A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion that might have helped him, the boy died…
Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew “he’s basically giving himself a death sentence.”
“I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,” the judge said during the hearing. “I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”
Gives you a real sense of what life must have been like, say, in the Sixth Century – without the humorous Monty Python bits.
From Keith Burel, who adds, “The wages of superstition is death.”
#21 I’m talking about Darwinism the theory, not Darwin the man.
JW’s have annoyed/frightened many of us for many years with their doomsday pronouncements. I feel sorry that the child was born of JW parents or guardians, but clearly he not going to reproduce.
That’s Darwinism whether you like it or not.
That facts that (a) the kid was not living with his parents, and (b) they aren’t Witlesses, are directly connected. One thing JWs are commanded, very strongly (by Jehovah Hisself!), to do is to shun infidels, not just including, but especially one’s own immediate family.
The clowns who invented this preposterous crock figured out how to innoculate their followers from rationality, and installed from the git-go a “holy” order for believers to stay away from anyone who might show them what fools they are – and who, in a person’s life, is more potentially persuasive than his/her own flesh and blood?
The inventors of this particular take on ye Wholly Bibble may’ve been credulous crackpots, but they weren’t total fools.
>>and who, in a person’s life, is more
>>potentially persuasive than his/her
>>own flesh and blood?
Gosh, you’re angry, Gatito. Bad week trading that single stock?
Your irate venting does not explain how the JW AUNT was granted custody of the dearly departed kid. If it were his parents who were the JWs, it would make sense (sort of) that they would rather sacrifice him than let him into the saving arms of an infidel.
But it was the other way around. What kind of free-thinking parents willingly send the fruit of their loins off to be raised by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
MM, #26 said “And I have never heard of blood transfusions as a “treatment” for leukemia.”
You apparently haven’t absorbed ALL the information in the world yet. My father-in-law had leukemia and received blood transfusions of some kind as part of his treatment. He lived 15 years after they started that treatment.
And also? I was raised a JW and at 14 years old I probably would have made the same decision. I’m glad now that I never faced such a situation because a few years later I realized what a crock it is (thanks to science writing by Sagan and Asimov) and I would certainly accept whatever treatments my doctor would recommend today.
good riddance.
I see it as cleansing the species, or whittling away the dead wood, however you want to say it.
thankfully he didnt have time to breed before shuffling of the mortal coil.
>>My father-in-law had leukemia and
>>received blood transfusions of
>>some kind as part of his treatment.
Sure, as a volume expander or stem-cell replacement, but there are perfectly acceptable alternatives (Dextran, leukapheresis) for those who object to autologous whole blood transfusions.
I’m glad to hear that you retain an open mind with respect to religious beliefs. We should all be so fortunate.
the kid made a choice. Better to not foist medicine on him, when so many are denied it (unable to afford health coverage) in this country. Lets face it, if you can’t afford health insurance it’s not like you’d GET the choice of even being treated for leukemia, much less a transfusion.
>>Lets face it, if you can’t afford health
>>insurance it’s not like you’d GET the choice
>>of even being treated for leukemia, much
>>less a transfusion.
Rock on, Meetsy. You’re going to be accused by the local rednecks of being a pimp for “socialized medicine”, but you are spot on.
¡Viva la Revolución! Health care for all.
When is the US going to have a “War on Religion”?
Then later that “war” can be added to all the other “wars” that did not do a damn thing but piss people off and cost an awful lot of money.
Cheers
#13.
While I would want that boy saved from his religious lunatic parents, the greater evil is to vote for that stinking government in the house to make that decision.
Furthermore, at the risk of agreeing with my loony friends from the right the age of 14 is old enough, in my opinion, for him to be sufficiently brainwashed to put his religious feelings ahead of his desire for life. That is the unfortunate reality.
Hate to tell you, Dallas, but competency law in every civilized country is about being old enough to be resistant to being brainwashed, not the opposite. Competence to make a decision, not INcompetence.
“…agreeing with my loony friends from the right…” Wow. Are you on drugs already this AM? It’s loonies on the far, far Left who idiotically contend that children are as competent, and therefore have the same rights, as adults.
another one bites the dust, yeah yeah yeah 😉
(or whatever it goes that old tune, whateva, all im saying is it is good we have one idiot less in the gene pool 🙂 )
#6 – I believe everyone should have the right to die. Still though, it turns my stomach to have children deciding to do so based on religion.
That’s the thing. The child did not decide to die. The child, brainwashed by parents and the sect of the death cult he belonged to, wanted the mythical God to make him live… a decision that will always kill.
I don’t have the details of this kid’s illness, his prognosis, or any other special circumstances, but I was born to Jehova’s Witnesses and my grandparents were JW missionaries, so I can tell you… he never had a chance in this barbaric cult of Dark Age fuckwits.
When a Xian parent’s child dies due to treatment being withheld, that parent should be charged with murder 100% of the time. Since a judge weighed in here, and made a bad call, the case is muddied, but referring to Jesus myth bullshit to make medical decisions about kids is tantamount to child abuse, neglect, and often, murder.
#16 – >>He was a Christian. That’s reason enough in
>>book.
Fuckin’ A! All Christians must perish! Death to the fidels!!
I think you need to go back to Atheist Sunday School.
Okay Mustard… remember, the comment you are responding too was written by JPV, a guy I’ve never heard of, and likely one of many fly-by posts made be cranks with agendas, who found the thread through Digg or something, and is NOT part of the DU community…
I’m just pointing this out as I fully expect to be associated with that jackass’s comment in a later debate and I’m saying now… There is not legitimate claim to to widespread anti-Christian sentiment here. Although, you can make a case for widespread anti-letting kids die sentiment…
>>Although, you can make a case for
>>widespread anti-letting kids die sentiment…
Gosh, OFTLO, I’ll bet you coulud make a case for that sentiment everywhere.
The ONLY form of medical treatment that JWs are opposed to is the transfusion of whole blood.
And we don’t have the specifics on this case; according to the doctors, the kid had a 30% chance of dying anyway, even with the blood transfusion AND OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURES. What would the chances have been with just the “other medical procedures”? Were they administered or withheld? What if they were , in fact, administered, and that brought his chances of survival down to 69.5% instead of 70%? Would there be the same outrage?
As I said, I have never heard of blood transfusions as a treatment for leukemia (other than as a post-radiation or -chemotherapy replacement for stem cells, which can also be accomplished by a bone marrow transplant).
So it seems that there’s more to this story than some wild-eyed Bible-thumpers withholding a guaranteed cure, watching the Innocent Child die a needless, prolonged, painful death.
#23 – …One one hand you have conservatives who are against abortion but pro death penalty, and liberals who are against the death penalty but pro abortion. Then you have conservatives that are ‘pro family’ but not pro paying people a family wage, or liberals that are pro family wage, but not so big on family.
Liberals are no “pro-abortion”. NO ONE is pro abortion. Many liberals trend toward being pro-choice. We believe the decision to carry a pregnancy is a personal one, between the potential mother (and father if he’s in the picture) and her qualified medical advisor and maybe her spiritual adviser.
To make abortion relate to the death penalty, you need to make a fetus equal to an adult, which is very hard to do in my mind during the first trimester. As a nation we make abortion very hard to do after the first, giving a mother ample time to make a choice. It’s a fair compromise between the various sides of this debate.
And frankly, I don’t know what could lead one to say liberals are against families. That’s just nuts.
Socially, liberals favor individuals.
#46 – Gosh, OFTLO, I’ll bet you coulud make a case for that sentiment everywhere.
I would hope so, but I’m afraid that isn’t the case. Some fundamentalist ideas are very quick to sacrifice innocents.
#44 – OFTLO,
Ack. And well said too.
#47 & #23,
Let’s keep in mind that many labels are being thrown around without regard to their original meanings. There are still some true conservatives around who simply do not want change. There are also fiscal conservatives around who want a balanced budget and small government. The current Republican party does not represent either of these groups. They are for large government and corporate welfare and deregulation of all business. They are for borrowing huge sums of money to give to their corporate buddies and having taxes raised by the next administration to cover the interest of the debt they’ve run up.
The Democrats on the other hand are not the liberal pro-working class party they used to be. They are instead a party that believes in deregulating business at a barely perceptibly slower rate than the Republicans, raising taxes to pay for the debts they run up (making them more fiscally conservative than the Republicans due to their recognition that the debt actually has to be paid), and giving huge corporate tax breaks and corporate welfare to a very slightly different set of corporate interests than the Republicans.
True liberals and true conservatives must pick between these parties that are not representative of any significant portion of the American population.
The people that are taking over the social views of the Republican party are radical extreme right wing Christian maniacs attempting to make this country a Christian theocracy and doing an excellent job of it. These are the folks that oppose legal abortion while implementing policies that increase its need. These are the people that believe all life is sacred but support the death penalty for the criminals created by not having adequate family planning and/or social programs to care for the resulting children.
So, when looking for a group that respects human life, don’t look for it in the radical extremists calling themselves pro-life. These people are about as pro-death as anyone can be.
As for any religion that does not put care for the sick by any means available ahead of its dogmatic beliefs, that religion is also not pro-life. If a god exists, I cannot imagine that god judging humans well for allowing their kids to die when medical treatment is available. But, then I also having trouble imagining that any such god exists, so perhaps god will smite me down for being a decent human being but not believing in him/her.
#46 – MM,
And we don’t have the specifics on this case; according to the doctors, the kid had a 30% chance of dying anyway, even with the blood transfusion AND OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURES.
Actually, everyone has a 100% chance of dying regardless of what we do.
Perhaps no one really needs medical treatment for anything. IMNSHO though, when something can be done that has a decent chance of prolonging or improving life, it’s generally a good idea. Exceptions would be when the “life” being prolonged is so painful and/or unenjoyable that the alternative is more attractive.
If this were such a case, if anyone involved were saying that this poor child was suffering in pain so badly, for example, that prolonging the life was merely prolonging suffering, then perhaps it would be time to euthanize the child. However, no one is saying that here. They are stating only that it was against the religion of the legal guardians. I’m afraid I can’t agree with such a choice based on the known parameters of the case.
This is really sad. Childhood leukemia is now routinely treated successfully and more than 80% of cases end up surviving to adulthood and a normal lifespan. My wife is an oncology nurse, and bone marrow transplants (along with other treatments) have made curing this particular kind of leukemia a routine matter.
I’ll bet this could be a late entry in the Darwin Award nominations for 2007.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses are a tight nit group. Questioning them can lead to disfellowshipping (excommunication). I had to disfellowship myself from them to cut myself off from their stupid beliefs. Fortunately, I never had to deal with the blood issue, but did carry the “no blood” card. Virtually everything about their beliefs is wrong, so it is very difficult for them to see only one thing is wrong (in this case refusing necessary medical treatment). To accept a blood transfusion, the member knows they will not see the “new system”. Better to die now, since the payoff is life everlasting on earth. Unfortunately, to believe in Jehovah’s Witnesses, you don’t get either. In reality, if you die from refusing a blood transfusion, you are just dead forever.