Should the beliefs/rights of parents trump a child

Charlene - posted on 10/05/2010 ( 20 moms have responded )

631

29

25

Should the beliefs/rights of parents trump a child's right to live?



A child needs a blood transfusion, but his parent's refuse because it is against their religion. Without it, the child will die. Should their religious rights be struck down to save the child's life? Or should doctors be forced to try to save the child's life with other methods? Even if they know that the transfusion is the only way?

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 10/06/2010

12,562

16

847

And that's a problem with the follower AND the religion, Laura. Any religion with the notion that a child can be doomed to eternal suffering because of his parents' actions is not a religion worth following and deserves to pass into the annals of mythology. And any individual who would follow such a religion has their priorities seriously screwed on wrong.

Serena - posted on 10/08/2010

453

10

55

I remember one church sermon I heard growing up that stuck with me, I'm Catholic though...the basis of the story was a man was pleading with God for help because he got stranded in a flood. There 3 or 4 different rescuers that came and everytime the man said no I am waiting for God. Then he died and when he went to Heaven he asked God why didn't you help me and God told him "I tried. I sent you 3 rescuers" (paraphrasing)
So I believe that God gave us this technology to help us, to rescue us persay.
I do remember the case a few years back that had me completely outraged about the parents that refused to get their son chemo because it was against their religion. The government stepped in, which I think they should if it affects the safety of your child. I really find it hard to believe that God would condemn you for trying to save your child's life.

Sharon - posted on 10/06/2010

11,585

12

1315

If the child is old enough, ask the child.

those with those crazy "death is better than contamination" religious beliefs, suck ass. I hate them. They reject their child and subject them to all kinds of purification bullshit for the rest of their lives.

Ultimately, its not my child. You can't forget the child was raised to believe they will be tainted and unable to get into heaven (or whatever) and will be utterly miserable, possibly for the rest of their lives.

For me, personally, I cannot get past the "what ifs" but for them there are no what ifs. I say let them be. Its their pain.

you're only upset in the abstract. Its not your child. children die every day. Sad but true. Parents decide to stop chemo, parents decide to not use extreme measures to save an infant.

Its THEIR pain, their loss of a child. Their comfort (the parents and the child) is that there is a heaven waiting for them.

If the child EVER says "NO I don't want to die." Then society needs to step in and save that child from its parents.

But otherwise, let them be.

Jackie - posted on 10/06/2010

1,415

44

72

No, No, NO...
I'm not a religious person I don't get the whole idea of God's rules trumping a decision to save your own childs life. But if I were religious, wouldn't it make more sense to have the idea that "God" gave doctors and scientist the ability to perform modern medicine. Didn't 'God' give us the resources to be able to save lives?

On the other hand though, I don't know if it would be a different story if the child had a terminal illness and was absolutely going to die and all medical treatment would do is prolong a life that would just be painful anyways. But then again, that's a whole other "Dr Kervorkian" type debate... which would be an interesting one. Maybe I'll start a new topic?

Krista - posted on 10/06/2010

12,562

16

847

It is a tough call really ... abandon your faith when things get tough? What are you teaching your child if you do that?

You're not teaching them a darned thing if they're DEAD because of your cockamamie religious beliefs.

And this isn't "things getting tough". This is saving your own kid's life. I don't care who you are, if you put religious dogma ahead of your child's life, then you are a monster.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

20 Comments

View replies by

Stifler's - posted on 10/08/2010

15,141

154

604

I wholeheartedly agree with the people who said God gave us technology to maintain/save life. That's so true.

Isobel - posted on 10/06/2010

9,849

0

286

I would obviously never do it (because there is no god) BUT I do understand the idea of a person believing this life is short and not wanting to damn their child to hell for ETERNITY because they were so selfish to want to keep their child and not let god take them when he calls them.

like I said...I obviously don't agree...but I get it.

Tracey - posted on 10/06/2010

1,094

2

58

In UK a doctor can take a family to court to force a child to have life saving treatment that goes against a family's religion, and from age 13 a child is considered old enough to make their own medical decisions if the doctor feels they are mature enough to understand .their condition.
My question is that if that child has the surgery / treatment will they spend the rest of their lives being put down by their family who felt they have been condemned to hell or whatever because a doctor saved their life by going against their religion?

Jessica - posted on 10/06/2010

260

6

13

So basically, JW have managed to find at least 27 different ways to get around their own law? A law supposedly enforced by god? Am I reading this wrong cos it seems like they have deliberately found a way to not obey there own rule? Seriously, did I read it wrong?

Jessica - posted on 10/06/2010

260

6

13

I believe that if you want to allow yourself to die over a 'belief' then that is your prerogative. Your 'belief' however, should NEVER affect another's life in such a manner. Including your own children.

Charlie - posted on 10/06/2010

11,203

111

409

JW's have several ways to overcome the blood rule without breaking their beliefs :

The following procedures and products are not prohibited, and are left to the decision of individual members:

* Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma for either allogeneic or autologous transfusion as described below .
* Transfusions of autologous blood part of a "current therapy".
* Hemodilution, a modified technique in which equipment is arranged in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system.
* Intraoperative blood salvage (autologous) or cell-saver scavenging, a method of picking up blood that has spilled from the circulatory system into an open wound, cleaning and re-infusing it.
* Heart-Lung Machine, a method in which blood is diverted to an artificial heart-lung machine and directed back into the patient.
* Dialysis, wherein blood circulates through a machine, is filtered and cleaned, then returned to the patient.
* Epidural Blood Patch, consisting of a small amount of the patient's blood injected into the membrane surrounding the spinal cord.
* Plasmapheresis, wherein blood is withdrawn and filtered, having the plasma removed and substituted, and returned to the patient.
* Labeling or Tagging, blood is withdrawn, mixed with medicine, and then returned to the patient by transfusion.
* Platelet Gel, blood is withdrawn and put into a solution rich in platelets and white blood cells.
* Fractions from red blood cells:
o Hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying component of red blood cells.
* Fractions from white blood cells:
o Interferons
o Interleukins
* Fractions from platelets:
o Platelet factor
* Fractions from blood plasma:
o Albumin
o Globulins
o Cryoprecipitate
o Cryosupernatant
o Clotting factors, including Factor VIII and Factor IX derived from large quantities of stored blood
Wound healing factor
* Erythropoietin (EPO).
* PolyHeme, a blood substitute solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin.
* Hemopure, a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin derived from cow's blood.

Bloodless surgeries have been developed for AIDS patience that JW's can take advantage of .

So although a few have died most likely in an emergancy situation where these options were not easily accessed there options really aren't just doner blood transfusion or death .

In an extreme emergancy where death may occur than yes i think the authorities should step in and in a few countries they have the legal right to .

Stifler's - posted on 10/06/2010

15,141

154

604

I don't really see how there are other options, if there's not enough blood in their system.

Stifler's - posted on 10/06/2010

15,141

154

604

They can have a circuit done like blood pumped out cleaned and put straight back in in a cycle but they can't have blood removed cleaned and then put back in. So they can't even store their own blood just in case.

Becky - posted on 10/05/2010

2,892

44

93

I don't have the right to kill anyone else based on my religious beliefs, so why should I have the right to kill my child by denying him essential, life-saving medical treatment?
I think you can see where I stand! :)
That said, I did a home assessment on a JW couple once, and had to ask them this question in regards to a child they would adopt, and they said that there are often other options besides blood transfusions that would be as effective. So, I think in a case where the parents' beliefs prohibited blood transfusions, other options should be fully explored before their beliefs are overruled, but, if it comes down to a transfusion being the only way to save the child's life, then I think saving the child's life takes priority over respecting their beliefs. And yes, the state should, (and can, here) step in and take custody of the child to make that happen, if necessary.

Stifler's - posted on 10/05/2010

15,141

154

604

I think you can give your child your beliefs. But this religion imposes on their right to safety.

?? - posted on 10/05/2010

4,974

0

172

A child doesn't have the understanding of what religion is. A child does not CHOOSE a belief or religion. There fore parents have the right to choose those beliefs for their OWN life. They should NEVER have the right to choose those beliefs for the life of another. By choosing to impose their beliefs on their child, they are taking away every right that child has to grow up, learn and choose a belief on their own.

No parent has the right to impose their beliefs on any child - let alone in a manner that will allow them to die.

Stifler's - posted on 10/05/2010

15,141

154

604

I'd never belong to a faith that prohibits blood transfusions based on one verse from the bible which states "Refrain from blood" so I can't really answer honestly or without getting mad that people do.

JuLeah - posted on 10/05/2010

3,133

38

694

It is a tough call really ... abandon your faith when things get tough? What are you teaching your child if you do that? I don't practice a faith that would limit the medical care my daughter might receive, so I can't speak from the shoes of one who does.
Nothing is black and white
There is always another way and even with a transfusion, the child might not make it. Kids die from cancer all the time, for example.

Heather - posted on 10/05/2010

389

17

18

Yep. Someone should step in. I personally don't think a benevolent god would choose for a child to die instead of receiving a blood transfusion or medical treatment...but that goes back to interpretations of religion and mangling of "God's Word".

Kimberly - posted on 10/05/2010

705

59

52

My heart says no, the beliefs/rights of parents should not trump a child's right to live . Someone needs to intervene but I am ignorant as to any laws that might prevent this from happening.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms