Jehovah's Witness boy fights court for right to die

by jwfacts 87 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  adamah

  SBF said-

  Life is not always preferable to death. We all know this, that's the problem. Who gets to decide in each case? I think the individual's autonomy with respect to their body and their life should be respected.

  SBF, the hairy horsefly in the ointment with such libertarian approaches is that many people DO suffer from mental and physical conditions that lead them to make choices they wouldn't otherwise make, eg diabetics are known to make irrational decisions when their blood sugar gets out of control (and similarly their mentation becomes clouded, but returns to "normal" once their blood sugar is stabilized). Many people suffer from depression which after it's managed say, "Wow, thanks: I didn't know what I was thinking, as I wanted to kill myself!" The elderly suffer from dementia/Alzheimers, which also obviously effects their decision-making skills, and they need someone (hopefully a family member) to make healthcare decisions for them.

  The age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary, yes, in that we have to draw an arbitrary line SOMEWHERE. But regardless of age (whether 19, 49, or 79), a person may lose the right to self-determination to make such informed decisions over their healthcare if there's compelling evidence indicating they are not of "sound mind and body", since they might lack the ABILITY to make sound decisions. Although guidelines exist, it's a judgment call, and that's what this judge did: he made a judgment.

  Humans are dependent on the condition of their brain being in relative healthy condition, and having been raised in an environment to give them the ability to make sound decisions. A group like the JWs presents intentionally-biased information, and uses social coercion in order to compel members to make a certain decision, backed by the belief in the religious threat of eternal judgment and damnation by Jehovah (where religious beliefs in adults are protected by 'freedom of worship'). Adults are able to consent to that belief, but minors are not. As Richard Dawkins says, it is completely inappropriate to refer to 'Catholic children' or 'JW child', since children are not able to make any other decision that is legally-binding (eg to enter into an inforceable legal contract), so why should they be described as having chosen a religion?

  (IMO, baptisms of minors are eyebrow-raisers, since it's a life-altering decision which although currently legal, probably shouldn't be.)

  You objected earlier to the title of the thread, complaining that it's not about the right to die, but it actually IS: if the minor refuses treatment, it would be tantamount to choosing death. You're trying to create a "distinction without a difference", since the end result would be the same: the minor was much more likely to die if he had been allowed to refuse blood, since Hodgkin's lymphoma is one of the more-easily treatable cancers, with vastly-improved rates of survival between those who are treated vs those who refuse treatment.

  But anyone who thinks there's a simple "one size fits all" answer here is fooling themselves, and are likely blissfully unaware of the many variables and issues that exist.

  Adam
• 

  jgnat

  Why might a seventeen year old be at higher risk to alcohol poisoning than a mature adult? Might a teens risk assessment be impaired or skewed?
• 

  slimboyfat

  People with debilitating illnesses who fight for the "right to die" have death as the objective and goal of their struggle. A JW who refuses blood wants to live but not if that involves having to take a transfusion. That's a huge difference, not a disticntion without a difference. The very phrase "right to die" is part of a very prominent media discourse about euthanasia, and using the same phrase to describe the position of JWs who refuse blood is inaccurate and misleading.

  I don't think the Wathctower should be allowed to baptise minors either.

  I don't agree with forcing people to have treatments they don't want just to satisfy society's norms and standards.

  People may come to regret their past actions, that's can be the way. But was it Durkheim who said, "no one ever gave up a life worth living". I think there is a fundamental truth to that. In the moment that is all there is, no future, no past, no principle of life. Nothing.

  It is of course entirely possible that the young man will leave the JWs in the future and will come to be thankful that he was forced to have a transfusion. It is also possible that he will continue to resent the violation for the rest of his life. There is no way to tell. And it doesn't matter either way. The point is he is a human being who should have the right to determine what happens to his own body. That is my view. I accept that is not in line with the law in many places, but to hell with the law. I think it has no business here.
• 

  TD

  SBF raises the very same question that I recently debated with a pediatric bioethicists after a presentation I made at a local children's hospital...

  I appreciate your expertise, knowledge and experience here When a comment is made about JW's as a whole, it is not terribly clear if we're talking about a legal/ethical distinction for those facing medical decisions or if we're talking about general psychology, which defines coercion in fairly broad terms. At any rate, I do agree, although I think it's an ethical problem when a person has been fed a steady diet of misinformation.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I don't agree with forcing people to have treatments they don't want just to satisfy society's norms and standards.

  Unless some really new concept is posted, this will be my last post on this thread. SLB and I must agree to disagree, but I appreciate that he has put a lot of thought into his position. However, I take issue with the above statement.

  Physicians and hospitals do not resort to the courts just to fulfill some power trip. JWs are well researched and written about, and as medical professionals, interested in upholding both the priciples of autonomy and their own oath, they carefully consider their options before seeking to force treatment on anyone.

  Hence, they do not act "just to satisfy society's norms and standards." They act to achieve the highest ideals of morals and ethics on the planet.

  That is why these difficult cases are referred for an in-house bioethics conference, and all posible courses of action and treatment recommedations are vigorously debated by a team of bioethicists who have made it their life mission to seek the patient's best long-term and short-term welfare. I have been present when two ethicists clashed regarding a JW patient, and I can assure you, both parties argued their positions passionately and well, to the point that I think there are some residual hard feelings (yes, they take it that seriously). Therefore, I reject SLB's charaterization of their goal, a characterization that trivializes and minimalizes the position of those that disagree with him.

  Lastly, SLB is absolutely correct that this is not a "right to die" issue. The boy is not seeking to die because he is seeking treatment, and he is compliant with his other treatment recommendations. While this tack was taken in the past, no serious ethicist would frame the issue so now.

  Edited to add:

  TD responded while I was crafting my response, and he adtroitly tables a key issue, namely the distinction between the two standards (legal/medical).

  To meet the clinical informed consent standard, minors refusing life-saving medical treatment (LSMT) need only have capacity, understand they might die, and not be coerced.[1] Conversely, the MM doctrine requires they be super-functioning minors who qualify to be exempted from the law of majority because they exhibit indicia of a well-functioning adult both in their day-to-day lives and in their medical decisions. This difference in the standards is predictable since medical informed consent applies even to routine, daily medical matters while the MM minor doctrine is most often invoked in high-stakes public policy or life-and-death medical decisions. It is reasonable to hold a minor seeking the right to refuse LSMT to a higher standard, [2] and the higher legal standard explains why two normally functioning Jehovah’s Witness adolescents over seventeen years-old failed to meet the test.[3] In sum, the MM doctrine capacity standard requires more of minors than the average-adolescent-on-the-street standard used by the medical community.

  ---

  [1]See supra Part II.a.

  [2] Paul S. Appelbaum, Assessment Of Patients’ Competence To Consent To Treatment, 357 N. Engl. J. Med 1834, 1836 (2007); see also Lantos, supra note 44 (noting that as applied to adolescents, “the more serious the consequences of decision, the more rigorous that evaluation and standards for [decision-making capacity] should be.”).

  [3]Application of Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr., 147 Misc. 2d 724, 557 N.Y.S.2d 239 (Sup. Ct. 1990); see also In re E.G., supra note 56.
• 

  adamah

  SBF said-

  People with debilitating illnesses who fight for the "right to die" have death as the objective and goal of their struggle. A JW who refuses blood wants to live but not if that involves having to take a transfusion. That's a huge difference, not a disticntion without a difference. The very phrase "right to die" is part of a very prominent media discourse about euthanasia, and using the same phrase to describe the position of JWs who refuse blood is inaccurate and misleading.

  And with that example you offered above, you're creating a false equivalency, as this isn't a "right to die" (euthansia) issue, but more akin to a "right to commit suicide" situation, since that's EXACTLY what the 17 y.o. would be doing by refusing life-saving treatment, only operating under the auspices of "freedom of religion". The decision to refuse life-saving treatment is one that, much like baptism, SHOULD be reserved for adults (if you think it's OK to limit dedicating one's life to the JWs via baptism is OK, then certainty you'd agree GIVING up one's life to the JWs should similarly be reserved for adults).

  But nevertheless, in the eyes of this 17 y.o., he'd be dying as a martyr, expecting to be rewarded by God for doing so. In the eyes of a secularist, that is tantamount to voluntary death, AKA committing suicide.

  Problem is, as I pointed out in the following article on my blog, the JWs are even misinterpreting Genesis 9:5-6 (based on a NWT mistranslation) to base their ENTIRE blood doctrine upon. So EVEN IF God actually existed, they'd not be viewed by God as "martyrs" based on the correct interpretation of God's policy on blood in the Bible, but as sinners for committing the sin of spilling their own blood (suicide) and deliberately mistranslating his Holy Scriptures to allow for their errant blood policy.

  SBF said-

  I don't agree with forcing people to have treatments they don't want just to satisfy society's norms and standards.

  And that is a conclusion: can you explain WHY or HOW you came to that conclusion? Simply repeating it us 'begging the question'.

  People may come to regret their past actions, that's can be the way. But was it Durkheim who said, "no one ever gave up a life worth living". I think there is a fundamental truth to that. In the moment that is all there is, no future, no past, no principle of life. Nothing.

  It is of course entirely possible that the young man will leave the JWs in the future and will come to be thankful that he was forced to have a transfusion. It is also possible that he will continue to resent the violation for the rest of his life. There is no way to tell. And it doesn't matter either way. The point is he is a human being who should have the right to determine what happens to his own body. That is my view. I accept that is not in line with the law in many places, but to hell with the law. I think it has no business here.

  That's a rather fatalistic nihilistic attitude that I'm going to guess plays no minor role in explaining your viewpoint on this issue and many others, as it seems to be a rather convenient excuse to justify inaction and inactivity on ANYTHING (and yes, I've noted your similar approach on other topics).

  We have MANY accounts of individuals who survived their experiences with impaired judgment to know that the bias goes toward protecting the life of the individual; if it is a mistake that society makes and the individual really wants to commit suicide, they can always do it the old-fashioned way.

  In the meantime, you might want to take a look at:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

  And steps to overcome it:

  http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/18128/analysis-paralysis

  Adam
• 

  Simon

  I think the fact is when people are risking their lives for what is fundamentally simply a superstitious belief then the state should step in because they are not acting rationally with a sound mind.

  Religion is a mental illness that we need to cure society of.

  Would we allow other sufferers of mental illness the 'right' to self harm or suicide, however much they believed they needed to do it? No, it would be sick to do so. Just as it is sick for someone to die based on some contradictory beliefs based on some weird interpretation by persons unknown of a 2000 year old book of questionable authenticity.
• 

  Simon

  A 17 year old brought up in 'the truth' is completely coerced and has been taught for many years how to 'act' like they are dedicated to a belief system.

  Here's a simple test to see whether they really believe it or not:

  While the case is going on, print a fake edition of the WatchTower saying that the Governing Body has received 'new light' on blood and whether it is still interpreted the same way. Scatter it with scriptures and snippets of quotes from experts at random as all articles are. Show it to the kid.

  Now, who thinks their belief will suddenly change even though previously they were completely dogmatic to the point of risking death for it?

  I think many, many patients and families would be happy and relieved that they were now OK to receive the medical treatment they needed.

  Their beliefs are fake. They do not really "believe" the beliefs other than the single belief that they need to do as the WTS + GB tell them to and say and act as though what they have been told is what they believe.
• 

  slimboyfat

  We have MANY accounts of individuals who survived their experiences with impaired judgment to know that the bias goes toward protecting the life of the individual; if it is a mistake that society makes and the individual really wants to commit suicide, they can always do it the old-fashioned way.

  Are you talking about a Witness who refuses blood here? Because their objective is not to commit suicide but to avoid something they believe will displease God. I am not sure if you genuinely misunderstand this or you are playing a rhetorical game. If so I think it is misjudged because it obscures rather than clarifies the issue to impose the terms of a different discourse onto this related but distinct ethical dilemma.

  You are right my view of reality is pretty nihilistic. I find it a pretty nihilistic world. That's the God's honest truth, and I don't believe in God, or in truth.
• 

  adamah

  SBF said-

  Are you talking about a Witness who refuses blood here? Because their objective is not to commit suicide but to avoid something they believe will displease God.

  Life and death is a binary situation: it doesn't matter WHY you think you are committing suicide, just that you ARE.

  This child is so enveloped in the theology of JWs, he is unable to see that anything BUT what he's been immersed in: that's WHY the judge declared that his upbringing makes him unable to see anything else (being raised "in a cocoon").

  Now, will he avail himself of that opportunity to break out of his coccoon, in the future? Who knows? That's on him, but at least he has the OPTION.

  For the record, here's Wikipedia's definition for the phrase, "right to die":

  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_die

  The right to die is an ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment, where a disease would otherwise prolong their suffering to an identical result. The question of who, if anyone, should be empowered to make these decisions is often central to debate.

  The right to die is sometimes associated with the idea that one's body and one's life are one's own, to dispose of as one sees fit. However, a legitimate state interest in preventing irrational suicides is sometimes argued.

  So the phrase 'right to die' includes the right to commit suicide (for rational or irrational reasons). As such, the OP is correct by characterizing the thread as a 'right to die' issue, since it is much more aligned to suicide (irrational vs rational is open to debate) than to euthanasia, since the boy is declining life-saving treatment on religious grounds (akin to martyrdom).

  Speaking of martyrdom, I'm reading Elaine Pagel's excellent and easy-read on the early Christian sects, "The Gnostic Gospels". One of those little tidbits I'd forgotten about is how the orthodox Christians were persecuted by the Romans and loudly proclaimed their martyrdom (while the Gnostics generally recanted, thus saving their lives, but were despised by the hard-line orthodox Christians as a result):

  Such behavior provoked the scorn of the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who despised Christians as morbid and misguided exhibitionists. Many today might agree with his judgment, or else dismiss the martyrs as neurotic masochists. Yet for Jews and Christians of the first and second centuries, the term bore a different connotation: martus simply means, in Greek, "witness". In the Roman Empire, as in many countries throughout the World today, members of certain religious groups fell under government suspicion as organizations that fostered criminal or treasonous activities. Those who, like Justin, dared to protest publicly the unjust treatment Christians received in court made themselves likely targets of police action. For those caught in such a situation then, as now, the choice was often simple: either to speak out, risking arrest, torture, the formality of a futile trial, and exile or death--or to keep silent and remain safe. The fellow believers revered those who spoke out as "confessors of their faith" and regarded only those who actually endured thought death as "witnesses" (martryes)."

  Now you know the REAL reason they call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses, AKA "Jehovah's martyrs"! They paradoxically live for such opportunities, and it would be a shame to let one pass by!

  Ignatious was arrested and tried, and is said to have accepted the death sentence with joyful exultation as his chance to "imitate the passion of my God!" He even wrote a letter to influential Christians in Rome, begging them NOT to use their political influence to intercede on his behalf, asking them to do him this one favor by NOT preventing his death by martyrdom.

  Of course, there were heated debates between the Gnostic and Orthodox Christians over whether death by 'voluntary' martyrdom counted as much as 'involuntary' martyrdom, but the Gnostics were shouted down as "wicked and deceitful"; once the Orthodoxy gained control, the Gnostics became the targets of similar evils at the hands of the orthodox Christians (as payback).

  Simon said-

  Would we allow other sufferers of mental illness the 'right' to self harm or suicide, however much they believed they needed to do it? No, it would be sick to do so. Just as it is sick for someone to die based on some contradictory beliefs based on some weird interpretation by persons unknown of a 2000 year old book of questionable authenticity.

  Their beliefs are fake. They do not really "believe" the beliefs other than the single belief that they need to do as the WTS + GB tell them to and say and act as though what they have been told is what they believe.

  It's ludicrious that a publisher wields such power over major "life and death" decisions, isn't it?

  Can you imagine letting your child die because say, Simon and Schuster told you not to accept a blood transfusion for them?

  Religion exercises a level of control over people that even the most rabid tin-foil-hat-wearing anti-Big Government wing-nut conspiracist can only dream about.

  Adam