Refusing Medical Treatment : Religious Freedom or Negligent Homicide?

Great Debates
1

This thread was almost turned into a debate by yours truly over whether or not it should be legal to refuse medical treatment for your child. (If you want to kill yourself, that’s fine. Just don’t drag an innocent kid into this.)

I say it’s negligent homicide, akin to letting your kid stand in traffic and telling him that if a car hits him, well then that was just god’s will.

Any Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses want to weigh in on this?

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, pee in it, and serve it to the people that piss you off.

2

Okay, I’ll chime in. I’m agnostic, but I believe in the right to refuse medical treatment. Forcing medicine on someone is like forcing a haircut on them. Okay, it’s more serious, but it’s the same basic principle: you have the right to refuse whatever you like, so longer as you’re not denying someone else their rights.

With kids it’s more tricky, but a young child can’t decide for himself whether to receive medical treatment or not. So you either go with the parent’s wishes, or you submit the child’s health to popular vote. You may disagree with some parents, but they’re still the parents.

My 2 cents.

Your Quadell

3

But what happens when the parents are clearly insane? Some people hide thier insanity very well under the guise of religion. You’d take a baby away from a mother who was a crackhead. Why not take a baby away from a mother who would refuse the kid simple medical procedures thereby killing him?

4

Society has already made the decision that parent sdo not have ultimate authority to raise their children in any way they see fit. Denial of medical care in situations where it can seriously damage the health of a child is abuse. Abuse is grounds for loss of custody. If you want to pray for your child, fine. If you want to allow deny him dialysis after his kidneys fail you have lost your moral authority as a parent.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

5

IIRC, there was a News of the Weird story a while back about a guy who thought his hand was possessed by Satan so he lopped it off. The emergency room staff was fairly adamant about reattaching even though it was against his wishes until he started to get violent and threaten the physicians with physical harm. At that point they backed off and he permanently lost use of his hand. A while later he turns around and sues them, stating that they should have known he was mentally incompetent to make that decision.

I realize this is more mental illness than religion (even though Satan’s name was invoked), but can you perform a medical procedure against a person’s wishes if it is fairly obvious that he/she is not fully mentally competent? Does that go for their children as well?

6

You’re being silly. If the parents are not mentally fit to care for the child, we already have procedures for this. You’re not really upset about that. You’re upset about people that practice a religion you don’t approve of.

How about sane, educated Christian Scientists? Surely you admit that’s possible. . .

Your Quadell

7

I agree with the idea that anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment for him/herself, but a child doesn’t have the ability to make that choice. Children are not chattel. I feel that parents should teach by example, refusing medical treatment for themselves, but they don’t have the right to martyr their children. They have the duty to see to it that the children get medical care necessary to insure their survival until they reach such an age that they can make their own decisions on these matters.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side.” — Han Solo

8

Isn’t that an oxymoron?
In some cases, a lack of action is a crime, abandonment for instance. I’d imagine not bandaging your child’s wound would be a crime, and if they died from it, I think you’d be charged.

If someone wants to practice some freakoid religion, which I’ll define as anything which makes them act in a counterproductive manner, relying on prayer, let them. But forcing their children to take these risks seems very irresponsible, the sort of action that could, and should, result in having the children taken away.

Oh well, being religious is its own punishment, so as long as these people don’t kill their children, they’ve been adequately punished, imho.

9

In France there is a law which compels passers-by to provide emergency assistance, for instance in the case of road accidents.(remember the Princess Dianna case where several journalists were investigated on this)The good Samaritan law.
How far you can apply this to denying medical treatment I’m not sure, could the victims sue if they were not conscious at the time and could not withdraw consent?Could a relative sue if treatment were not given in a similar situation when the patient died?
I could imagine a situation where a child might decide it wants medical treatment, including blood transfusion, against the express wishes of the parent.
Since we in the UK have universal health cover which is paid out of the public purse I don’t know how your system works.We get horror stories about accident victims and the high cost of treatment from the US but this could be sensationalist reporting.The point to all this is, can someone refuse medical treatment for either themselves or their children on the grounds of cost?If the answer is yes I really think you have a moral problem here.

10

How is a child supposed to feel if he/she grows up as a Christian Scientist and is denied medical treatment in some way that leaves him scarred or disabled for life–and then as an adult decides that he does not share his parents’ faith? He would have forfeit his health for the sake of a faith that is not his own–at the hands of people who were supposed to care for him. How could that person not feel abused? How could we not consider that persona to have been abused? There is no debate here in my mind. We have seperate laws concerning children for a reason–they are incapable of fending for themselves in some situations, and they are often unable to comprehend–let alone make–many of the important choices that adults confront on a daily basis.

I have known two Christian Scientists in my life. They were both fine people who I enjoyed being with and learning from. They both died of treatable diseases. I respected their choices in life—as adults. I do not, in any way, recognize anyone’s right to make those choices for their children when the results can be harmful or dangerous. Period.

11

Casdave, usually if treatment is refused it is on grounds of religious conviction. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, believe that it is wrong to have a blood transfusion; devout ones would literally rather die. There are lots of options for medical care for people who want it and can’t afford it; church health centers and the like. Also, emergency rooms tend to treat folks first and ask questions later if their lives are at stake. At least, around here they do.

We get horror stories, too, about people in the UK dying of treatable conditions because the national health care is overwhelmed.

It’s a tough call, tho, because those of us who go to the doctor and so forth have a different point of view about medical care than do people who refuse it. Suppose that the nationally accepted treatment of choice for pneumonia was to apply leaches until the sufferer is anemic; not too far-fetched, actually, considering the history of health care. Suppose that you knew that was a crock, and furthermore, you suspected that the patient has a high risk of contracting blood-borne diseases therefrom. Suppose that your 3-yr-old suffered from pneumonia and the family doctor prescribed bleeding, and you declined. Now the doctor reports you to the court system for refusing medical treatment for your child. Should the courts agree with you, that you have the right to decline treatment, or should they put your child into a foster home and bring on the leeches?

12

First point:
I have looked and looked for good stats on child mortality rates on various religions, and can’t find anything. So I have to be hypothetical. But let me ask you (Neutron Star, et al), hypothetically:

If, statistically, children of Christian Scientists were less likely to die before they turned 18 than the average American child (due to decreased risks in other areas) would that change your mind? I suspect it’s true, that children of CSs are statistically safer, but I can’t prove it. But if I could, you could no longer argue that the children were being put in a high-risk environment by being kept in that home, right? Would you change your mind then?

Second point:

Well now, you’re no longer arguing the merits. You’re just persecuting people for their religion. Your comments belong in the Pit.

Your Quadell

13

Quadell:
I think you are speaking to a different point. To me, it is not a question of whether statistically a lifestyle is more high risk than another; it is a question of deliberate action (or in action) in the face of a specific circumstance.

If my religion believed that bottle-feeding, to take a purely hypothetical example, were evil, and I had a child who was alergic to breast milk (rare, but it does happen), what do I do? If I keep breast-feeding and praying and allow my child to sicken and starve, then I am abusing my baby. In such cases, society has an obligation (self-imposed, I admit – but one I agree with) to step in for the welfare of the child.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

14

SouthernXYL
You’ve answered me in part but not wholly.
Yes I understand how the devout might refuse treatment on their own behalf.I can easily imagine a situation where a frightened child might demand treatment ,especially if severe pain is involved, but where a parent wishes to deny that treatment on religious grounds.
Where do you stand on that?What happens in practice?
As for our National Health Service, does not the scale of demand here imply that there is a massive unmet need in the US.Healthcare has to be paid for ,I would have thought it was better to spend available resources on service rather than on producing profits for medical insurers and the like.
Out of curiousity,why would anyone want to pay for medical insurance if the treatment from church health centres is free?

In some countries, where resources are scarce ,the burden of one sick child could have a disastrous effect on the welfare of the rest of the family,are the parents justified in choosing to lose one child to preserve the lives of the others?
What about cultural differances,in China and India boys are more highly prized as they bring resources into a family whereas girls take them away(dowries),as a result girls are routinely denied medical care.
If such a family brought their practices to the US they would surely be condemned-is religion really all that differant?

15

Casdave: Typically, when the parent declines treatment in a life-threatening situation, there is a court action (don’t know who brings it) and subesequently the child is treated. Where do I stand? Heck, I don’t know. I can see both sides. I guess I’d refuse treatment for my child if I thought the treatment would send her to hell, but I don’t think that of any medical treatment and I personally don’t know anyone who does.

Church health centers and the like are usually staffed by medical personnel who volunteer so many hours a week, and charge fees based on a sliding scale. The only problem would be that you may not have any choice in who treats you, a problem that they share with some HMOs.

I don’t think unmet care in the UK implies umnet care here. In my own very humble opinion, there’s nothing that can’t be screwed up by government micromanagement. Doctors and hospitals here actually compete for patients. We nearly lost our good children’s hospital here, though, because the state’s substitute for Medicare nearly ran it into the ground. Methodist hospital systems stepped in and saved it, fortunately.

If it’s truly a choice of losing one child to save others, I suppose that could be justified, but hopefully that doesn’t really happen too often. And I do frown on giving boys better medical treatment than girls - being a girl myself, and all.

16

It is usually the health care institution that brings the court action. The basis (especially with the JW’s) is usually that the church, through its misinformation and threats of “disfellowship”, has rendered the parent incompetent to grant informed refusal.

Apparently, parents will often force the court order, but make no real attempt to fight it. They are torn between their religion and what is best for the child, and figure the Church will forgive them if “their hands were tied”.

Dr. J

17

In several cases, JW children between the ages of 11 and 17 have been deemed “mature minors” by the court, giving these children permission to refuse life-saving transfusions. JW parents are encouraged to coach their kids in preparation for the possibility of facing transfusion; they teach the kids what to say to convince the judge to let them refuse blood. If worse comes to worst, the child is taught to rip the IV out of his arm, kick and fight, and do everything else possible to resist.

Any JW child is well-prepared to refuse transfusion.

JW children are so heavily indoctrinated that they will choose to die rather than receive a transfusion. In cases where the state gains custody in order to force transfusions, doctors are reluctant to do so because these kids are terribly traumatized by having transfusions forced on them.

JWs kidnap their children from hospitals to prevent transfusions. If they fail to fight against transfusions tooth and nail, they face severe penalties from the church. The worst sanction is disfellowshipping, in which the offenders are cast out of the church and forbidden to associate with any JWs, including immediate family members.

The JWs I’ve dealt with in the hospital oppose blood largely because they’ve been taught that transfusions are not only unnecessary but also extremely dangerous. JW publications point to blood-borne diseases (especially AIDS and hepatitis) as “proof” that their religious stance is correct. I was recently presented with a pamphlet by a JW family and instructed to put it in the patient’s chart; it outlined dozens of helpful hints to minimize blood loss, including “use a pulse oximeter instead of drawing blood to determine blood oxygen levels” (worthless- the pulse ox only tells you what percentage of hemoglobin is bound to oxygen; it can’t tell you what you really need to know), and “in surgery, the physician can minimize blood loss by making smaller incisions” (gee, I bet the surgeon never thought of that one). This crap went on for pages and pages.

A JW elder is stationed at the patient’s bedside 24 hours a day to ensure the medical staff does not sneak blood into the patient’s veins. If you so much as take the patient’s temperature, that bastard will rush up to you and demand a full explanation for your every move.

In fact, JW’s seem to believe that blood transfusions are an evil plot by the medical community to undermine their faith and persecute them.

Interestingly, for a period of about 13 years (roughly 1967-1980) JW doctrine forbade organ transplants as well because it was considered “cannibalism”. Then the Watchtower society changed its mind, so now transplants are allowed. I have no idea how many good JWs died as a result of this policy.

Blood is forbidden for the same reason: transfusion is considered to be “eating” blood, which is forbidden in the Bible. The train of “logic” goes like this: doctors can feed the patient through an IV with TPN (total parenteral nutrition, used for people who cannot eat or absorb food through the digestive tract). Therefore, everything given to a patient through an IV is food. (This is simply false.)

I have no problem with an adult JW refusing blood. I sure don’t think JW parents have the right to let their child die this way. As for “mature minors” refusing blood for themselves- I think it’s very sad. Those kids really can’t make a good decision for themselves because they only know the lies they’ve been taught.

18

I say it’s negligent homicide, also. Of course, I’m a God-less atheist who doesn’t believe in homeopathy. :wink:

The notion that blood transfusions are bad for you stems from the days before we learned about blood typing and not about blood-borne diseases. Give someone the wrong type of blood and you can kill them. Transplanting organs means the risk of rejection.

But these are naturally-occurring consequences that can be prevented. There is no good reason for refusing a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant.

Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.

19

“There is no good reason for refusing a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant.” You realize that not everyone agrees with that. I take your signature line literally, and feel free to correct your statement. Here is the correction: “There is no good reason for anyone who shares my worldview to refuse a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant.”

20

there was actually a very dramatic case of this happening about a year ago in Saskatchewan.

  • 13 year old boy was diagnosed wtih a nasty form of bone cancer in his leg.

  • doctors began treating with chemo, but eventually the parents and the boy refused, saying it conflicted wtih their religious (Christian) beliefs.

  • doctors notified provincial Social Services, who went to court for a temporary guardianship order under child protection law, for the purpose of consenting to medical treatment for the boy.

  • court ruled that the parents had unduly influenced boy, so he could not make a truly informed decision (i.e. - was not a “mature minor”). Granted order to Social Services, including power to consent to amputation of the leg, if necessary.

  • Social Services consents to more chemo; boy comes back to hospital; doctors discover that in the interval, cancer has spread, rendering further treatment, even amputation, useless.

  • parents take boy to Mexico for alternative treatment.

  • boy dies, some months after return from Mexico.

what do you think?

and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe