MORE PHILOSOPHY: This one's a good one!

[Arkana]

I only have two more weeks to go, but this week's topic is excellent: blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witness children.

The question is: Do you believe that the state is within its rights to procure blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witness children against their parents' wishes (even if the child will die without the transfusion)?

(The only precedent is the 1944 case Prince v. Massachusetts, which did not actually even deal with this topic exactly. Rather, it dealt with child labor laws. Apparently, a 9-year-old girl was informed by her aunt that she was to stand on a corner all day selling Watchtower books (the aunt was a Jehovah's Witness). The defense claimed that their religion obligated them to spread the gospel, but the state disagreed. Invoking the right of parens patriae, the SCOTUS ruled such):

"Parents may be free to make martyrs of themselves, but they are not free to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age where they can make the choice for themselves."

EDIT: Also, please explain why you voted the way you did...this is my last paper topic in that class, and I was hoping for input.

[flvegan]

1. The question in particular is pretty straight forward.

Yes, the state should have the right to save the life of the child by this means.

Your third option opens up the discussion about levels to which the child may fall ill if left untreated (v. saving the child's life, specifically, with a transfusion). I'd suggest that the decision should not only be based on one level, death, but also to serious debilitation (wheelchair, brain damage, blindness, etc).

The kid shouldn't be across the board subject to the parents' beliefs if those beliefs are going to maim or kill the kid. I say that the kid has rights, even if he can't invoke them yet.

[Arkana]

2. Perhaps I should edit it again...I was a bit specific on the last one.

[kanrok]

3. I unequivocally believe the state should step in

As a young prosecutor, after hours I received a page from a dispatcher who had a doctor on the line. He was treating a 4 month old girl with a condition known as hemolitic uremic syndrome. This is a potentially fatal disease that is cured by a blood transfusion. The parents were Jehovah's Witnesses. They would not consent to the blood transfusion for their child. Instead, they wanted to leave it up to their god. The doctor and I talked, and he said that he would be able to do the transfusion if I were able to get a judge to give him a verbal order, than have a written order sent to him for the chart. I called five different judges WHO DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED!!! Finally, I talked to a young associate judge who agreed to issue the order. (She is now an appellate court justice). She got on the phone and advised the doctor to do the transfusion. She issued the written order in the morning. He did the transfusion, and the little girl survived. The family wanted to make a case of it, but it was thrown out as being moot.

It's one thing for JW's to decide for themselves (as an adult) not to get life-saving medical treatment. It's even, to an extent, admirable. But when they attempt to make decisions for children, it is not acceptable.

[Jim__]

4. I think you have to take into consideration the age and desire of the

child. If the child is "old enough" - 9, 10, 11? - I think the child's opinion should be the deciding factor.

If the child is too young, I think - although I haven't really thought this through - the parents decision has to be accepted. If the parents are responsible - sober and rational - I believe we have to grant them the power to make decisions for their child - even decisions that we totally disagree with.