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

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

Would you go so far as to extend this rationale such that parents are then allowed to proscribe their own treatments for thier child's illness?

Such religeously sanctioned treatments as exorcism, flagellation, or fasting could, in more rational contexts, be construed as psychological and physical abuse. But to the parents, based on their beliefs, they're doing what they feel is best for thier child.

Should we let them?

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

Who's this we we're talking about? If you're talking about you, then you do what your conscience dictates.

But if you're talking about the state, then to hell with that.

[catalytic.livejournal.com]

My conscience dictates that I get the children out of the harmful situation. However, since I have neither the power nor the resources to do it myself my conscience would then lead me to entreat the state to act on the children's behalf, since the state *does* have the power and resources.

And you? What does your conscience dictate?

[gifted-spirit.livejournal.com]

Ok.. now.. I think this discussion has gone down TWO paths. 1) Define Treatment ie, medication and health. A mustard pack to a chest verse leaching.

2) State intervention. Saving a life or interveining on " potentially abusive environments"

ahh hell.. poor James. Taking THIS rant to my own blog LOL.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

My conscious dictates that the person with the most invested in the child's welfare, the one who is ultimately responsible for supporting that child, has greater moral authority to make the call than either the state or I do. I may loathe the decisions they'll make, but the consequences aren't mine until I push for the state to make the call.

I don't much care for where that leads.