It's Easier to Ask For Forgiveness Than to Get Permission

[jamesq]

The BC sextuplets need treatment and it might include blood transfusions.

Why is this even up for debate? Give the kids the treatment they need. But of course there's a big foo-fer-all because the parents are Jehovah's Witnesses. Now a few months ago I wrote a rant against religion. One of the points of that post was that arguments from religion get an easy time of it, simply because it's a religion. This is a perfect example of that.

Suppose for a moment that the parents had some other reason, a non religions reason, for opposing life-saving medical treatment. "Aliens told us not to" or "blood is red and I hate the colour red". We'd ignore their wishes in a heartbeat. Child Protective Services would be called in.

But no, they're arguing from religions orthodoxy so it's likely to be a series of court injunctions. Medical treatment needs to be done sooner then later to gain the full benefits, but this dicking around will delay that. Meanwhile, infants might die.

I think the doctors should simply go ahead and treat the kids now and stonewall as much as they can before the inevitable court injunction is delivered. Do as much good as you can now, when it will do the most good. Poor Bethany Hughes might still be alive today if she had been treated sooner.

It's a strange day when the Calgary Herald and I see eye to eye.

Finally, lets all remember that there is no such thing as a JW (or Catholic or Muslim or Jewish) child - there are only children being raised by JW (or Catholic or Muslim or Jewish) parents.

Comments

[jamesq]

"Training" is a good enough reason, because the alternative to expert opinion is guessing. Society is too complex for anyone to get by without consulting experts.

I remember "Believers". It depended on a kind of "script immunity" to achieve it's ending (oh look, the aliens were right) and that's just too pat. Gerrold basically twisted the entire universe so that the correct response was exactly the wrong response. Compelling fiction is still just fiction.

But let's take your assumption and run with it. Some religions (specifically the wierder sorts of southern baptists) say that faith will protect them when handling poisonous snakes. Would you argue that a parent should be allowed to expose their child to a rattlesnake because it their religion? How is that anything other then child endangerment?

The FDLS in Bountiful, BC routinely pimps out their own daughters in so-called plural marriages. The law calls it sexual assault on a minor. Should it be allowed because it's their religion?

We can and do remove children from abusive or neglectful situations. The only difference between the religious and non-religious justifications is that society still seems to think that the religious reasons are somehow different.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

"...oh look, the aliens were right..."

No, they weren't. They had rights. The episode was about a question, not an answer, not even for Mr. Gerrold. The only thing twisted is your view.

"But let's take your assumption and run with it."

The answer to your question is yes. Come on; when you were born, doctors were pressuring mothers to stop breast-feeding. It's what they were trained to do, after all, that and push antibiotics as a solution to everything.

Now tell me how that anything other than child endangerment. Please.

[jamesq]

The aliens rights ended where their child's rights began. There's a big difference between actively endangering a child and taking things under advisement. If you honestly think that rape, poisonous snakes and witholding blood from a 25-week premmie are the flip side of doctors advising mothers to bottle-feed, well, we're not only not in the same ballpark, we're not even playing the same sport.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

The bottle-feeding campaigns went beyond advising. Men of Science (with a capital S) were dangerously heavy-handed with that dogma.

I recognize your right to believe that the most important thing is life. I recognize the right of others to believe that there are more important things. I recognize it because they're the ones who pay for it.

Yes, the kids pay for it too, who suffers? The dead are past suffering, and it certainly isn't you.

Do you think this is easy for the parents, even when they believe they're doing the right thing? Do you think the pain ends quickly for them?

I doubt it. If it did, the Witnesses wouldn't go to some of the lengths they have to find alternatives to blood transfusions in an effort to save their children.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

"Society is too complex for anyone to get by without consulting experts."

Family is too important to leave the final call to them.

[jamesq]

"I've decided to murder my children. My family, my call. God told me to do it."

That's basically what you're advocating. if not, why not?

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

By stating that family is too important to leave the final call to experts, I'm advocating murder? Riiight. Well, let's take a look at this claim I'm supposed to have made anyway.

By your standard, failing to reach out to a drowning individual is an act of murder, even when it places neither party at risk. You may find it morally unacceptable, and I don't find it personally acceptable, but I take issue with the idea of making it a crime.

I can remove warts on my child's hand by cutting off the arm. Is that acceptable? Not to me. Would it be acceptable if my doctor believed that children didn't have hands, and there was no way to prove to her that they did?

Sure, hands are clearly real, while the spiritual consequences of a blood transfusion are not. So what? If I am responsible for the welfare of something in which you do not believe, why are your wishes more imperative than my own?

What do you stand to lose by respecting my authority to make the decision? Is what you stand to lose more important than what I believe my child stands to lose if you are permitted to overrule me?

I don't see why. I happen to think that the Jehovah's Witnesses are making a mistake, but I prefer to leave such mistakes to individuals than the state.

For one thing, it's easier to leave most religions than most nations these days.