BRITAIN - A High Court Judge has ruled that a Jehovah's Witness boy can receive a Blood Transfusion

by jwleaks 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jwleaks

  BRITAIN - A high court judge has ruled that the son of two Jehovah’s Witnesses can be given a blood transfusion despite religious objections from his parents.

  Mr Justice Moylan was told by doctors that the “very young” boy had suffered severe burns in an accident and might need a blood transfusion. The judge concluded that a blood transfusion would be in the youngster’s best interests in spite of the “deeply held views” of his mother and father.

  The judge said a health trust with responsibility for treating the boy had asked for a ruling. He did not name anyone involved and did not give the child’s age.

  JUDGMENT - www.jwleaks.org/blood/case-no-fd14p00803

  DOCUMENTS AND COURT RULINGS RELATING TO BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS - www.jwleaks.org/blood
• 

  designs

  Good, if it is the appropriate treatment. Most JW parents I knew who a faced life and death medical crisis with a child were relieved when the Court stepped in.
• 

  Phizzy

  Morally there should be no question of his receiving needed medical treatment, the boy is simply born to parents who hold wackadoodle religious views, to impose those upon him, and risk his life, is totally immoral.

  There should be no such thing as a "Jehovah's Witness" child, or a "Muslim" child, or a "Christian Scientist" child. They are simply children born of those parents and into that culture. They can decide when adult to risk their life in any way that suits them.

  To deny a blood transfusion when needed is the same as strapping explosive to the body of your child and sending him off as a suicide bomber.
• 

  Giordano

  To deny a blood transfusion when needed is the same as strapping explosive to the body of your child and sending him off as a suicide bomber.

  Good point Phizzy. I also feel that the blood card is more like a suicide note.
• 

  Simon

  To deny a blood transfusion when needed is the same as strapping explosive to the body of your child and sending him off as a suicide bomber.

  I think most people see a big difference - one is a crime of inaction that happens occasionally, the other is projecting your hatred outward toward others in a proactive manner.

  Yes, kids die in both cases but I think that is where the similarity ends.
• 

  JWdaughter

  Sacrificing a child to make ones own perverted religious point-I do think there is a similarity, but a limited one. Using a child as a tool to kill others is even worse to humanity. As an act to try appease a false idea of some insane God who requires you do do it though, it is equally insane. Both parents are doing it to earn points with men (not actually God). God doesn't require it biblically or in the quran. These acts are constructs of men to control other men.
• 

  cofty

  It is a very simple matter for doctors to obtain a ward of court order in the UK.

  Parents do not have the right to choose to sacrifice their children.
• 

  the girl next door

  Both motivated by undue influence Phizzy?
• 

  erbie

  Yes, I heard this on the radio today.

  It is actually quite comforting to see common sense prevail at a time when there seems to be so much madness in the world.
• 

  berrygerry

  I remember when a young sister received court-ordered transfusions.

  At the time, I didn't know if it were better that she live or die.

  If she lived, then the court would be proved right.

  If she died, then she would be dead, but have died a martyr's death.

  Pretty f'd up thinking.

  Man, oh, man.