Reply
Tue 3 May, 2005 08:17 pm
This issue has come up in other jurisdictions. Should a child be allowed to refuse a blood transfusion if not having it endangers their life? Should the parents be charged for not looking after the best interests of their child?
Court orders Jehovah's Witness who doesn't want transfusions back to B.C.
at 18:57 on May 3, 2005, EST.
TARA BRAUTIGAM
TORONTO (CP) - A British Columbia teenager being treated for cancer will be forced to undergo blood transfusions if her doctors decide she needs them to survive, despite her protests that transfusions violate her faith as a Jehovah's Witness. The 14-year-old girl who fled to Ontario with her parents wept as Superior Court Justice Victor Paisley ordered her back to her home province.
"This is a matter of patient choice," Shane Brady, the girl's lawyer, told reporters outside the courthouse.
"Then to be denied that choice and be told, 'Look, you got to go back to British Columbia to be treated by a doctor that you've lost trust in' - that's difficult for anybody of any age to stomach."
Paisley said he did not find any fault with B.C. Justice Mary Boyd's April 11 decision that ruled the girl could not refuse transfusions if doctors deem them medically necessary because she is a minor.
"The wishes of the parents and the child have been heard," Paisley told the court.
"But the decision of this court . . . is to follow the appropriate medical advice of whom she turned to in the first instance."
Shortly after Paisley rendered his decision, police escorted the girl along with her mother and father out of the courthouse. The teenager's identity is protected by a court order.
Arrangements for her return will be made as soon as Ontario and B.C. doctors have cleared her for travel. She was supposed to resume chemotherapy treatment Tuesday.
Jeremy Berland, assistant deputy minister of children and family development for B.C., said ministry staff would help with the return process.
"We will try to make the next step as easy as possible for her, but clearly we've got to move," Berland told reporters.
"The window is not that wide open. We need to be able to start treatment as soon as the medical experts tell us it's appropriate to do so."
The girl had a cancerous tumour removed from her right leg at B.C. Children's Hospital and underwent three months of chemotherapy without transfusions.
Such therapy can inhibit production of blood cells, and doctors sought authority to give her transfusions if warranted.
The girl and her family had wanted to seek cancer care at a children's medical centre in New York with doctors experienced in providing cancer treatment without blood transfusions. But her doctor in B.C. said she should undergo transfusions if they were necessary for her survival.
Brady said doctors from the New York facility were ready to testify on the girl's behalf, but Paisley ruled their evidence would not be necessary.
"Like every other Canadian, she was seeking a second opinion," Brady said, adding that their motive for going to Ontario was misrepresented.
"(The family) did not come to Ontario to flee jurisdiction."
Brady said while an appeal could still be launched, the girl will co-operate with the court's decision.
Brady, who has been involved in similar disputes on behalf of church members, has said the B.C. government's claims that she needs transfusions urgently are unfounded.
Berland disagreed, saying it was ill-advised for the family to leave the province in the first place.
"It's very unfortunate that families feel they need to flee a jurisdiction," Berland said.
"I don't think that it's helpful in the long-term to try to continually look for a different answer. The answer was fairly clear and the answer was in B.C."
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood is a sacred source of life not to be misused or tampered with under any circumstance.
This doesn't seem to be the minor's decision--after all, her parents have to sign the papers and they also oppose blood transfusions.
In this neck of the woods, Jehovah's Witnesses are thick on the ground and the transfusion issue is a standard question for routine doctor's visits and hospital admissions.
Personally, while I disagee, I think their beliefs should be honored.
Man - that one is tough.
I do think it is a very difficult thing to support - that a minor, with, demonstrably not the same decision making abilities of an adult, should be allowed to die if she requires a transfusion, because, currently, she believes as her parents do.
I would be inclined to agree with the court.
Though I can see why her parents, and, currently, she, are anguished.
But, should religious beliefs overide health concerns?
In this case, the child is 14. What if the child was younger? Should a parent be allowed to make such a life-threatening decision on their behalf?
Personally, I don't think they should be able to.
I am agreeing with you, Reyn.
This is a tough one. I can see both sides of it. As a parent, I would want to be able to make 'appropriate' decisions with respect to the medical treatment of my child. On the other hand my definition of appropriate isn't out in left field with respect to current medical care standards. But, what if it was? What if I firmly believe that if my child is given certain medical interventions then her soul would be lost? Many religious folks believe that this life is lived only in preparation for the afterlife. Should society determine they are wrong and intervene?
Tough call....
I don't want to derail the thread, but I see similarities in the topic of female circumcision. If I can strongly oppose female circumcision as barbaric and feel that the state can and should intervene on behalf of the child, then I guess I believe that the state can and should intervene on behalf of the Jehovah Witness.
The sad part about it would be if the parents and the child had agreed to the transfusion to begin with that they could then be shunned by their own community.
Yeppers.
I cannot begin to tell you the suffering their bizarre beliefs inflict in relation to abuse and such and when people may separate/divorce etc.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....
Yes, I have heard of cases where this breaks up families, isolates relatives, friends, etc....
Having said I think they could intervene, I would like to add that IMO transfusions are given all too frequently and in the case of the JW, they should be given only in the case of imminent death. This is a case where the child was on chemo for three months and her ability to produce blood cells was potentially damaged. The case seems to be using the 'if appropriate' or 'if warranted' clause, but I'm wondering if they couldn't tone that down to a more critical level. There are other ways to induce blood cell production - erythropoetin being one - and I'm going to assume they will try all other alternatives before resorting to transfusion.
Reyn wrote:But, should religious beliefs overide health concerns?
In this case, the child is 14. What if the child was younger? Should a parent be allowed to make such a life-threatening decision on their behalf?
Personally, I don't think they should be able to.
As a general rule - yes, a person's religious beliefs should override concerns from others.
If the state is free to dictate what religious beliefs can be over-ridden in the name of "what's best" then they have in fact created a state religion.
Hmm - so - what about female genital mutilation, Fishin'? Ought the US to allow that?
(It is pseudo-religious beliefs which get clitorii ripped out, and vulvas sewn up - ie 'ts not Islam demanding it - but who gets to define that....)
Just interested in your limits.
dlowan wrote:Hmm - so - what about female genital mutilation, Fishin'? Ought the US to allow that?
(It is pseudo-religious beliefs which get clitorii ripped out, and vulvas sewn up - ie 'ts not Islam demanding it - but who gets to define that....)
Just interested in your limits.
If the person is capable of making an informed (and free!) decision for themselves I don't see how it's any different than allowing body piercings, tongue splitting, plastic surgery (like the guy that had his entire face re-done so that he looks like a cat.
), a sex change operation or an abortion.
If the person in question is a minor or if there is evidence that the person isn't free to make the choice then IMO, there is some justification for a court (i.e. society) to intervene to determine if the person is capable of making that decision freely and preventing them from making it if judged incapable.
What you do with your body is your business. It only becomes my concern when someone else forces you to do something. If a person chooses to freely follow the teachings of their religion and base their decisions on those beliefs then, as a general rule, it isn't the state's business to intervene as long as no one else is negatively affected by the decision.
FMG is done on minors. I won't get into it here, cos I have established your limits, and that is all I was trying to do - but comparing it to piercing is like comparing cutting off a penis with piercing.
Interestingly, here, piercings and tattoos and such cannot be consented to by kids alone. Their parents have to agree. It is MINORS we are discussin here.
So - it is ok for parents to decide that their child shall die, for the sake of religious freedom?
What if the child had been run over, and was bleeding to death in an ER?
I agree that, if an adult consents to receiving, or NOT receiving, some procedure that is fine.
I am less happy with some daft religious nonsense condemning kid who does not yet have full ability to make informed decisions dying because og their parents' beliefs.
dlowan wrote:FMG is done on minors. I won't get into it here, cos I have established your limits, and that is all I was trying to do - but comparing it to piercing is like comparing cutting off a penis with piercing.
If you'd like I could easily send you a few hundred pics from around the net of piercings that are, IMO, as bad as or worse than FGM. When the genitals are no longer recognizable as such and no longer function "normally" you enter the same realm.
Quote:It is MINORS we are discussin here.
The original statment I replied to wasn't limited to minors:
"But, should religious beliefs overide health concerns?"
Quote:So - it is ok for parents to decide that their child shall die, for the sake of religious freedom?
I made no such statement. I think I made it fairly clear that one should be free to make decisions for THEMSELVES.
In the case of a minor where there is disagreement between parents/child and medical professionals we have courts to render a decision just as was done in this case.
In this case the judge sided with the medical professionals. I don't have access to the full courtroom proceedings so I can't form an opinion on the quality or fairness of that decision and have to trust the the judge made the best decision they could with what they had and accept their decision. I'd be in the exact same position if the judge had decided the case in the girl's favor.
In the end I doubt there is any better system than what we have right now but I disagree with the concept that a persons religious views should automatically be subservient to "health concerns" expressed by others.
I am bemused here for the moment in that I would just naturally intervene to transfuse, but am not so sure I am right on that.
I agree that I have the choice re my med care, as an adult human, hypothetically.
A child is presumed by me and others to not have the maturity for the decision. But then the decision would be bounced to the parents, no? Some portion of parents make unwise decisions, medically - should not an advanced med facility rule? Well, I would hope so, but maybe no.
Tricky. Some older children do well know their minds/emotions.
In my early life I was very interested in hematology. It is barely within my viewscreen to imagine not giving a transfusion in a case like this, especially if, as JB pointed out, alternate procedures were already tried.
So, listening....
ossobuco wrote: ...should not an advanced med facility rule?
This conjurs up a pic of Dr. Mengele.
I can't think of a single reason why a medical facility be able to have sole decision authority. Medical professionals can be as nutty as anyone else. Their function is to diagnose, inform and treat within the limits of consent of the patient (assuming the patient is capable of freely making an informed decision).
I'd much rather have a (supposedly) disinterested 3rd party (the courts) hear the evidence from both sides and render a decision than surrender my health care decisions to the whims of my doctor.
I agree with the courts deciding.
And I think the discussion was quite clearly about minors - so I was puzzled by your bringing in other situations Fishin'.
Still am, but it is of no particular consequence.
And of course we're limited to blood transfusions what about more radical less-proven medical technologies.
Who defines what is a religion?
I don't think, legally, anyone has really decided when a minor is responsible. If a 13 year old murders someone they're tried not their parents, but the parents get to decide if they want a lifesaving operation.... doesn't quite gel does it.
I think their might be merit in ignoring age and actually looking at each individual. There's no shortage of incompetent ignorant adults and wise beyond their years juveniles.
Unfortunately any standard for defining what is 'competent to make decisions about self' is going to be subjective.
Well, yes and no.
Neurologically, the 14 year old brain just isn't up there.
We are not fully neurologically mature - in the "higher functions" until 25.
Yes - it is complex. But - we do, I think, need benchmarks - we cannot agonise about each minor and their right to do whatever - we DO need laws.
But yes, I would think the more untested a procedure, the less right to force it on anyone. Otherwise you end up with insanities like trying to force parents of kids with so-called ADHD to give them amphetamines.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace