Medical Treatmenht)[1997] 2 FLR 426) but also encompass "medical, emotional and all other welfare issues" (Butler-Sloss in Re A (Male Sterilisation)[2000] 1 FLR 549.
However in Re: S (A Minor) Medical Treatment) [1983] 1 FLR 376 the judge held that "the court, exercising its prerogative of protection should be very slow to allow an infant to martyr himself".
In Re: L (Medical Treatment: Gillick Competency) [1998] 2 FLR 811 a 14 year old child had not been given information about the distressing nature of her inevitable deaht if she did not have a blood transfusion. The judge found at 813 that the failure to provide the information was material to his finding gthat she was not Gillick competrent because "it is quite clear that she has not been able to be given all the details which it would be right and appropriate to have in mind when making such a decision".
Equally pertinent is the case of Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [1992] 4 All ER 649 where Lord Donaldson said "The real question in each case is, Does the patient really mean that he says or is he merely saying it for a quiet life, to satisfy someone else or because the advice and persuasion to which he has been subjected is such that he can no longer think and decide for himself? In other words, Is it a decision in form only, not in reality?". He went on to say that when considering the effect of outside influences, two aspects can be of crucial importance. They are the strength of will of the patient and the relationship of the "persuader" to the patient. With regard to the latter, his Lorship said that the "influence of parents on their children...can be, but is by no means necessarilyi, much stronger than would be the case in other relationships".
If the doctor proposing treatment considers the child has been subject to undue pressure by another person (be it friends, family, elders, Hospital Liaison Committee etc), then the decision of the child is not valid. Emergency treatment to prevent death or a serious deterioration can be given if the care team consider it in the best interests of the child, however if there is sufficient time a court order should be sought before treatment commences.
For further detailed information I would strongly recommend that the reader refers to "The Mental Health Act Manual" by Richard Jones, 9th edition, published by Sweet and Maxwell. There is a whole section in the back of the book relating to the common law and the law relating to medical treatment of children.
It is time that children are protected from the dangerous decisions made by their parents who are under the influence of a life destroying cult that cares nothing for human kindness and wellbeing.
Enjoying freedom
anglise

Thankyou for this information.
I wish those with authority could investigate this evil cult and expose it.
Anglise
Enjoying freedom

Anglise - I agree!
I wonder if it could be argued that a JW parent who refuses life saving treatment for their child is guilty of child abuse?? Could the longer term custody of that child be under consideration?? I wonder what the NSPCC would think of the situation??
nicolaou

I have read that the Irish government are considering changes in legislation that would even force transfusions on an unwilling adult mother of small children or babies (like Emma Gough) on the grounds that the childs right to have a mother takes precedence over the mothers right to refuse treatment.
The world is starting to wake up to the fact that religious beliefs need not necessarily be due automatic respect.
Enjoying freedom

Nicolau - that sounds promising!
It could be argued that the child's right to life (Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) overrides the parents rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9 of the European Convention etc etc).
Article 2 is an absolute right and will override Article 9 which is not an absolute right.
Therefore the parents are entitled to their own religious beliefs, but if the life of the child is at stake then their right to religious beliefs must, in law, take second place.
What is unclear however is what the unborn child's right to life is under legislation (I am not talking about an ethical debate here, merely what the law says and will allow).
In H v Norway (1990) app no 1700/90 the Commission said that each State had a wide discretion to decide what age an unborn child could be lawfully aborted. This may be different where the child is capable of a viable existence once delivered because the Commission stated that it would not exclude that in certain circumstances an unborn child may enjoy protection under Article 2.
So you would have to (a) make a case to prove that the unborn child has the right to life under Article 2 and (b) then make the case stating that the Article 2 rights of the unborn child will override the Article 9 rights of the parents to religious beliefs.
Enjoying freedom

Seminar - Forced Transfusion of Children of Jehovah's Witnesses

Share this