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

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I may be mistaken but I believe I read that this multiple birth, as is often the case, was due to fertility treatments. If their "faith" allows such medical intervention how can they now refuse medical intervention to keep their babies alive?

Having to go on fertility treatments says to me that these people were struggling, they obviously really wanted a family or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of going this route. How can they now refuse treatments for the lives they worked so hard to secure?

It boggles my mind!

I believe in faith, not blind faith.

An Interesting Quandry

[http://users.livejournal.com/-grog-/]

This gets into a couple of interesting issues, and in particular the rights of the child versus the rights of the parents to act in the best interests of the child.

I have always felt that the "it's my faith" argument is a bit of a cop-out in that in situations like this it seems to be used to avoid tackling some very tough, personal issues around the ethics and morality of the situation.

But, having said that, I'm generally reluctant to have the state intervene in these situations as well. In law we grant parents very wide ranging rights and responsibilities where their offspring are concerned, on the supposition that the child is not able to decide adequately for themselves and that quite naturally the parents would have the best interests of the child at heart.

While I can hypothetically say that I would never deny any child of mine medical treatment to enable them to live, I can also appreciate that some would adopt a somewhat more "fatalistic" view that "it's God's will" if the child should not survive naturally.

In this situation, one could argue that the parents are 'denying the child the necessities of life', and are hence acting in an abusive manner towards their offspring. If you can make that argument stick, then there is a fairly strong precedent enabling the state to intervene on behalf of the children. (emotionally, I believe that to be appropriate here)

Whether honestly held religious belief on the part of the parents should supercede that argument or not is a bit sticky. The parents may well believe (somewhat Darwinistically) that their children's fate is currently "in God's hands", and the medical profession should not intervene.

Again, there's a real series of conflicting precedent here. Not only are there cases where intervention has happened, but there are similar cases where intervention has been blocked as well. For example, if I were to be incapacitated in an accident, my immediate family has a legitimate say in whether or not I will be kept alive after a certain point. (Granted, it's one thing when you are talking about an adult and another when dealing with a newborn child - so I don't claim that these are ethically equivalent, only that there are some similarities in terms of the delegation of responsibility)

The underlying question is ultimately "how far do we go" to ensure the survival of newborns? ... and more cautiously, who owns the right to that decision.

Swing too far one way, and you create a legal situation where abortion becomes illegal under all circumstances because the survival rights of the child (born or not) trump all others; swing too far the other way, and it would become nearly impossible to remove children from an abusive situation.

One of these things is not like the others...

[nikitaa.livejournal.com]

According to the news, yes, the parents were on fertility treatments.

The JW faith does not have any problem with medical treatment, however their belief system is such that they deny the use of blood or blood products, regardless of the concequences of the withheld treatment. I'm sure it would be fascinating to read their rationale against blood, and to find what other medical treatments go against their religion.

A belief system that is different than ours can be difficult to understand, especially when it is based on blind faith. I simply CAN'T understand why some people persist in the erroneous belief that they don't need to drink at least five cups of coffee in a day. I mean, what's WRONG with them?

Re: An Interesting Quandry

[nikitaa.livejournal.com]

Well stated.

[ersatz-marduk.livejournal.com]

I think "Believers" from Babylon 5's first season, should be mandatory viewing for all medical practicioners.

I think you should also review it. When David Gerrold started writing the episode, he was on clearly on the doctor's side. That changed by the time he was done.

You mention that non-religious reasons for refusing treatement would be ignored in a heartbeat. Fair enough. In response, I'll tell you that we'd be just as wrong for ignoring those non-religious reasons.

I can refuse medical treatment upon myself for any reason I wish. The medical profession is morally obligated to respect that. I am responsible for the actions and welfare of my child, including those decisions for which they are not deemed competent to decide for themselves. What makes you think the medical profession should have the right to override my call in such a case?

"Training," is not a good enough answer.

[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.

[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]

"...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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I don't care what religion anyone is or isn't I personally think that "Thou shalt not kill" is a pretty good rule to live by & as far as I am concerned you are as culpable when you cause death by inaction than if you had caused the death directly.

[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.

Re: An Interesting Quandry

[gifted-spirit.livejournal.com]

well said.

Re: One of these things is not like the others...

[mallt.livejournal.com]

You are right, I don't know the reasoning behind their refusal to have treatments involving blood and I'm not commenting on their right to refuse treatment at this point. I am simply saying that it boggles my mind that a couple who obviously have gone to great lengths to have these children are then refusing the treatments to keep them alive.

Re: One of these things is not like the others...

[jamesq]

Honestly? I'd be feeling damned overwhelmed by the prospect of going from 0 to 6 children instantly. If I were religious, I might grab onto anything that seemed stable (like a black-and-white commandment) just to keep from having an all out panic.

My dark side also suggests that if it were god's will to knock the number of kids down to a manageable number, simply by witholding a treatment, so be it. The psychology of guilt is a weird thing and clinging to rules is certainly one way of coping.

Re: One of these things is not like the others...

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that that dark thought had crossed my mind... are they using this as an excuse because they know they can't cope with that many at once. I hope like hell that's just me being very, very cynical.

I currently have friends who are fighting their way through the 11 1/2 week premature birth of their son but emergency c-section. knowing what an emotional rollercoaster they are going through right now as their baby struggles through his first weeks, seeing how they are doing everything in their power to ensure he's still around by the time the original due date rolls around... I wonder how they feel about this story...

[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.

[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.

[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.

An Additional Musing

[http://users.livejournal.com/-grog-/]

As we are learning, this couple was using medical intervention to have a baby in the first place.

I don't know what precisely is in the "informed consent" convention for fertility treatments, but I imagine that the risks and increased chances of multiple pregnancy are part of the discussion.

So, if this couple signed that consent with regards to this particular medical intervention, is it a legitimate line of argument to claim that they implicitly signed up for whatever medical intervention is required in order to ensure the survival of the resulting offspring? (especially until they are independently viable)