![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqThe 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 02:41 pm (UTC)That's basically what you're advocating. if not, why not?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-12 10:02 pm (UTC)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.