Nowhere in the Bible does a hero just let themselves go, and put their survival soley into the Creator’s hands: you gotta do your part too, Grasshopper!
Teenage Jehovah's Witness can receive blood transfusion, judge rules
Submitted 2 weeks ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp89x606dnno
Comments
slothrop@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
tomiant@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
A man sits on the roof during a rising flood.
A rowboat comes by, and yells, “get in the boat!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then the coast guard comes by, “get in the boat!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then a helicopter comes by, “climb in the helicopter!”
“No, God will save me.”
Then a pack of wild hyenas swim by, and tear the man from limb to limb, laughing while he dies in agonizing horror.
Skanky@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
This isn’t the ending that I remember.
This one is much better.
toebert@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I find it difficult to tell how I feel about this. On the one hand it seems in this case the health board is trying to ensure the child survives the operation while trying to honour their wish to avoid the transfusion unless it’s clearly necessary, which all sounds good. I also recognise that the reason the child is refusing it is due to religion which they probably had no choice but to be indoctrinated in from birth.
On the other hand, all parties recognise that the child is capable of making their own decision and understand the consequences, but yet still gets ignored. This seems like a slippery slope. Where is the line when the court can decide what happens to someone’s body against their will? I could understand it if they also claim the person is unable to make the choice for themselves (e.g. too young to understand the consequences, or under the influence of propaganda), but they are not claiming that.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. Just because a judge has carefully weighed that this is in the 14 year olds best interest now, does not at all mean more dire decisions against personal rights will be made in future.
I’ll worry if the courts ever start making decisions that go against the childs best interest.
The judge said they’re ordering this because there would not be time to solicit the court for an order if a transfusion does become necessary, and risk of death would be significant.
I’m fine with letting adult religious zealots bleed out if they’re too god-brained to accept help, but for a 14yo I think it’s pretty reasonable to save them from themselves so they can live to have a fully-developed brain.
toebert@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Sure, but they have reported that the child is capable of making their own decisions and fully understand the consequences:
A report submitted to Lady Tait assessed the child as having “capacity” and having a full understanding of the implications of her decision.
So it seems they assessed it, found that the child can make the decision, then made the decision themselves instead.
The point I made is that for them to decide about this case the outcome of the assessment should have been something more like “established that the child is not developed/mature/whatever enough to make a decision that can potentially end their lives until they reach 18y of age” or “the child has been exposed to harmful religious propaganda for years…..” instead. Basically, anything that’d clarify the reason and criteria that enables them to make this decision on the child’s behalf against their wishes (even if they are illogical).
Worrying when they start making the decisions you don’t agree with sounds like worrying once the milk is already spilled, especially when precedents are a thing. They are a lot easier to make than overturn.
I disagree with this being a “slippery slope fallacy”, I think there is already something wrong here even if the outcome is still agreeable, hence my conflict.
Tweak@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
The article explains that they were looking for an explanation under these specific circumstances, with a 14 year old themselves refusing, which implies the legal question has already been answered for other circumstances. I would imagine that at 18 anyone can refuse any treatment themselves, so at 18 her wishes would not be ignored.
Triumph@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
I am confused about why this would need to go to a court for permission.
GrabtharsHammer@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The court overruled the person’s right to refuse the transfusion. There’s a bit of legal burden on a party that wants to do things to your body that you told them not to do.
Triumph@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
Ah there it is. The article wasn't super clear on that, and I'm not paying close enough attention. "Can" vs. "will, if necessary".
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In the UK, if there’s a medical issue with any legal or ethical ambiguity, especially if a child is involved, doctors are required to defer the decision to a court. It means a lot of decisions end up being made by courts.
scratchee@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Whilst I certainly agree with the court that the blood transfusion is in their best interest, I do worry that they might just decide to refuse the entire operation now, seems like they’re now playing chicken with the kid and hoping their sense of self preservation overrides their faith. Not sure I’d play that game, religion is a powerful drug
Tweak@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Nah, the whole point of going to court was to cover their ass legally either way, so that the operation could go ahead.
If they’d refused a transfusion and she’d died, they could get sued for not transfusing. If they’d overrode her wishes and transfused, they could get sued for that. By getting the court’s opinion beforehand they limit the chance of either happening.
scratchee@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Sure, that’s why this went to court, but the end result is the same, that the kid must now decide whether to have the operation knowing they might get a “sinful” blood transfusion, or refuse the entire operation.
Maybe the low risk of needing a transfusion will be enough to convince them it’s fine, or maybe the doctors don’t really care about the child’s welbeing and just wanted to be covered for all eventualities, but it’s still a bit of a perverse incentive
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 weeks ago
I thought you had a right to refuse medical treatment and die? Assuming the parents and child both agree although the parents are not mentioned at all.
If the parents and kid were disagreeing over it then it could be more of a problem.
Tweak@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
The article doesn’t mention the parents’ opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent “fails” to meet the court’s standard of ensuring they survive the operation.
So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don’t meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child’s interests.
Then with teenagers it’s a whole massive grey area, they’re still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had “capacity” to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.
So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can’t refuse life saving treatment.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So they’re ok with getting operated on but cannot receive blood transfusions?
Reminds me of the woman who wanted an organ transplant but not the Covid vaccine (she was ok with every other required vaccine for the transplant because propaganda)
wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 2 weeks ago
They don’t take issue with medicine or surgery, just blood that originates from another. This stance is based on their interpretation of scripture. They’ve also really began to pick and choose, as science has advanced. Typical Christian nonsense.
tomiant@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Let them die if that’s what they want.
uid0gid0@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You know it’s possible to donate blood to yourself before a procedure. I’ve seen this Jehovah witness no transfusions thing several times but no one ever brings up using your own blood.
thenoirwolfess@lemmynsfw.com 2 weeks ago
She’s a child grown and conditioned entirely in the restrictive cult, knowing only what the Elders and her conditioned family taught her - the beliefs are hardly her own, let alone her medical choices. Poor kid is just one of thousands of victims of the Witnesses’ doctrines.