Judge Rules Teen Jw Must Have A Blood Transfusion

[LazyGun]

What do you think to this case?

I am all for authorizing blood transfusions when the prognosis is such that the patient will almost certainly die if they do not receive a transfusion, and where there is a clear expectation that having received a blood transfusion the chances of survival are markedly released, and were this case about a young child, under 15-16 say I would probably not have any issues with the decision.

But a 17 year old only months away from being 18? Not sure we should be forcing patients to receive blood -having to sedate them to give them a transfusion - is warranted.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-witness-must-have-a-transfusion-rules-judge-20130417-2i0lc.html

[magsmay]

@Sharigan - The mental distress will be significant, along with the fact he could potentially be excluded from his parents religion because he is now 'unclean'. I don't know enough about JW to make an intelligent judgement on how he will cope and would hope he would be offered counselling help but doubt any would be taken. No-one on this Forum would tolerate being given a medical intervention against their will -or especially not given to their children. Respect should be given to others beliefs even if we do not agree

[jim360]

I'm not sure many people believe in putting poison into babies but since when was immunisation poison?

The JW view is wrong, I think, and has been dangerous and costs lives. Damaging, too, for those who were related to the (albeit few to my knowledge) victims. Even so, in response to JW requests there have been attempts to develop "bloodless surgery" procedures, so by and large the view is respected.

[FredPuli43]

With Sqad. Save his life now. He can kill himself later, if he wants, by refusing a transfusion then, when he is of age. I don't understand any argument that he'd be better off dead because he might suffer mental health problems if he's alive. Must remember to blind myself in case I get eye trouble later !

[magsmay]

@sherradk -no I'm not - Measles rarely kills any children these days -when we were kids there was no MMR -we just got things, felt bloody ill for a couple of weeks and went back to school.

[magsmay]

Jim -if you want a debate on the fors and againsts of immunisation I suggest you start another thread ;-)

[Sqad]

magsmay......that is an over simplification about measles......I agree that it rarely kills....but it CAN kill...even today.
The big problem with measles is the development of chronic middle ear disease and encephalitis.

[Sharingan]

It's not that at all Fred, but just actually picture it.
You have an intelligent young man who is going to be forcibly strapped down on a gurney and sedated so that they can give him a procedure he has stated he does not want, because he believes if he has it he will go to hell and might also potentially cause him to be ostracised by his family and community. He may not have long to live anyway. Would you seriously do that to anyone?
If you would then what about forced sterilisations for people who are not of a good enough IQ in (someone's opinion), isn't that for ' their own good' too?

[LazyGun]

@Magsmay

This instance does highlight some interesting moral and ethical dilemnas. To me the life threatening condition he suffers, which could be alleviated and more aggressive treatments given should he receive a blood transfusion do outweigh the religious beliefs of the family, and him, since he is technically still a minor - although I do feel a bit uneasy given how close he is to being legally competent in his own right.

Vaccination raises a different set of issues. The objection here has nothing to do with religious beliefs as such, but is based upon a calculation of benefit versus harm, and with a component of social responsibity to the children of others. And for me at least, the benefits of vaccination, the protection they offer against a host of communicable diseases, is so great that administering such vaccines should be entirely uncontroversial.

I would be quite happy actually were mandatory childhood vaccination be introduced to the UK, much as they do in the USA.

[Goodsoulette]

I bet his parents are secretly relieved, they wont be disfellowed or whatever they call it because they didn't make that decision. I know a few JWs , I used to humour them and now I don't. I don't believe it, I don't want to hear it. I went to a JW funeral, it was barmy, it was 5 percent about the person the rest is about letting jehova into their life....zero singing. Poppycock.

[jim360]

But otherwise he'll be dead. In ten years' time he might well think how strange it was to want, effectively, to die young. Or not, but at least there is a chance. And I think, evne if he does not, that it's a chance worth taking.

In the long run if someone I knew wanted to take a decision like this I would fight and fight to make them change their mind as long as it took to do so. Life is more precious than a dodgy theology.

[Sqad]

This is not a stupid question (I hope) but has anybody met a doctor or surgeon who is a JW?

I haven't ...just wondered.

[FredPuli43]

But is "that", shari. You are weighing a supposed quality of life against taking life, the risk against the certainty.

[LazyGun]

Irs a good question indeed Sqad - I have not met one either, but I am almost certain that there was one who was heavily involved in the development of cell salvage equipment... just cannot remember his name..

[woofgang]

While I am conscious and able to do it myself, I actually don't trust doctors (even the excellent ones) to make decisions about my health. I trust them to know their business and to give me correct information and their own carefully considered opinions and I will make the decisions. I will probably ask them for guidance and may very well do as they suggest but its my body and I will decide.
I can't help feeling that there might be more to this case than is reported...whether the judge had any reason for thinking that the boy had been "brainwashed" or was somehow not competent to decide. I also wonder what appeal process might happen and how long it will take. I have been involved in forcibly sedating a person with a mental health problem and its not pleasant at all...it also adds to the risk of course.

[woofgang]

jim, according to the report, he might survive without the transfusion, it just will make the odds of his survival markedly better.

[Sqad]

woofgang........agreed.

However you are an adult........our patient isn't.

[Sharingan]

But he would be enough of an adult to join the army, have sex, get married etc... seems strange he can choose to die in the army but not in the comfort of his own home.:)

[jim360]

80% chance of imminent death is long odds - though I grant you that it's not certain. Although isn't that merely of the blood problem rather than the also dangerous cancer?

[Sqad]

Shari...take that up with the Law of the country.

[jim360]

No-one chooses to die in the army. They tend to want to live, I believe. It's just that the job is far more dangerous than most. I put myself at risk of death all the time, I suppose, going out near cars and cyclists who seem to not notice me.

This is more of a clear-cut case, to me. Death is highly likely, he is making a choice that increases its likelihood significantly, and that is not like joining the army at all. The reasons for his decision are misguided by most people's accounts, and sometimes people need to be protected from themselves.