Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

here's more of it, except much worse imho as a parent (and a judge) are preventing the child from receiving proven, effective medical care, essentially sentencing the poor girl to death.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/16/with-judges-ruling-in-favor-of-traditional-healing-a-child-may-soon-fall-victim-to-faith-based-treatment/

Jehovah's eh, funny lot.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

When the child dies the parents should be charged with murder.

Definitely.

Again, I'm all for people over the age of 18 doing what they want. You want to do drugs? Off you go. You want to follow some stupid religion that could kill you if you need a blood transfusion? Go right ahead. It's your life, you're entitled to do what you want with it as long as it doesn't harm others. However, anyone under the age of 18 should be under the care of the state (i.e. all the under-age laws we currently have) and that includes receiving life-saving treatment regardless of whether the family consent or not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread it is merely an interesting question to explore as to why, when two people present with unsubstantiated nonsense, that we react to each of them differently just because what one of them has is called "religion" and the other not.

It certainly is an interesting question, and the distinction (at least the one accepted by law and medicine) boils down to 'process' versus 'outcome' (see above for further detail). Now, dont get me wrong, there is a debate as to whether and why that distinction applies, but i havent seen you join it (which seems unusual for someone who claims he wants to explore the matter). As i said earlier, if you do have something to add on that point, i'm all ears, but otherwise im just wasting my time on you.

Of course, while it is interesting to discuss whether a religous belief amounts to a genuine psychiatric 'delusion', it is effectively pointless without also considering the policy consequences of an affirmative answer. Even if you are right, what becomes of that position? Do you genuinely believe that those with delusional religous beliefs should have their medical, financial and social decision making interfered with by the courts or the state? (because that - or something like it - is the natural consequence of your holding such a position).

If you fail to address the second question, you are really just the kid who runs up to a religious person, points, laughs and calls them 'crazy' or 'delusional', and runs off again giggling. It may be good for kicks, but it doesnt achieve anything!

drkpower wrote: »

i havent seen you join it (which seems unusual for someone who claims he wants to explore the matter). As i said earlier, if you do have something to add on that point, i'm all ears, but otherwise im just wasting my time on you.

And as I said before no one is forcing you to spend any of your time on anything. You can worry about who you reply to in your own way, and how you invest that time. Choosing to invest it and moaning about it has nothing to do with me.

But you mention "outcome" and to me the outcome appears the same. Two people under two delusions, each of them with exactly the same amount of substantiation (that is to say: None) refuse treatment, and die. So I am merely exploring what the distinctions are between how we treat those two people and why we do so.

Yet our reaction to both of them as a species seems, on the whole, to be different and I am not seeing any meat being added to that distinction except people worry about what the implications and effects might be if we open that pandoras box and explore ways to rectify it.

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, while it is interesting to discuss whether a religous belief amounts to a genuine psychiatric 'delusion', it is effectively pointless without also considering the policy consequences of an affirmative answer.

I prefer to deal with what is right, or what is true, first. And deal with the implications of that later. What is true or real remains true or real regardless of what the implications of it might be. Which is why I have not been dragged down that tangent of discussing the implications where you want to bring me, but am sticking to the point I originally made about it, in and of itself, where I started. If I wish to discuss the distinction and you wish to discuss the implications of making the distinction or implementing it, then we are talking past each other and your fear of wasting your time is well founded.

The fact is that the two examples I gave are equally unsubstantiated. Therefore they are both equally delusional to my mind. At least no one has offered me a useful distinction or methodology of distinction that I can employ except that one is "religion" and the other is not........ and the former deserves some special treatment unknown and contextually labile.

drkpower wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe that those with delusional religous beliefs should have their medical, financial and social decision making interfered with by the courts or the state? (because that - or something like it - is the natural consequence of your holding such a position).

I never expressed or implied such a belief per se. What I AM saying is that where there IS a policy of over ruling a patients medical choice to refuse treatment because we deem them to be deluded in their reasoning for making that choice.......... and GIVEN religious belief in a god is no less delusional or offers no level of substantiation any different to any other delusion.......... then other than "the courts" being scared of the can of worms it will open........... where is the distinction? What is the _actual_ difference between the two deluded people...... that we as a species are pandering to........ not the implied distinction in law or the effect of employing law...... but the actual difference to which we are responding in the first place.

If the only distinction that can really be argued coherently is that including religion delusion in with the other delusions will cause turmoil then so be it, I accept that this is the argument, but it does not sit well with me as anything more than a cop out with an all too human moan of "I know we should do the right thing but its so haaaaaaaaaard".

drkpower wrote: »

If you fail to address the second question, you are really just the kid who runs up to a religious person, points, laughs and calls them 'crazy' or 'delusional', and runs off again giggling. It may be good for kicks, but it doesnt achieve anything!

Not an accurate analogy of anything I am saying or doing on this thread at all, no.

Just to expand things out a bit:
Say the patient refused 'conventional' medical treatment and instead preferred to put their eggs in the quack medicine basket - say homeopathy for example. I doubt very much that the courts would be comfortable over ruling them and taking their medical decisions out of their hands on the basis that they are delusional. So perhaps it's not crazy versus religious, but crazy versus 'other recognised beliefs', be it religion or quack medicine.
People are entitled to believe whatever they like, and make life decisions accordingly. It doesn't follow that they are crazy and unfit to make autonomous decisions. The only instance I'd really be in favour of overruling would be in the case of a dependant where decisions not based on evidence were being advocated.

sheesh wrote: »

In general though, do you think people have similar - I am not saying exactly the same - values to the people that they grew up with.

They would start off with broadly the same influences, but where they go from there is up to them individually.

Just because you rejected you parents views on homosexuality does not mean you rejected their views on stealing, killing, obeying rules, charity etc. you didn't reject every value they taught you, you still shower, are polite to people. You did not come up with every single set of values you have right now by yourself and 'by magic' fit into Irish society.

No but (a) I never said that I did and (b) it's irrelevant anyway. There is nothing whatsoever hypocritical or contradictory about finding oneself in agreement with some values of one's family/religion/society while rejecting others. In as much as their actions are not to the detriment of others, nobody has to justify their values or beliefs to anyone else except themselves.

And you still ignore/cant see the critical difference, the difference that the medical & legal communities recognise. I have posted it a number of times now. If you are unable to counter it, thats fine, but at least have the intellectual honesty to say that.

^^^^Pretty dishonest, but to be expected.

- first and foremost, the courts believe that a necessary condition for depriving a person of their decision making power is some form of 'mental impairment and malfunctioning'. They do not accept that religious belief - however 'bonkers' we might find it - amounts to a form of mental impairment. Legal incapacity can arise where the functioning of the mind is impaired, but not where the mind is capable of functioning, but does so in an unwise or even irrational fashion; it has long been accepted in law that otherwise competent adults are entitled to refuse life saving treatment for any reason, including an irrational reason. [i think that even most atheists would accept that the 'religous', even those at the fringes, fall within the latter category (ie. they have functioning minds!)],

The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed) is whether the person is capable of making a decision. If not, the courts offer protection. If they are capable of making a decision, but make a crazy one, the court doesnt offer protection. It is about process, not outcome. That distinction is a sensible place to draw the line, and these matters have been considered over decades by courts, doctors and ethicists all over the world, and all have come to a broadly similar view.

The difference is that typical medical issues that cause legal incapacity stem from a dysfunction/malfunctioning of the mind (the mind is not capable of working properly). With religously (or belief system) motivated decisions, the mind is fully capable of working properly, even though it comes to what most people consider to be an irrational decision (ie. i wont accpet a blood transfusion because god told me not to/god told me i would get better without one).

The courts feel that it is not their job to qualitatively assess the decision making of others. If people - who are fully capable of making a decision -choose to disregard medical evidence in favour of a decision based on a 'hunch' or unsubstantiated superstition, it is not for the courts to protect them against their own foolishness. The courts - instead - choose to protect those whose minds are not capable of working, as the latter are in need of protection. They fear - rightly - that if they get drawn into qualitatively assessing the decision making of those who make 'crazy' decisions based on religous reasons, they will logically have to do likewise for those who make 'crazy' decisions for other reasons.

And the critical difference is that the homeopathy enthusiast has capable and working cognitive functions. They may make bad decisions, but they work. The court/state/you or I have no right to overrule such decisions.

On the other hand, The person with, for instance an intellectual disability or a psychiatric illness causing a 'true' delusion does not have capable and working cognitive functions. And the court must protect them.

robindch wrote: »

But in Canada, a court rejected doctors' wishes to treat a child for lukaemia because the kid concerned is "aboriginal" and her parents have a constitutional right to have the child treated by "traditional medicine" and this right has been judged more important than the conflicting right of the child to remain alive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/treating-a-childs-cancer-is-not-an-abuse/article21614519/

Wow.

That is a very strange decision, especially for Canada. Thankfully, the irish courts have been quite firm when it comes to kid's cases; any parental decisions (whether they be religously or othewrwise motivated) adversely affecting the life and health of their children will be set aside. And thankfully, refusals by parents are generally more straightforward than adult refusals. The former, if they adversely affect the life and health of the child will be set aside regardless of the parents legal capacity. The latter all depend on the level of the patient's capacity to make the relevant decision.

That Canadian decision is one to watch though.

drkpower wrote: »

^^^^Pretty dishonest, but to be expected.

^^^^ Still throwing out the insults when things do not go your way. But let us see which is really being honest here.

Take the first paragraph you just pasted to start with.

1) The first sentence just talks about the grounds for contravening a patients decision making power. Not what I asked.
2) The next bit says they do not consider religious belief to be mental impairment. AGAIN not what I asked.
3) You then finished up with the statement that in law irrational reasons are not used to mediate whether adults can refuse treatment. AGAIN not what I asked.

So basically I am saying your answers are not answering what I actually asked, and you are throwing out insults at my honesty despite the fact your answers are not answering what I actually asked.

So who is the dishonest one really? Shall I purchase you a mirror? I really do not need someone pretending to be a lawyer telling me how the courts view the decision making process about when to impinge on a patients right to choose... because it is simply not what I have been talking about.

You say "The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed) is whether the person is capable of making a decision" and that might be the crux of the matter for you, but it is NOT the crux of anything I have been talking about.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

.......telling me how the courts view the decision making process about when to impinge on a patients right to choose... because it is simply not what I have been talking about. .

And yet more dishonesty....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Given the patient refusing treatment solely on religious grounds is under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense, is not then a case to be made, or at least to be argued by better minds that yours or mine, that they are similarly incapable of making "the correct" decision given they are under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense?.

.... oh i wonder where such a case might be made....? But no, you havent been talking about the courts. They are totally irrelevant to what you have been talking about!!!

^^^

It is quite sad. You ask a question:

Given the patient refusing treatment solely on religious grounds is under the
delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense, is not then a case to be made, or at least
to be argued by better minds that yours or mine, that they are similarly
incapable of making "the correct" decision given they are under the delusion of
unsubstantiated nonsense?.

I answer it and provide the distinction the courts, and medical professions have made. You flatly refuse to address, counter or give your view on that distinction.

And then you whinge and whinge and multiquote and post for page on page pretending that you never asked the question in the first place!!!