Let him have his way...

[Crackpot]

Actually that belief didn't spring up 1945. so less than 70 years old.

[Econoline]

Don't Jehovah's Witnesses base that belief superstition on a verse from Leviticus in the OT?

[Crackpot]

I'm not sure but apparently it wasn't a problem til 1945

[Scooter]

I was referring to the biblical verses on which the doctrine is based, not the doctrine itself.

And as much as I think the doctrine is moronic, its development roughly coincided with the period during which blood transfusions were becoming more commonplace (the first blood banks were not created until the late 1930s). The highly publicized blood drives during WWII were probably the first that most of the general public had ever heard about blood transfusions. So 1945 is a date that makes sense to me, even if the doctrine itself does not.

[Big RR]

Scooter--I agree with you on the doctrine being unadulterated BS, but people have a right to be stupid in a free society. If this were a 7 year old child, I would agree with you 100%; as he is a "child" just short of the age of majority and is capable of stating and defending his wishes, I think they should be honored. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Sue--due process or not, he still is being violated in his mind. Certainly you would not also condone rape of a young woman just because a court ruled it was in her interest (which was the underlying issue in the play I mentioned), would you? Due process might make a physical violation of one's person legal, but it doesn't make it any less of a violation.

And FWIW, do you think the chemotherapy the court is ordering is really "a relatively painless procedure"? Why? Yes, the transfusion is relatively painless (although inserting an IV catheter when one is not cooperative is far from painless), but the court is also ordering he undergo an aggressive round of chemotherapy that will debilitate him and leave him, as even the doctor admitted, sufficiently anemic to require blood transfusion(s); I don't see that as anything remotely resembling "relatively painless".

[Crackpot]

I was referring to the biblical verses on which the doctrine is based, not the doctrine itself.

And as much as I think the doctrine is moronic, its development roughly coincided with the period during which blood transfusions were becoming more commonplace (the first blood banks were not created until the late 1930s). The highly publicized blood drives during WWII were probably the first that most of the general public had ever heard about blood transfusions. So 1945 is a date that makes sense to me, even if the doctrine itself does not.

The fact that they are the only (major) group that supports this doctrine sort of leaves your criticism wanting. Anyone can take something out of context and base a stupid belief about it. Is Dr. Seuss at fault for Ted Cruz? I don't think so. More to the point JWs were for blood transfusions before they were against them which really throws a monkey wrench into your original source theory.

Source: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood ... usions.php

Sorry I didn't live link it I only have phone access for moment.

Why don't you try something new and admit you were mistaken for once?

Edited to expand link and note that it seems to work after all

[Sue U]

Sue--due process or not, he still is being violated in his mind. Certainly you would not also condone rape of a young woman just because a court ruled it was in her interest (which was the underlying issue in the play I mentioned), would you? Due process might make a physical violation of one's person legal, but it doesn't make it any less of a violation.

Call me insensitive, but I think the violation inflicted by a blood transfusion is a world away from the violation inflicted by rape. Everyone has a subjective perception of their own preferences, but this type of decision has to be made by the standard of a reasonable person choosing appropriate medical care for a minor. While I understand your point, where the state has an obligation to protect the interests of a minor, it is obligated to undertake objectively reasonable action regardless of the subjective beliefs of those affected.

And FWIW, do you think the chemotherapy the court is ordering is really "a relatively painless procedure"? Why? Yes, the transfusion is relatively painless (although inserting an IV catheter when one is not cooperative is far from painless), but the court is also ordering he undergo an aggressive round of chemotherapy that will debilitate him and leave him, as even the doctor admitted, sufficiently anemic to require blood transfusion(s); I don't see that as anything remotely resembling "relatively painless".

For one thing, the court is only ordering the blood transfusion, not the chemo. It's not the chemotherapy that the boy objects to; it's the blood transfusion required as a result of the chemo. So this is not a matter of inflicting any physical pain the child or his family is unwilling to endure.

To the extent this case is about personal liberty, the boy can have all the personal liberty he wants upon achieving the age of majority. Until then, it is neither his nor the state's choice to do anything but provide objectively reasonable medical care.

[Big RR]

Sue--in addition to refusing the transfusion, he has also refused the chemotherapy, albeit because the therapy would also necessitate the transfusion. Hence I cannot see it as anything but the court ordering him to have both the chemotherapy and the transfusion, both of which he has refused.

As for the state's actions, there is also a criterion of reasonableness that applies to them (or at least should; as this is not in the US I don't know the particulars). Here we have a young man just short of the age of majority choosing to avoid a course of medical treatment on personal grounds. It has been recognized, even by the court, that he is likely to terminate all such treatment in a few months when he attains the age of 18. Under such circumstances, is it objectively reasonable to subject the young man to the hell of high dose chemotherapy which he does not want, along with one or more blood transfusions that he finds morally objectionable? I don't think so. If he were 7 or 8 I'd say certainly, prescribe the treatment and transfusion as medically indicated, but not just for a couple of months. I see this as the state throwing its weight around just because it can--there's certainly no foreseeable positive result to what's likely to transpire.

[Scooter]

The fact that they are the only (major) group that supports this doctrine sort of leaves your criticism wanting. Anyone can take something out of context and base a stupid belief about it. Is Dr. Seuss at fault for Ted Cruz? I don't think so.

I alluded to the JW's use of biblical prohibitions against ingesting blood as the basis for their opposition to transfusions. Whether or not their interpretation of those passages has any validity and/or is shared by any other religious organization does not change the fact that it is their interpretation and that they have used that interpretation to promulgate doctrine, which is all I said.

Seriously, I have no clue what you are taking issue with. Does the bible contain prohibitions against ingesting blood? Yes. Do JWs interpret those prohibitions as applying to blood transfusions. Yes. Have they used that interpretation to promulgate doctrine prohibiting their members from receiving blood transfusions? Yes.

So what is the problem? Are you suggesting that JWs have some other, secret reason for opposing transfusions that has nothing to do with their interpretation of those biblical passages?

More to the point JWs were for blood transfusions before they were against them which really throws a monkey wrench into your original source theory.

Ok, so first their doctrine said one thing, now it says something else, and presumably they alleged a scriptural basis for the old doctrine just as they now allege a scriptural basis for the new doctrine. This makes them different from pretty much every religious body in human history how, exactly?

Source: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood ... usions.php

So someone has meticulously compiled all of his/her reasons for concluding that JW doctrine on transfusions has no biblical basis, is inconsistent, and creates a double standard. After all of the scorn I have heaped on this aspect of their doctrine, and on those who follow it, did you really feel I needed convincing?

Why don't you try something new and admit you were mistaken for once?

I can't control whatever operation of your mind has caused you to read something into my words that isn't there.

[Andrew D]

Oh, the perils of line-drawing. In September, the decision is not his. Come January, the decision will be his.

[Sue U]

If he were 7 or 8 I'd say certainly, prescribe the treatment and transfusion as medically indicated, but not just for a couple of months. I see this as the state throwing its weight around just because it can--there's certainly no foreseeable positive result to what's likely to transpire.

What difference does it make if he's 7 or 17? The transfusion is just as "objectionable" at either age. And frankly, you have no idea what might transpire in either a few months or a few years. None of us has a crystal ball to see even as far as tomorrow. This is not a case of incurable illness. Until the boy is 18, the state has a legal responsibility to meet.

Oh, the perils of line-drawing. In September, the decision is not his. Come January, the decision will be his.

Exactly. But those lines must be drawn in order to have a functioning society. Does it make sense that a person is on one day prohibited from voting, signing contracts, drinking alcohol, or getting married, while on the very next day -- without any demonstrable change in competence or maturity -- such activities are freely permitted? Certainly the line is to some (perhaps even great) extent arbitrary, but it's what we (or in this case Aus) have deemed appropriate as a generally applicable rule. It is certainly arguable that age 18 is still too young to be making such life-and-death decisions. But you can't start treating laws as merely guidelines or suggestions without inviting increasingly unmanageable demands for individualized treatment. I suppose any such law could include a rebuttable presumption of applicability, but that leads inevitably only to another rule -- or none at all.

[Scooter]

in addition to refusing the transfusion, he has also refused the chemotherapy, albeit because the therapy would also necessitate the transfusion. Hence I cannot see it as anything but the court ordering him to have both the chemotherapy and the transfusion, both of which he has refused.

You are keep insisting on this against all evidence to the contrary, but for the sake of argument, I'll play along.

If he were 7 or 8 I'd say certainly, prescribe the treatment and transfusion as medically indicated, but not just for a couple of months. I see this as the state throwing its weight around just because it can--there's certainly no foreseeable positive result to what's likely to transpire.

Except that you are forgetting that this was only an appeal; the original order came down in April, none months before his birthday. The first round of chemo that brought about remission was seven months. So there is every reason to believe that there would be enough time for the more aggressive treatment to be a success. Or he might be close enough to being cured that the doctor could say, "look, the tumours are 95% gone, you've come this far, if we do two more treatments you'll be cured," and maybe the young man will decide that he doesn't want it to be all for nought and will give consent to finish the treatments. Or maybe nine months of very aggressive treatment could open up other treatment options that would not require a transfusion. Or maybe he will have an epiphany and see his parents for the deranged monsters that they are by being willing to sacrifice the life of their child on the altar of a religion of nutbars.

[Big RR]

You are keep insisting on this against all evidence to the contrary, but for the sake of argument, I'll play along.

that's awful nice of you, but I'd much rather see this evidence to the contrary; granted none of us know exactly what happened, but nothing I've read in what was posted contradicts my position. From what I can read, the lower dose initially provided the remission, and the higher dose therapy was refused due to the likelihood of a transfusion.

Re your second point, yes, anything can happen, but I think it likely he would just stop any court ordered therapy or trnsfusions upon attaning the age of 18.

[Andrew D]

Oh, the perils of line-drawing. In September, the decision is not his. Come January, the decision will be his.

Exactly. But those lines must be drawn in order to have a functioning society.

Exactly.

There is no rational basis on which to draw those lines.

Those lines must be drawn in a functioning society.

There is no rational basis for a functioning society.

[Sue U]

Well, I wouldn't despair just yet, Andrew. The rational basis for a functioning society is the framework that promotes both the greatest individual liberty and the greatest security in one's person. Sometimes those objectives are in conflict, resulting in a need for line-drawing -- lines which may at times be somewhat arbitrary, but which are acceptable to the greatest number of people in the greatest number of situations. We could choose to promote individual liberty by having a rule that it is none of the state's business what happens to a child at the hands of his or her parents, or that the state has no role to play in safeguarding minors and incompetents from the consequences of choices they may be incapable of understanding. But I don't think you'd get a lot of backing for that approach, either.

[Big RR]

True Sue, or we could also eschew a one size fits all policy and allow a determination to be made to see if the minor really is incompetent or incapable of understanding the consequences of choices they make. That would be preferable to me.

[Sue U]

I think that's the situation we have here in the OP, isn't it, Big RR? The child (and/or his family) had applied to the court to let him/them make the decision, but the court ruled against them. It would be nice if we had more information about the exact nature of the proceeding and the applicable standards, but apparently it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the court would rule for one side or the other. And one side or the other was going to be dissatisfied with the ruling whichever way it went. But because (presumably) the court is by law constrained to rule in favor of the "best interests of the child," it is perfectly reasonable to have simply found that continued existence is, on balance, an interest preferable to probable death -- particularly where the state is charged with ensuring those best interests are served. The court will undoubtedly be right in someone's view and wrong in someone else's, but that is a consequence of having laws to start with. And as I said above, treating laws as mere suggestions inevitably leads only to anarchy and chaos.

[Big RR]

Sue--you may be right, but I read these statements of the court:

The interest of the state is in keeping him alive until that time [his 18th birthday], after which he will be free to make his own decisions as to medical treatment,"

"The interest of the state in preserving life is at its highest with respect to children and young persons who are inherently vulnerable, in varying degrees."

As basically saying that the court did not make a decision based on this young man or his ability to make these important decisions on his own, and reverted back to the bright line "he is under 18 and therefore inherently vulnerable and incapable of making the decision on his own" test. A much easier decision for the judge to make, to be sure, but not one I endorse.

Now you are correct in saying we don't have the details of the proceedings or applicable standards/laws, but absent that, I can only comment on what is before me; and ruling the state's interest in preserving life is paramount, and young people are inherently vulnerable, does not make me think the court seriously considered this young man's mental state and what he is capable of deciding or not. I may well be wrong, but that's what I understand from my reading of what was posted.

[Andrew D]

Oh, I do not despair, Sue. I am all too often tempted, but I do not despair.

I dip my tentative toe into the deepest of faiths: Sentience moves inobstructibly to full awareness of itself.

[Andrew D]

The rational basis for a functioning society is the framework that promotes both the greatest individual liberty and the greatest security in one's person. Sometimes those objectives are in conflict ....

So what is the principle that reconciles them?

Pursuing two irreconcilable objectives is a recipe for rending one's head asunder.

But pursuing a single objective -- including an objective which reconciles apparently conflicting subordinate objectives -- is a recipe for stagnation.

The pursuits of such objectives, and the objectives themselves, are sentience's experiments. And we -- as individuals, as societies, as cultures, as a species -- are the flotsam resulting from those experiments' failures.

The best we can hope for is some notion of meaning, of significance, of the-fact-that-I-have-lived-somehow-matters-ness.

Our attempts to construct frameworks which accommodate our notions of individual liberty and personal security (and social justice and all the other goals which we espouse) are nascent sentience's fumbling attempts at self-awareness. We can derive some satisfaction from doing our part in that transcendent endeavor.