The Shotgun Blog
« Winning the war of ideas | Main | Toronto Strike Solution »
Friday, June 26, 2009
Forced Blood Transfusions
If you expect to have religious freedom for yourself, then you have to allow it for other people, whether you agree with their choices or not. That is how liberty and fairness works.
There are many religious practices out there that I disagree with, that I think are harmful. When we talk of harm, we talk of consent; where there isn't consent, there is harm. So the question becomes, if a person capable of understanding consent, are they allowed to harm themselves?
4 years ago, a 14 year old female in Winnipeg was forced by the government to have a blood transfusion, something against her religious convictions as a Jehovah's Witness. Today, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that decision by the Manitoba Court that allowed for the forced transfusion to take place.
The unidentified girl, now 18 years old, reacted.
"I don't want to die, which is why I went to the hospital for treatment. I just wanted the best medical treatment without blood …" the young woman, who is now 18, told CBC.
"There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act [blood transfusion] is. I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with."
This girl compares her experience to being raped; rape sanctioned and enforced by the government.
Those are very strong words, that should not be taken lightly. To her, this was a violation of her body, a body that she owns and is in charge of.
Three psychiatrists who assessed her all concluded she understood her medical condition and the consequences of not getting a transfusion.
If this is the case, if she truly understood the consequences of such an action, then she is free to decide what to do with her body. Her body, her choice.
Posted by Freedom Manitoba on June 26, 2009 in Religion | Permalink
Comments
Sorry, people have to be protected from their moronic, stupid and barbaric religious beliefs.
Especially young naive and brainwashed victims of fundamentalists.
We have an obligation to protect these innocent lives.
Were I a doctor or nurse, there is no way I want this young girls death on my hands.
Scott Carnegie, you are a barbaric and insensitive thug who will throw away a young life for the sake of moronic ideology. You should go to your room, little boy, and think real hard about what you just wrote.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-26 4:13:51 PM
//Sorry, people have to be protected from their moronic, stupid and barbaric religious beliefs.//
I disagree. If people want to believe strange things, that is their business.
//We have an obligation to protect these innocent lives.//
This girl was not a child that couldn't make decisions for herself, she understood the choice before her, as the court reported. Would you allow an 18 year old to refuse this medical treatment? Why or why not.
BTW, keep the personal attacks out of posts and please focus on the issues.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 4:35:48 PM
If she put a gun to her head and threatened to pull the trigger do you think society has an obligation to try to stop her? Or do we just shrug and say "it is her body"?
Posted by: ferrethouse | 2009-06-26 6:05:27 PM
Yes, It's her body, it's her life, it's her choice. (shrug)
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-26 6:12:12 PM
Scott, you are a thug. Those are the facts as you have proven in your ignorant post.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-26 6:21:29 PM
"Sorry, people have to be protected from their moronic, stupid and barbaric religious beliefs."
Fair enough. But isn't it likewise equally moronic, stupid, and barbaric to use aggressive violence to achieve this goal? Wouldn't a normal, sane person rely on persuasion and rational argument? Methinks the "barbaric and insensitive thug" is in the mirror.
"If she put a gun to her head and threatened to pull the trigger do you think society has an obligation to try to stop her?"
Would you shoot her if she didn't surrender?
Of course we have an obligation to try to stop her. But aggressive violence is simply not the answer.
Posted by: Michael Wiebe | 2009-06-26 6:25:23 PM
This is a very differnet situation then if somebody is putting a gun to their head, because someone who is in the right state of mind would not do that. what this law is saying is that a minor who is full aware of the consequences and the three sperete psychiatrist determind that she was mature and not brainwashed.
and from what I read her parents had aranged for her doctors to meet with experts from the states who knew how to treat her without blood but her doctors refused to meet with them because they were american doctors and not licenced to pratice medician in manitoba. so her parents wanted the best treatment for her, but her doctors are to closeminded to look at alternatives.
Posted by: Dan | 2009-06-26 6:28:53 PM
@ epsilon //Scott, you are a thug. Those are the facts as you have proven in your ignorant post.//
I believe it is more thug like to force someone who is competent to have medical procedures done against their will.
BTW, are you going to address the issue or just continue to throw our personal attacks?
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 6:42:01 PM
@ michael //Wouldn't a normal, sane person rely on persuasion and rational argument?//
Yes!
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 6:43:33 PM
I should mention that in a case such as this, friends and family should do what they could to persuade the person to get the medical treatment, in light of the strange religious practices that is preventing them from doing so.
If it was my family member, for example, I would do all I could short of forcibly restraining them to get the medial procedure done.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 6:49:49 PM
The issue no one is addressing here is the issue of age and competence to make a decision. If the girl had been 18 when she refused the transfusion, we would all say (I hope) that it's her decision to make, even if it is a very bad one. If the girl had been 8 when she refused the transfusion, we would all say (I hope) that she cannot really make such a decision thus if the transfusion is medically in her best interests, then she (or her parents) should not be allowed to refuse.
But she was 14. That's is a hard age to judge. Until recently, the law allowed kids at 14 to consent to sex. More recently we raised the age of protection to 16. Some say it should be raised further to 18. It is not obvious where the line should be because kids at the same age have different capabilities to make decisions. But in this case the girl was not just any 14 year old. We are told that "three psychiatrists who assessed her all concluded she understood her medical condition and the consequences of not getting a transfusion." Maybe many 14 year olds could not meaningfully make this decision on their own. Maybe even most couldn't. But I'm inclined to think that this girl could, so the forced transfusion was wrong.
The court decision, even of wrong, at least has the virtue of being consistent with what the law says about 14 year olds making sexual decisions or decisions about legal contracts. But I still think it was the wrong decision. This time.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-06-26 7:36:17 PM
@ Fact Check //The issue no one is addressing here is the issue of age and competence to make a decision.//
As you point out, you can't put a number to it, it needs to be judged on an individual basis. That was actually done, she was found competent, and they still forced her.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 8:05:52 PM
Where were the parents in all this?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-26 8:24:26 PM
from the linked article
//The girl and her parents opposed the transfusion, based on their religious belief that the Bible forbids ingesting blood.//
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-26 8:33:47 PM
Then the state overstepped its authority and violated their rights.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-26 11:15:02 PM
Shane Matthews,
Nobody, least of all the Charter's staunchest advocates, really believe that it would be used to consistently defend religious rights.
Posted by: Timothy Shaw-Zak | 2009-06-27 12:19:45 AM
Well, not with this heathen generation sitting on the benches, no.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-27 8:37:21 AM
Once again we see that our own bodies are not our own propety under "law". And the enforcement of said law is ultimately backed by violence against that same non sovereign body.
There are of course those who will say "We must protect these people from themselves" I ask, Why?
By what principle "must" we do this?
All arguments in this direction are emotional and I'm sure, heart felt, but they don't really work.
What if this young ladies convictions were such that after being "raped" by way of forced blood transfusion she felt she had to kill herself?
Have we done her a service or made her short life experience even worse?
A psychiatric examination determined she understood her situation...it should then be her decision.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 8:42:10 AM
SUMMARIES OF 1400 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MEDICAL & OTHER COURT CASES
The following website summarizes over 900 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including over 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:
DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com
The following website summarizes over 500 Jehovah's Witnesses Employment related lawsuits, etc, including DOZENS of court cases in which JW Employees refused blood transfusions, and/or other cases involving Worker's Comp, medical, health, and disability issues:
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
http://jwemployees.bravehost.com
Posted by: James Jones | 2009-06-27 9:32:41 AM
"Sorry, people have to be protected from their moronic, stupid and barbaric religious beliefs."
Says who and based on what? Justify your answer without using emotion.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-27 10:07:08 AM
Posting links is not making an argument, James.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-27 10:07:51 AM
Shane and Scott. I am a girl who plays rough. And when I see you bozos post such ignorant crap you should not cry and complain of hurt feelings.
If you want to post ridiculous nonsense whereby you actually allow moronic religions and cults to have precedence over an innocent girl's life, well, there is clear evidence that you are absolute bloody idiots.
You will let cults prey upon innocent lives and do nothing to defend children.
You are as sick as these demented and brainwashed people.
You are as much brainwashed as they are.
You are thugs.
I am glad the world can see you for the sick ****s that you are.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-06-27 10:47:35 AM
Atheism is fast becoming a popular cult, in fact, it's becoming a religion. It's high time it's recognized as such.
How do the "medical authorities" choose the cases they plan to take to the courts? Is it possible they focus on cases with potential high $$$ returns, for expensive treatments? A simple blood transfusion wouldn't be worth arguing over. It's the billing potential of her other proposed treatments that make court action worthwhile.
Religious groups are correct, that their lifestyle choices protect them more than any medical intervention. Avoiding high risk situations is always a safer bet than trying to use some sort of medical safety device. It's almost certainly better than trying to cure the problems after they appear.
Personally, I don't believe it's possible to avoid every hazard in today's society. That's why I'd accept any medical procedure that I feel has a good chance of working. I still reserve the right ot refuse any treatment, if I choose.
Posted by: dp | 2009-06-27 11:36:57 AM
the rights of a child/family should take precedence over the child/state in this case, because there's no violence or coercion involved (not every case, though. clitorectomies, anyone? THAT's violence and coercion).
anything less is to advocate homage to the religious authority of statism.
Posted by: shel | 2009-06-27 12:07:46 PM
"Shane and Scott. I am a girl who plays rough. And when I see you bozos post such ignorant crap you should not cry and complain of hurt feelings."
You are a petulant troll whose contributions of late have been limited to hissy fits and throwing plates.
"If you want to post ridiculous nonsense whereby you actually allow moronic religions and cults to have precedence over an innocent girl's life, well, there is clear evidence that you are absolute bloody idiots."
It's her life, Epsi. You have no right to second-guess things for her. No one has appointed you her de facto guardian by dint of your supposed moral superiority. Your opinion amounts to exactly as much as a pile of cockroach shit.
"You will let cults prey upon innocent lives and do nothing to defend children."
Secular humanism is also a cult. The chief difference between it and traditional religions is that the high priests of that faith acknowledge no higher power and no supreme being; they are their own gods.
"You are as sick as these demented and brainwashed people."
They may make nuisances of themselves going door to door, but at least they don't rant like lunatics or talk of turning the populace into de facto slaves.
"You are as much brainwashed as they are."
Screeched the heathen.
"You are thugs."
Bellowed the troll.
"I am glad the world can see you for the sick ****s that you are."
Can it? Seems to me you and the other trolls are garnering most of the criticism.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-27 12:40:29 PM
@ dp //Atheism is fast becoming a popular cult, in fact, it's becoming a religion. It's high time it's recognized as such. //
This article says nothing about atheism. Besides, atheism cannot be a religion, the definition of the world itself shows that, theist - a belief in a deity, a-theist - absence of belief in a deity.
Call it a movement, a social club if you like, calling it a religion is fallacious.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 1:13:48 PM
@ epsilon
Are you going to make an argument, a valid thought out point, or continue to troll? Further posts like the one you just made will be deleted.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 1:15:29 PM
y'know, i'm having second thoughts about my own opinion regarding moderating comments. i used to think it was better to let everything fly and everyone have at it (and i'm admittedly guilty of this myself).
but, lately, things seem to be getting out of hand. the comments are getting unnecessary. it seems that half of them are useless reading and don't stimulate debate.
there are times when i'm forced, by a different angle, to expand on a concept on this blog. these times are the best for my own education. but threads like this one digress, and i have to work my way through peoples' flamewars.
in the hierarchy of rights, property comes first. i wonder if the Shotgun might reconsider theirs' and start weeding out the deadwood comments until things become a bit more thought provoking? i'll try to make my comments so from now on (even if i'm dying to crack a scathing one liner...). ;)
...sh:)t. i just held myself to a higher standard. now i have to live with it. heh
anyway, just a thought.
Posted by: shel | 2009-06-27 1:20:11 PM
~Scott
incredible!!! you read my mind.
Posted by: shel | 2009-06-27 1:23:42 PM
Attacking the position is fine, attacking the person is not. That poster isn't even making arguments, just name calling, and that discourages others from having adult discussion.
If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 2:04:41 PM
Shel,
The rights of a child and its family are not always identical. In other circumstances we recognize that, before a certain age, children aren't capable to make an informed choice. That is why we don't charge children with crimes or give any weight about the parent they want to live with after a divorce until they're 12. It is for those reasons -- the risk of bad parents and immature children -- that the court has what is known as parens patriae jurisdiction over children of a certain age.
Medical decisions, in particular life and death medical decisions, require informed consent.
In this case, I think the SCC gave pretty clear guidance. While courts may order medical treatment of children under 16, despite the objections of parent and child, the SCC said that the child should be given the opportunity to, in the words of one summary, "demonstrate that their views about a particular medical treatment decision reflect a sufficient degree of independence of thought and maturity." In other word, if the case were heard again, the court may have reached a different conclusion, so long as the court was persuaded that she a) understood the procedure and b) had reached the decision independently and not under pressure from her nutty parents.
It is telling, I think, that although the appeal was unsuccessful, the SCC required the province to pay the appellants legal costs.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 2:10:03 PM
~truewest
we understand that this area is a delicate one, and must be dealt with on a case by case basis.
there is a three way interest here: parents/child/state. if two parties agree, perhaps they should hold sway. for example, perhaps, if the child agrees with the state, she grants the state authority over her parents; or if she sides with her parents, the state backs down. if violence or coercion of the girl can be proven, there's probably a case. but the "maturity" argument (child or parents) is weak and authoritarian.
i've read some disparaging remarks about religious belief on this thread, and though i'm an athiest, i come from a Seventh-day Adventist background and assure you, people of faith are no more or less stable or myopic than seculars. the crux is this: if a girl and her parents don't want blood transfusions, leave them alone. if she dies, she dies in her faith. you may disagree with this, but i err on the side of liberty.
i have a rhetorical question: how long will it be until there exist papist/soviet/fascist/ etc Inquisitional courts that can legally decree whether or not a group of citizens can be considered fit or unfit, or dangerous. and believe me(!), i'm not just pointing a finger at social liberals. there are some inane statist arguments made by our conservatives too.
legalities exist. but philosophically, i have a hard time accepting state coercion and intrusion.
too much power.
Posted by: shel | 2009-06-27 3:16:52 PM
Shel,
I think the decision should rest with the "mature" child, if that child is capable of making the decision independently. Determining that issue falls to the court.
The problem with the solution you suggest is that if the child is not mature enough to make a decision on her own, she will almost always side with the parents.
As for inquisitional courts, I think you're being paranoid. As the SCC decision demonstrates, the courts are not lackies of the state and are very much alive to the role in limiting state power.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 3:49:42 PM
"I think the decision should rest with the "mature" child, if that child is capable of making the decision independently. Determining that issue falls to the court."
the girl recently said that she felt "raped" a few years ago when this happened. she was mature then and now.
oops.
"The problem with the solution you suggest is that if the child is not mature enough to make a decision on her own, she will almost always side with the parents."
so be it. as long as there is no violence or coercion involved (assuming you don't believe a different from the norm upbringing is "coercion"), leave them alone.
"As for inquisitional courts, I think you're being paranoid. As the SCC decision demonstrates, the courts are not lackies of the state and are very much alive to the role in limiting state power."
as i said, i was being rhetorical. i hope the Supremes make the right decision, and overturn the legislation. it is flawed. the girl was obviously mature at the time.
anyway, i'm goin' backpacking in Skoki valley, so i have to rip myself away from this bloody computer!
Posted by: shel | 2009-06-27 4:52:43 PM
As for inquisitional courts, I think you're being paranoid. As the SCC decision demonstrates, the courts are not lackies of the state and are very much alive to the role in limiting state power.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 3:49:42 PM
I don't thimk shel is being paranoid, I think shel is observant. The SCC decision proves nothing in the overall. It was a politically sensitive "limelite" case, so they take the opportunity to look as though they are a system of justice. But every day in every courtroom in the country, people's rights are trampled.
That's because the reality is we have a "law" system, not a justice system.
And at what point is the child supposed to side with those other than the ones who love her most?
And which "tribunal" of quasi-judicial bureacrats gets to make that distinction?
Personally I don't believe a bunch of government payroll / welfare recipients with government issued desks, phones and offices should have any powers whatever.
These people could screw up a county fair...let alone make decisions on behalf of private citizens.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 5:29:22 PM
Ooops...Thimk? lol
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 5:30:09 PM
Shel,
The SCC didn't overturn the legislation, nor will they. They did, however, make clear that a court hearing an application in future has to give someone who is under 16, a chance to demonstrate he or she is mature enough to make an informed and independent decision. That is, independent of the parents; unlike you, courts see enough nightmare parents to know that there is no basis for any presumption that parents will act in thei best interests of the child.
JC,
I've heard the complaint that "we have a "law" system, not a justice system" It's a nice bumper sticker, but what does it mean?
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 6:51:47 PM
JC,
I've heard the complaint that "we have a "law" system, not a justice system" It's a nice bumper sticker, but what does it mean?
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 6:51:47 PM
That's a reasonable question and it deserves a reasonable response.
The system we now have is wrought with laws of compliance. In other words we are subject to a great many areas of enforcement that are the result of victimless crimes.
Foremost among these (in my mind) are the majority of tax laws. I could write a book on the subject though and I won't get into the complexities of it here.
A great many municipal by laws are merely sources of municipal revenue and the enforcement of such laws turns our police forces into tax collectors.
Gun laws are a particular peave to me. They are useless, change nothing and are again a source of control.
Property rights should be enshrined but the "law" system we have seems bent on preventing me from defending my life or the lives of my family from deadly force, How can that possibly be a moral law of justice?
TW this is to me the smallest tip of the iceberg I'm merely trying to show a certain kind of thinking. There are some great books out there on this very subject and some great philosophers who have spoken on the evils of a "law" system.
I'm more of a mind that all that is required is a "justice" system based on the idea that all crime stems from force or fraud. The system of government we have has evolved into something that is guilty of both on a daily basis...as a matter of "policy".
For the good of the people...of course.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 7:15:35 PM
A message for epsilon...
Yep, your post was deleted. I am fine with opposing views; express them, challenge me, I enjoy it, I 've been doing it for over 2 years on my personal liberty blog, which is part of the reason I was invited to write for the Western Standard blog.
As you long as you lobby personal attacks and insults, you will be moderated.
Address the issues, SHOW me how I'm wrong and I may be convinced. If you aren't willing to be adult about the discourse, then good day to you.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 7:37:47 PM
I've heard the complaint that "we have a "law" system, not a justice system" It's a nice bumper sticker, but what does it mean?
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 6:51:47 PM
To add to JC's post, laws don't equal justice. Is it justice to put someone in jail for smoking a plant? Well, it happens. Is it justice to put people in jail for having consentual sex? It happens. Etc.
There are many, many bad laws.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 7:42:42 PM
Some who claim to support personal freedom and liberty mean that they support it as long as it does not differ from their own beliefs and values. To claim that JW beliefs are moronic and ridiculous because one does not share them is not an argument. While I do not share their beliefs, I am able to respect the people who do.
The authorities had no business meddling in this situation. The irony is that the same authorities see nothing wrong with allowing abortions at any stage and for any reason but feel they have the obligation to "save" the life of this girl.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-06-27 7:53:38 PM
//Some who claim to support personal freedom and liberty mean that they support it as long as it does not differ from their own beliefs and values.//
Yep, that's why if you want freedom for yourself then you have to allow it for other people, even if you disagree with what they do with that freedom, short of harming people without consent.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 8:27:40 PM
More bumper stickers, Scott?
I agree that there are bad laws, including the ones that put people in jail for smoking a plant or having consensual sex. But in any society, there will always be disagreement over the merits of laws.
In this thread, you and Alain and other seem to be suggesting that any law that treats children as anything other than the property of their parents, who may do as they wish with them, even if what they do leads to the child's death, is a bad law. You don't offer much more than "live and let live" as an argument in support of this position.
I would argue that society - the state if you prefer -- has an interest in the safety and well-being of children, even other people's children. When the conduct or influence of parents put that well-being at risk, then society should intervene. Society's right to intervene should diminish as the child approach maturity and becomes independent of the parents, but there is, as this case demonstrates, a period in a child's life when the level of maturity and the ability to give informed consent varies wildly.
JC, Thanks for expaniding on your comment. HOwever, justice is very subjective and mutable quality. A system of laws is, by comparision, relatively predictable, which means it can establish clear prohibitions as well fair means of addressoing breaches of those prohibitions. I would be grateful if you could direct me to the "great books" and "great philosophers" who have weighed in on the evils of laws. But please, no Ayn Rand.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 9:02:01 PM
In this thread, you and Alain and other seem to be suggesting that any law that treats children as anything other than the property of their parents, who may do as they wish with them, even if what they do leads to the child's death, is a bad law.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 9:02:01 PM
I think in your attitude of basic disagreement with all things Liberty oriented you go too far.
No one would advocate the abuse of a child under anything like property rights or any other banner.
The property rights issue is more towards keeping the authorities from "busy body" type intervention into private affairs.
Just off the top of my head "Frederic Bastiat" and the Constitution of the USA as well as the Bill of Rights (USA) are a good basis for understanding Liberty.
For understanding economic Liberty, anything from Ludwig vonMises would work.
Google up "Libertarian writers" and see what you get.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 9:12:03 PM
JC,
Everybody seemed keen to leave the decision as to whether the child should get needed medical care in the hands of the parents. If that medical care is indeed neeed to save the child's life, barring it because of some religious superstition may well qualify as abuse.
Posted by: truewest | 2009-06-27 9:24:52 PM
TW
That would be punishable by law in a system of justice. Unfortunately it would probably be after the fact. Thing is, how much pre-emptive law enforcement should we be prepared to accept?
Stiff penalties should be the deterrent, religion or no religion.
Posted by: The original JC | 2009-06-27 9:54:44 PM
In my mind, the maturity of the individual making the decision is secondary to the ultimate question: Does the state have the right to intervene if an individual wishes to take her own life.
Everything else is moot until that question gets answered...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-06-27 10:21:36 PM
@ truewest //When the conduct or influence of parents put that well-being at risk, then society should intervene.//
I agree with this, except that this wasn't a child that couldn't assert themselves, this was a teenager that the court determined understood the consequences of her choice.
Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-06-27 10:31:44 PM
but her doctors are to closeminded to look at alternatives
There is a reason they are called "alternatives" - because they are not proven effective and are not widely accepted. That doesn't make doctors "close-minded". It means they choose proven techniques over dubious ones.
Posted by: ferrethouse | 2009-06-28 11:43:38 AM
What about advances in bloodless medicine?
Posted by: SpiritualBrother | 2009-06-29 3:45:47 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.