Is a Jehovah's Witness a suitable candidate to be a parent?

Dave!

Hey folks,

I'm referring to this thread here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055161286

A JW woman started hemorraging (sp) during birth and in the confusion the doctors gave her a transfusion. Now she's suing the state as far as I know.

The topic raises alot of conundrums, but in particular I'm considering whether a Jehovah's Witness (who in this case definitely opposes blood transfusions) should be allowed to look after a child.

Obviously everyone should be allowed to practice their beliefs, but if one of your beliefs is that it's better to die than to receive a life-saving operation, then that puts your child's life in jeopardy.

Most people will go through life without receiving one, and that's why I'm thinking -- the JW could be (and probably is) the perfect parent in every other way. They could be calm and considerate, caring, loving, and have the child's best interests in mind.

But should a parent not be judged on what they would do should the worst happen? If you have a swimming pool in your garden, and your child falls in, and you stand by and watch them die -- that's negligent homicide.
It's basically the same thing for a JW and their children.

I'm not sure about the legal situation in this circumstance though. I would assume that the transfusion would be given to the child against the parents' wishes -- would that be correct?

Any thoughts on the subject in general?

seamus

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm not sure about the legal situation in this circumstance though. I would assume that the transfusion would be given to the child against the parents' wishes -- would that be correct?

Perhaps. The state would have to go to court to get the judgement, but it could be sticky.

The problem is that the state says that the parent/guardian has the right to make choices for the child. If one of these choices is that the child doesn't undergo a procedure, then the state is supposed to respect that decision as if an adult had made it.

This is where the social taboo of state -v- religion comes into play. If the state has endowed the parent with the right to make this choice, then it can't exactly override that choice - otherwise it also has to override in similar cases when an adult makes that choice for themselves.

Of course, the only difference here is that the guardian is supposed to act at all times in the best interests of the child. If the state determines that the guardian is not acting in the best interests of the child or is otherwise incapable of doing so, it can take over.

Which is probably where any line on this issue will be drawn. However, parental rights in this country are extremely strong and it's very difficult for the state to "take control" over the child, even in horrific situations.

I would be of the opinion that where a parent's actions/inactions are putting the life of the child in jeopardy*, then the state should have emergency powers to take whatever action is needed to save the child's life. Religious beliefs are irrelevant.

In this case, while I wouldn't say that JW are "unfit" parents, in the event that the issue of blood transfusions arises and the transfusion is required to save the child's life, then the transfusion goes ahead regardless of the parents' wishes.

*Caveats and everything apply of course. I'm not up for the state taking custody of a child because the parents didn't see the child drink brasso or something. Children get themselves in "jeopardy" all the time.

Tigrrrr

a suitable candidate to be a parent?

Look, by and large you can be a drug pushing, schizophrenic wife beater who has no interest in educating his kids, keeping them off the streets, getting them into employment, buys them alcohol and chain smokes in their company, and still father a council flat full of rugrats.

Most Jehova's witnesses are lovely people (of course, theoretically, one could be all of the above bad things, and still be a JH). My point is that there are far worse parents out there (yes, worse than potentially having problems with the rather unlikely event of a blood transfusion). Of course Jehova's Witnesses shouldn't realistically be considered unsuitable "candidates". As seamus said, the state is entitled to make an intervention under certain extraordinary circumstances.

But often not in the case of your everyday negligent parent, unfortunately.

Nevyn

DaveMcG wrote: »

I'm not sure about the legal situation in this circumstance though. I would assume that the transfusion would be given to the child against the parents' wishes -- would that be correct?

Any thoughts on the subject in general?

Legally a case gets made that they are not acting in the best interests of their child and the child gets made a ward of the state, taken into care and the state as guardian of the child signs for the operation to be done.
Once the child is no longer in danger it is usually returned to the care of it's parents.

Sleepy

Is someone who believes in virgin births, people rising from the dead, men walking on water, water being magically turned into wine and transubstantiation any better a candidate to be a parent? It could be argued that they're not sensible enough to make the necessary decisions for that child.

Now, granted, mental issues aside, none of those beliefs are going to negatively impact on a child's health but the question remains valid. Unfotunately we're not going to see the death of religion any time soon so if we're to remain a secular state we're going to have to continue on the road of simply over-riding JW's wishes with respect to blood transfusions for their kids.

Dimitri

If the state has endowed the parent with the right to make this choice, then it can't exactly override that choice - otherwise it also has to override in similar cases when an adult makes that choice for themselves.

I wouldn't agree that the state would have to override the decision of an adult simply because they would in the case of a child. A child isn't allowed smoke because it is bad for them yet an adult has the right to choose whether or not they do things that are bad for them.
Personally i've no problem with this, nor do i have a problem with a JW resisting a blood transfusion. However i think clear legislation should be brought in that prevents children from being put in these situations. I also think that the legislation should cover circumsisions where there is no medical need and cosmetic surgery. Decisions to undergo medical treatments that aren't necessary, or to refuse treatments that are as in the case of the JW should only be made by a mature and informed adult. Its a parents duty to protect their children from the bad things in life, but its the states if it turns out the parents are the problem.
Overall i'd have to say that a JW isn't a bad parent but in the very rare situations that this happens there should be a system in place to protect the children.

Nevyn

In this case the welfare of the child was taken into consideration Dimitri, the adult was the child's mother and at the time the only family memeber known to the state.

Dimitri

Thaedydal wrote: »

In this case the welfare of the child was taken into consideration Dimitri, the adult was the child's mother and at the time the only family memeber known to the state.

My apologies i was speaking in generalities of a parent refusing a transfusion for their child. I'm not sure of the detais of the specific case, but i do believe that the doctors should do everything in order to save the child even if that means disregarding the parents wishes.