PollShould parents be able to deny children life-saving surgery on religious grounds?

arcadegame2004

Hi. This poll of mine is inspired by a news story in the newspapers today, about what I consider to be an excellent judgement by the High Court:

" When Mammy and Daddy don't know best
ADVERTISEMENT

The Jehovah's Witnesses number only 5,000 people in Ireland. Mostly they are encountered only when a member calls to your door with a copy of one of their magazines. They have one or two famous members as well, for example Venus and Serena Williams.

On the rare occasions that the Jehovah's Witnesses make the news, it is almost invariably for one reason and one reason alone; their belief that it is wrong to receive blood transfusions.

Since blood transfusions are often necessary to save lives - how else do you save someone who has suffered massive blood loss for example - this refusal strikes most people as particularly obdurate.

What strikes most people as much worse than obdurate is when Jehovah's Witness parents refuse to let their children receive blood transfusions.

It is one thing for an adult to make such a decision on their own behalf, but to refuse it on behalf of a small child is of a different order entirely.

That is why yesterday's decision by the High Court to permit surgeons at Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children, Crumlin, to carry out life-saving open heart surgery on a five month old baby against the wishes of its Jehovah's Witness mother, will strike the vast majority of people as perfectly sensible.

Where does this belief in the moral impermissibility of blood transfusions come from? Jehovah's Witnesses say it is directly in the Bible and is expressly forbidden by God. For example, the Book of Leviticus says: "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off."

But the interpretation that this rules out blood transfusions is accepted by no other Christian Church. Nor is it accepted by the Jews themselves whose book the Old Testament ultimately is.

Jehovah's Witnesses say that the State has no right to interfere with the wishes of parents in these matters. If it is the wish of a parent that their child not receive a blood transfusion then it should be respected.

In fact, as a general rule, the decision of parents with respect to the sort of medical treatments their children should receive is respected. For example, many parents refuse to let doctors give their children the MMR vaccination on the grounds that they may become autistic.

This has actually led to an increase in the incidence of measles in Ireland in recent years.

Of course, it's true that this category of parents is not refusing medical treatment to their children on religious grounds, but on practical ones. However, if the end result is that a child dies or becomes seriously ill, it is a moot point.

For this reason, some people, including doctors, believe that parents should not be permitted to refuse needed medical treatment for their children. It is one thing to wish to be the principle educator of your child. It is quite another to risk your child's life because of an eccentric or mistaken belief.

Liberal societies permit a great amount of religious and personal freedom. In most respects people are permitted to follow their consciences. However, the general maxim of liberal societies is that a person should be permitted to do as they wish only so long as this involves causing no harm to another.

Exactly what constitutes harm to another can, of course, lead to great debate.

For example, there is a heated debate over abortion. Does abortion do harm to another? Many say yes. Others say no, or else that if it does, it should be permitted anyway because of other, overriding concerns.

But the vast majority of people agree that refusing a child a blood transfusion in a life-saving operation does cause harm to another and that there are no other overriding considerations.

This is why liberal societies - despite their respect for religious freedom - will intervene in cases such as the one the High Court had to deliberate upon yesterday. It is why yesterday's decision will strike most people as uncontroversial and humane.

David Quinn"

I agree with this article. You?

Cork

arcadegame2004 wrote:

It is one thing for an adult to make such a decision on their own behalf, but to refuse it on behalf of a small child is of a different order entirely.

I would also agree. Doctors should do every thingthing they can to protect human life.

CathyMoran

While I agree that medical treatment should not be withdrawn on medical grounds I still believe that the state can not take control over a childs medical treatment. Not going into the measles debate - but it is not black and white - it is not an "an eccentric or mistaken belief" - am one of the lucky kids who is not ill because my parents did not give me one of the vaccines.

The_Conductor

Hmmm- Personally I think that religious grounds cannot be sufficient for denying life saving treatment from a child. I do however think that there can be occasions where regular treatments could be modified or even foregone, but for reasons other than religious grounds. For example- large numbers of the population have problems with the albumen with is used in the MMR (and other) vaccinations. Also where multiple vaccinations are given together, there is an obviously higher risk of adverse reactions (which I can personally attest to unfortunately.....).

Religious and all ethical and moral grounds aside- medication and all treatments must always be in the best interest of the child- not in the interests of the parents or anyone else with a self serving interest. We can debate until the cows come home- who is in a best position to ascertain the best interests of the child- in my opinion it should be a knowledgeable person in a removed position who is not subject to pressure or influence when prescribing the best course of action.

My tuppence,

Shane

CathyMoran

To smccarrick - while I am in agreement with most of your post, I would still argue that the the state should not be given carte blanche to decide what is to be done to the child, that sounds like Big Brother to me. The parent as a rule knows the child - only the exceptions need be delt with.

The_Conductor

I never said anything about the state being given carte blanche to do anything. I did say that I personally thought that it should be someone with the best interests of the child at heart, and free from all outside pressures or influences- which by definition would remove the state from the equation (in my eyes anyhow....)

I did identify a difficulty in deciding who has the best interests of the child at heart- which you seem to agree with. I could never agree with a case where a child (or grown adult) was withheld medical treatment on religious grounds- be it related to vaccinations/blood transfusions/surgical procedures/prescribed medications/psychiatric assistance etc- however- nor could I countenance a situation where a nanny state prescribed a particular course of action and forced all to follow it without any exceptions and without recourse to independently judge (by whomsoever might be in a best position to do so) the best course of action (or lack of course of action) that would best suit the particular circumstances of a particular person.

We are all unique individuals- it is impossible for anyone- be they person or state- to decide that they know what is best for everyone. To every chalk there is cheese, to every ying there is yang. One persons abilities or disabilities may complement or accentuate the attributes of another, or indeed may cause harm to another.

What I am arguing- while I have absolutely no problems with people's religious beliefs- I do have a problem where a person is denied treatment that is readily acknowledged to be beneficial treatment, on no grounds other than the personal choice or religious grounds of another. Please note- I qualify this- "readily acknowledged to be beneficial treatment"- for the person in question. As above- it is impossible to state that a particular course of action is suitable for everyone......

ionapaul

I agree with the article. Parents who put their religion above their offspring's health and safety are quite twisted - they are fighting against the natural human instincts re-inforced by evolution that demand genetic propagation be the be-all and end-all of our lives, and instead choosing to obey an unproven ideology. It is little different from sacrificing a child on the altar of your god on the say-so of the high priest. Thank God for the separation of Church and State!

sceptre

The MMR vaccine and a potential State policy involving it sounds like something to be examined (or feared) out of this doesn't it. However, while I haven't read the decision (and I'm pretty unlikely to do so), I suspect that the State interfering in the decision of parents whether to give their children the multi-vaccine is unlikely to be considered out of this except by the paranoid (I'm not calling anyone in this thread paranoid by the way). From what I can see, the situation above involves a real, defined and significant threat to the life of a particular child that can be improved with a blood transfusion, without which the child will die. In other words, there's a particular and real risk to the life of a particular child that can be lessened or prevented with a particular action, to which the parents object. Whereas there are too many "mights" and "possibilities" to apply it directly to the MMR argument as a legal precedent.

Incidentally, I caught M, M and R as a child (everything except chickenpox [1] in fact) and wouldn't really wish them on anyone (obviously given my inability to get pregnant either as a male or as a child, the R part was less of an inconvenience but it wasn't nice at the time either).

As for whether I agree with the article, I think he's correct in his estimation of what most people would think. Quinn doesn't offer an opinion of what he thinks of the decision himself, he's offering an opinion of what other people seem to think. I agree with the particular decision, which is probably what you're asking.

[1]Obviously not everything except chicken pox - I also didn't get smallpox, polio, bubonic plague nor a host of other nasties but you know what I mean

rmacm

I don't parents should be allowed to do this. As far as I am concerned it is perfectly reasonable for an adult to refuse treatment on whatever grounds they want be they religious or other. But for a adult to refuse on behalf of a child who's life could be saved by the treatment is just plain wrong religion or no religion. Granted I'm over 18 so I no longer need parental consent for medical treatment I'd hope that if I did need consent they'd do all they could. I'd do the same for them not out of any religious motivation but because its the right thing to do. I agree with the courts decision altthought the state shouldn't be allowed to intervene constantly as parents generally know what there children need.

Cheers
Rory