This article is from googlenews:
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/05/23/5646826-sun.html
Kids Trump Religious Beliefs-Canada Wins Against The WTB&TS!
by jamiebowers 40 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
crazyblondeb
By MINDELLE JACOBS Perhaps one day, hopefully soon, Jehovah's Witnesses will abandon their ridiculous belief that God opposes blood transfusions.
Until then, it's up to the state to continue to protect minors who need medical treatment from the religious beliefs of their parents and religious leaders.
Every so often, you hear of minors who refuse blood transfusions because they've been led to believe that a practising Jehovah's Witness would never undergo such a procedure. Inevitably, the government steps in and ensures the treatment goes ahead.
The rationale behind the state's involvement is simple and necessary. Saving the lives of children is more important than bowing to the senseless and potentially damaging dictates of religion.
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of a former Winnipeg teen who was given a blood transfusion against her will in 2006 when she was 14.
In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the teen compared the experience to "being raped and violated." Her reaction is undoubtedly heartfelt, but it underscores the necessity of promoting the best interests of children in such circumstances.
"This is about power. This is about who controls (Jehovah's Witness) children," says Juliet Guichon, a lawyer and University of Calgary bioethicist.
"Is it the state who can protect them or is it the Watchtower Society? That's what they're fighting about."
POOR INFORMATION
The Watchtower Society gives very poor information about the risks and benefits of blood and society lawyers -- who are also Jehovah's Witness clergy -- are representing the young woman, says Guichon.
"It raises the question as to whether (she) is in a position to instruct counsel. Ordinarily, the client instructs the lawyer. But does an adherent instruct a priest?"
So who knows how this unnamed teen really feels about her religion's ban on blood transfusions? Perhaps she's secretly overjoyed that the state stepped in and forced her to get treatment. While Crohn's disease isn't fatal, she could very well have died without a transfusion.
This case pits the right of so-called mature minors to choose or refuse medical procedures against the state's interest in protecting kids.
The teen argued she was mature enough to make her own medical decisions and, in fact, some provinces allow capable minors to make such determinations.
But maturity alone isn't enough, maintains Guichon. Officials also have to consider the quality of the medical information a young person is receiving as well as whether there has been coercion, she says.
It would be a very rare case where you could conclude that someone refusing life-saving treatment is mature enough to decide, she points out, adding that refusing such medical help might be evidence of a lack of maturity.
She said she hopes the Supreme Court lays down some guidelines about how to manage cases in which patients have poor information and are being coerced.
The wishes of minors are considered in medical matters, Guichon adds, but promoting the best interests of the child is the overriding factor.
And who would disagree, other than an unbending religious group that apparently believes blood transfusions will result in the loss of salvation, family and community?
It's a despicable scenario to present to a sick, impressionable child -- that you will be shunned forever for fighting for survival.
If Jehovah's Witnesses won't save their children, the state will have to do it for them.
-
Lady Lee
May 23, 2008
Edmonton Sun
Kids trump religious belief
By MINDELLE JACOBS
Perhaps one day, hopefully soon, Jehovah's Witnesses will abandon their ridiculous belief that God opposes blood transfusions.
Until then, it's up to the state to continue to protect minors who need medical treatment from the religious beliefs of their parents and religious leaders.
Every so often, you hear of minors who refuse blood transfusions because they've been led to believe that a practising Jehovah's Witness would never undergo such a procedure. Inevitably, the government steps in and ensures the treatment goes ahead.
The rationale behind the state's involvement is simple and necessary. Saving the lives of children is more important than bowing to the senseless and potentially damaging dictates of religion.
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of a former Winnipeg teen who was given a blood transfusion against her will in 2006 when she was 14.
In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the teen compared the experience to "being raped and violated." Her reaction is undoubtedly heartfelt, but it underscores the necessity of promoting the best interests of children in such circumstances.
"This is about power. This is about who controls (Jehovah's Witness) children," says Juliet Guichon, a lawyer and University of Calgary bioethicist.
"Is it the state who can protect them or is it the Watchtower Society? That's what they're fighting about."
POOR INFORMATION
The Watchtower Society gives very poor information about the risks and benefits of blood and society lawyers -- who are also Jehovah's Witness clergy -- are representing the young woman, says Guichon.
"It raises the question as to whether (she) is in a position to instruct counsel. Ordinarily, the client instructs the lawyer. But does an adherent instruct a priest?"
So who knows how this unnamed teen really feels about her religion's ban on blood transfusions? Perhaps she's secretly overjoyed that the state stepped in and forced her to get treatment. While Crohn's disease isn't fatal, she could very well have died without a transfusion.
This case pits the right of so-called mature minors to choose or refuse medical procedures against the state's interest in protecting kids.
The teen argued she was mature enough to make her own medical decisions and, in fact, some provinces allow capable minors to make such determinations.
But maturity alone isn't enough, maintains Guichon. Officials also have to consider the quality of the medical information a young person is receiving as well as whether there has been coercion, she says.
It would be a very rare case where you could conclude that someone refusing life-saving treatment is mature enough to decide, she points out, adding that refusing such medical help might be evidence of a lack of maturity.
She said she hopes the Supreme Court lays down some guidelines about how to manage cases in which patients have poor information and are being coerced.
The wishes of minors are considered in medical matters, Guichon adds, but promoting the best interests of the child is the overriding factor.
And who would disagree, other than an unbending religious group that apparently believes blood transfusions will result in the loss of salvation, family and community?
It's a despicable scenario to present to a sick, impressionable child -- that you will be shunned forever for fighting for survival.
If Jehovah's Witnesses won't save their children, the state will have to do it for them.
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/05/23/5646826-sun.html
-
dinah
This is the sentence that stood out to me:
She said she hopes the Supreme Court lays down some guidelines about how to manage cases in which patients have poor information and are being coerced.
The main word is coerced. A Witness is told, this is the rule if you disobey to save your trifling life you will be shunned and God will kill you for taking blood.
Having been a 14 year old Witness at one point, I can see now that I wasn't "mature" or informed. They always used the analogy of an alcoholic injecting alcohol. How is that relevant? I would think shooting up Jack Daniels would be dangerous.
When I was 14, I had major surgery on my back for scoliosis. I was so worried, not only about the surgery and the pain involved, but about the possibility of dying if I bled too much. My Dad was a UBM, so he went along with mother--to a point. The night before my surgery, my doctor took me in another room to perform a "test". He was really just getting me alone to let me know he would not let me die. My father had told the doctor, to do all he could to avoid blood but not to let me die on the table. My doctor told me they had my blood crossed and matched. If anything went wrong, he promised not to let me die from lack of blood. The surgery took 8 hours, plenty of time to bleed.
Had the HLC been up and running, I would have never gotten that alone time with my doctor to put the fear at rest. If they would get rid of the "blood police" I'm sure more of these children would choose life. I wanted to, but didn't want to puss out in front of the congregation. I would have been coerced.
Thankfully my Dad and Dr. Morrissey stood up for ME.
On a side note, it's funny that mother was more concerned with a blood transfusion than the fact that I could be crippled.
-
dinah
No one wants to celebrate this victory??
-
jamiebowers
None of the topics have been really active so far today. It will probably pick up later on. I am very glad this decision was made. The article has some really scathing things to say about the WTB&TS.
-
belbab
The significance of this news has not sunk in yet.
The news networks have not picked up on it yet.
This is a big boost for Lawrence Hughs case.
The Louderback- Wood article on misrepresentation was right on the money.
The long court decision in Ireland has opened up a big can of worms for the WT over there.
The WT is on the ropes, make significant changes or die!
One last point I want to point out. The argument that giving blood against the wishes of a young girl is just like rape is ridiculous. If a virgin girl had a tumor in her uterous, would she refuse an operation because she considered it as rape?
belbab, watching news releases.
-
dinah
One last point I want to point out. The argument that giving blood against the wishes of a young girl is just like rape is ridiculous. If a virgin girl had a tumor in her uterous, would she refuse an operation because she considered it as rape?
Do you think she came up with that analogy all alone? She was being told what to say in court. Rape is a powerful word.
-
Wordly Andre
I'm not up on Canada's appeals process but I am sure the Jehovies lawyers are getting ready for it
-
Doubting Bro
This week, the Supreme Court of Canada heard the case of a former Winnipeg teen who was given a blood transfusion against her will in 2006 when she was 14.
I don't think they've ruled on the case yet. They're in the process of hearing arguments. I'm assuming this must be an editorial since its obvious what the writer thinks. Hopefully the Supreme Court will set down some guidelines for minors similar to what Japan has done (I think its either 15 or 16 before the age of "mature minor"). If they rule that way, it could give some hope to US courts taking the same position.
