Boy dies after refusing transfusion over religion

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: pulse8
This is the problem with a belief in the afterlife.

No, this is the problem with not knowing the Bible. Uncleaness comes out of man's mind, not from anything physical - Jesus is the one who spoke against the Jews who practiced ritualistic beliefs out of self righteousness, and Paul spoke against Judaizers who tried to do the same thing within Christianity. Yes, you can be physically dirty, but that kind of dirtiness is inconsequential. There is nothing in the Bible (whch JW's claim they follow) that prohibits someone from undergoing a transfusion. Because of ignorance, this young boy died when he could have lived, and that's the fault of people who teach lies or are willingly ignorant of the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using medical technology to save someone's life, barring that someone else's life isn't taken away (if someone voluntarily gives up his/her own life to save someone, that is a different story).

Ignorance FTL. 🙁

Your little exegesis of the scriptures is just one of many. All you're doing is espousing your own viewpoint over every other and somehow claiming it as being the truth. You're speaking just as much nonsense as those who believe transfusions are "eating blood" (as is prohibited in the Bible I do believe).

To me, your feeling of being right and others ignorant is precisely the same issue as this boy dying for his.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
Believe it or not, this isn't a religious issue, so people should not let the religious aspect of the circumstances cloud their judgement. This is a civil liberties issue. To say that the state has the right to force medical treatment on people is to say that the individual has no sovereign rights over their own body and that their body belongs to the state.

Even if they are unable to make a rational decision?

Who decides that?

Keep in mind here, my state allows for physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill (where the physician assistance is just the doctor writing a prescription), and I voted in favor of that both times when it was on the ballot.
The issue in question here is not too much different than that of any patient who refuses heroic medical treatment (i.e "pull the plug" scenarios). Granted, most people (myself included) would not consider a blood transfusion to be heroic, but once again, who decides? The state or the patient?
Nor is this case much different than the issue of abortion. Does a woman have a right to her own body or not?

Well, once again, how about we bring up negligence of the aunt? Imagine a parent was bullying a child into not accepting the transfusion behind the scenes and it ISN'T the child's decision. Honestly, sometimes parents and guardians force things upon children, such as religion. If this child was brainwashed AND bullied, should the state intervene or not?

Yes, the state should and DID intervene in that regard. More RTFA, I guess.

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.?

What the judge believes and what could've actually happened are two completely different things. When someone is bullied so much, they can actually take the beliefs as their own. Honestly, I've seen kids do this more than I'd like. Now, once again, tell me what the state should do then?

It should do what it did.

Are you trying to say that you, armchairing from the internet as you are, are more qualified to make this decision than the judge who was there? Seriously.

 

[Whisper]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
Believe it or not, this isn't a religious issue, so people should not let the religious aspect of the circumstances cloud their judgement. This is a civil liberties issue. To say that the state has the right to force medical treatment on people is to say that the individual has no sovereign rights over their own body and that their body belongs to the state.

Even if they are unable to make a rational decision?

Who decides that?

Keep in mind here, my state allows for physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill (where the physician assistance is just the doctor writing a prescription), and I voted in favor of that both times when it was on the ballot.
The issue in question here is not too much different than that of any patient who refuses heroic medical treatment (i.e "pull the plug" scenarios). Granted, most people (myself included) would not consider a blood transfusion to be heroic, but once again, who decides? The state or the patient?
Nor is this case much different than the issue of abortion. Does a woman have a right to her own body or not?

Well, once again, how about we bring up negligence of the aunt? Imagine a parent was bullying a child into not accepting the transfusion behind the scenes and it ISN'T the child's decision. Honestly, sometimes parents and guardians force things upon children, such as religion. If this child was brainwashed AND bullied, should the state intervene or not?

Yes, the state should and DID intervene in that regard. More RTFA, I guess.

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.?

What the judge believes and what could've actually happened are two completely different things. When someone is bullied so much, they can actually take the beliefs as their own. Honestly, I've seen kids do this more than I'd like. Now, once again, tell me what the state should do then?

It should do what it did.

Are you trying to say that you, armchairing from the internet as you are, are more qualified to make this decision than the judge who was there? Seriously.

Honestly, I don't know that the judge was the proper person to have made this decision; are judges fully trained in assessing the mental competence and decision-making capacities of adolescents in comparison to legal adults?

At first glance, it would seem that the judge may have overstepped his bounds, although he might not have had any viable alternatives.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Farang
He may only be 14 but his body is still his. The state has no right to inject fluids into him. He should've been talked to by a more convincing individual.

does that include immunizations?

In the US, the state doesn't force immunizations on anyone, including children. The un-immunized just can't attend public schools is all, a wise policy.

Home school for all duma$$es :laugh:

 

[waggy]

This is not a bad decision. i can't blame the kid.

even teh doctors have said at most the kid has 5 years even with treatment.

so die how you want within your beleifs. or get something that you beleive makes you "unclean" and go through 5 years of torture (and the treatment for this is damn close to torture)


and no i don't think th estate has the right to force treatment. espially in cases where the person is going to die soon from it.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Um, NO! Some people hold religion higher than life (simply because they believe in the afterlife). While religion isn't for me, I can't blame anyone who chooses this path.

 

[0roo0roo]

proof religion is child abuse.
if he had chosen that stupid belief at 18 then sure, darwin award.
this is just murder.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Mucho
He is now in heaven with Jesus where every day is Christmas.

R O F L

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
proof religion is child abuse.
if he had chosen that stupid belief at 18 then sure, darwin award.
this is just murder.

how? the kid would have died within 5 years time. not to mention the treatment for lukiema is pretty much torture.

the kid is more mature then most on the board. he had a hard decision. he knows he was going to die soon. better to go how you want then go in a way so others feel better about themselves.

 

[torpid]

I don't really understand much about this religion. Can someone tell me why blood would be considered unclean but chemotherapy isn't??? Does it have something to do with some weird notion that other people's junk would be making him unclean even when chemicals that severely mess up your body don't?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't really understand much about this religion. Can someone tell me why blood would be considered unclean but chemotherapy isn't??? Does it have something to do with some weird notion that other people's junk would be making him unclean even when chemicals that severely mess up your body don't?

thats nothing. the part that makes me giggle is only 144k are going to go to heaven..this religion has over 6 million members heh

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Vic
Believe it or not, this isn't a religious issue, so people should not let the religious aspect of the circumstances cloud their judgement. This is a civil liberties issue. To say that the state has the right to force medical treatment on people is to say that the individual has no sovereign rights over their own body and that their body belongs to the state.

Even if they are unable to make a rational decision?

Who decides that?

Keep in mind here, my state allows for physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill (where the physician assistance is just the doctor writing a prescription), and I voted in favor of that both times when it was on the ballot.
The issue in question here is not too much different than that of any patient who refuses heroic medical treatment (i.e "pull the plug" scenarios). Granted, most people (myself included) would not consider a blood transfusion to be heroic, but once again, who decides? The state or the patient?
Nor is this case much different than the issue of abortion. Does a woman have a right to her own body or not?

Well, once again, how about we bring up negligence of the aunt? Imagine a parent was bullying a child into not accepting the transfusion behind the scenes and it ISN'T the child's decision. Honestly, sometimes parents and guardians force things upon children, such as religion. If this child was brainwashed AND bullied, should the state intervene or not?

Yes, the state should and DID intervene in that regard. More RTFA, I guess.

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.?

What the judge believes and what could've actually happened are two completely different things. When someone is bullied so much, they can actually take the beliefs as their own. Honestly, I've seen kids do this more than I'd like. Now, once again, tell me what the state should do then?

It should do what it did.

Are you trying to say that you, armchairing from the internet as you are, are more qualified to make this decision than the judge who was there? Seriously.

I know I am not

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
proof religion is child abuse.
if he had chosen that stupid belief at 18 then sure, darwin award.
this is just murder.

how? the kid would have died within 5 years time. not to mention the treatment for lukiema is pretty much torture.

RTFA again.

Doctors had given Dennis a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years with the transfusions and other treatment, the judge added.

Those are pretty good odds of surviving if you ask me. It would have been completely worthwhile to attempt treatment in this case.

Leukemia is not necessarily a death sentence these days.

 

[Nyati13]

Self correcting error.

No problem, the gene pool just got a little bit of a scrubbing.

 

[txrandom]

Owned.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't really understand much about this religion. Can someone tell me why blood would be considered unclean but chemotherapy isn't??? Does it have something to do with some weird notion that other people's junk would be making him unclean even when chemicals that severely mess up your body don't?

thats nothing. the part that makes me giggle is only 144k are going to go to heaven..this religion has over 6 million members heh

It is the idea that blood is considered sacred. The life is in the blood. Therefore, taking the blood of another is like taking another life.

Also, Acts 15:29 states to keep abstaining from blood.

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvact15.htm


144k go to heaven, rest stay on earth. Yes, everyone can live.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: pulse8
This is the problem with a belief in the afterlife.

No, this is the problem with not knowing the Bible. Uncleaness comes out of man's mind, not from anything physical - Jesus is the one who spoke against the Jews who practiced ritualistic beliefs out of self righteousness, and Paul spoke against Judaizers who tried to do the same thing within Christianity. Yes, you can be physically dirty, but that kind of dirtiness is inconsequential. There is nothing in the Bible (whch JW's claim they follow) that prohibits someone from undergoing a transfusion. Because of ignorance, this young boy died when he could have lived, and that's the fault of people who teach lies or are willingly ignorant of the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using medical technology to save someone's life, barring that someone else's life isn't taken away (if someone voluntarily gives up his/her own life to save someone, that is a different story).

Ignorance FTL. 🙁

Acts 15:29

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvact15.htm

Says to abstain from blood.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: pulse8
This is the problem with a belief in the afterlife.

No, this is the problem with not knowing the Bible. Uncleaness comes out of man's mind, not from anything physical - Jesus is the one who spoke against the Jews who practiced ritualistic beliefs out of self righteousness, and Paul spoke against Judaizers who tried to do the same thing within Christianity. Yes, you can be physically dirty, but that kind of dirtiness is inconsequential. There is nothing in the Bible (whch JW's claim they follow) that prohibits someone from undergoing a transfusion. Because of ignorance, this young boy died when he could have lived, and that's the fault of people who teach lies or are willingly ignorant of the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using medical technology to save someone's life, barring that someone else's life isn't taken away (if someone voluntarily gives up his/her own life to save someone, that is a different story).

Ignorance FTL. 🙁

Acts 15:29

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvact15.htm

Says to abstain from blood.

Yes, but I'm quite sure he'll argue that it's only if you consume blood, not transfuse. See, you can always interpret it in a manner that's most favorable for the circumstances and use it as a source of condemnation otherwise.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: pulse8
This is the problem with a belief in the afterlife.

No, this is the problem with not knowing the Bible. Uncleaness comes out of man's mind, not from anything physical - Jesus is the one who spoke against the Jews who practiced ritualistic beliefs out of self righteousness, and Paul spoke against Judaizers who tried to do the same thing within Christianity. Yes, you can be physically dirty, but that kind of dirtiness is inconsequential. There is nothing in the Bible (whch JW's claim they follow) that prohibits someone from undergoing a transfusion. Because of ignorance, this young boy died when he could have lived, and that's the fault of people who teach lies or are willingly ignorant of the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using medical technology to save someone's life, barring that someone else's life isn't taken away (if someone voluntarily gives up his/her own life to save someone, that is a different story).

Ignorance FTL. 🙁

Acts 15:29

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvact15.htm

Says to abstain from blood.

Yes, but I'm quite sure he'll argue that it's only if you consume blood, not transfuse. See, you can always interpret it in a manner that's most favorable for the circumstances and use it as a source of condemnation otherwise.

Abstaining doesn't limit to one or the other or any interpretation, in my mind. Abstaining is abstaining...

Edit:

Dictionary.com:

Abstain: to hold oneself back voluntarily, esp. from something regarded as improper or unhealthy (usually fol. by from): to abstain from eating meat.

I bring this up to refute the ignorant statement that it (the idea of) isn't in the bible.

 

[sdifox]

There is always a shortage of blood. I am glad someone is volunteering to abstain from further reducing the inventory.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Crono

Originally posted by: pulse8
This is the problem with a belief in the afterlife.

No, this is the problem with not knowing the Bible. Uncleaness comes out of man's mind, not from anything physical - Jesus is the one who spoke against the Jews who practiced ritualistic beliefs out of self righteousness, and Paul spoke against Judaizers who tried to do the same thing within Christianity. Yes, you can be physically dirty, but that kind of dirtiness is inconsequential. There is nothing in the Bible (whch JW's claim they follow) that prohibits someone from undergoing a transfusion. Because of ignorance, this young boy died when he could have lived, and that's the fault of people who teach lies or are willingly ignorant of the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using medical technology to save someone's life, barring that someone else's life isn't taken away (if someone voluntarily gives up his/her own life to save someone, that is a different story).

Ignorance FTL. 🙁

Cliffs: Jehovah's Witnesses do not speak for the whole of Christianity, and are actually heretical

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Vic
Believe it or not, this isn't a religious issue, so people should not let the religious aspect of the circumstances cloud their judgement. This is a civil liberties issue. To say that the state has the right to force medical treatment on people is to say that the individual has no sovereign rights over their own body and that their body belongs to the state.

I'm going to invent a religion that says that I have to inject my 14 year old son with ebola virus because that's what my God is telling me

at the same time I'm going to have sex with my 12 year old daughter because my new founded religion tells me that it is cool do that

can the state intervene or not?

Yes, the state can intervene. There's a legal difference between refusing treatment and causing harm.

my religion says that ebola cleans the body

Then you're free to inject as much ebola INTO YOUR BODY as you wish. Just not to inject nor spread it into the bodies of others.

I'm curious, what's your position on the doctor-assisted suicide policy in your neighbor the Netherlands?

we have the same kind of law in Belgium so I don't have to look at the neigbor

apparantly you can not make the distinction between an adult and a 14 year old
I have no problem that a 18 year old Jehova freak dies because he refuses a blood transfusion

I very much have a problem with a 14 year old minor, under pressure from his family doing this kind of stuff

the parents should be chemically castrated

for the record, I'm very much
-pro choice
-I'm in favor of the "suicide policy" for people who wrote in their will that they don't want to live as a veggie and that they should pull the plug if their terminal

the problem is that none of this crap appplies to his event

the boy died because of religious believes forced onto him

Simply put, you are not being objective about the issue at hand and are allowing your personal bias against religion to poison your judgement. That's why I also mentioned the issue of abortion, as that is a very similar circumstance to this in which it is the religious to tend to argue against individual sovereignity.

And pal, the kid is dead. The parent's genes are not being passed on. And they wanted him to have the transfusion. You clearly did not read the article. Quit knee-jerking.

However, his birth parents, Lindberg and Rachel Wherry, who do not have custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly influenced by his aunt, who is also a Jehovah?s Witness.

simply put, you don't have an idea what you are talking about. You are talking about civil liberties. Do you really think this kid died with the memoires of Martin Luther King in his hand shouting with a Braveheart voice "freedom". Get a grip. This 14 year old died because of religious crap forced on to him. Do you really think that he made the decision all by himself? A 14 year old is very much the product of his upbringing.
Cut the crap of the individual sovereignity. A 14 year old can not make that kind of decision. By your standards, a 14 year old is certainly old enough to serve in the armed forces because he's old enough to make judgement about live and death. If you can not comprehend this then I feel sorry for you and all the other that this is some kind of acceptable thing.

 

[potoba]

the question is... could the boy survive if he had chosen transfusion?

 

[Captante]

If the kid was 18 or older then the state should leave him alone to die if he chooses to ... at 14 years old they should have intervened.

 

[NaOH]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: Vic
Believe it or not, this isn't a religious issue, so people should not let the religious aspect of the circumstances cloud their judgement. This is a civil liberties issue. To say that the state has the right to force medical treatment on people is to say that the individual has no sovereign rights over their own body and that their body belongs to the state.

I'm going to invent a religion that says that I have to inject my 14 year old son with ebola virus because that's what my God is telling me

at the same time I'm going to have sex with my 12 year old daughter because my new founded religion tells me that it is cool do that

can the state intervene or not?

Yes, the state can intervene. There's a legal difference between refusing treatment and causing harm.

my religion says that ebola cleans the body

Then you're free to inject as much ebola INTO YOUR BODY as you wish. Just not to inject nor spread it into the bodies of others.

I'm curious, what's your position on the doctor-assisted suicide policy in your neighbor the Netherlands?

we have the same kind of law in Belgium so I don't have to look at the neigbor

apparantly you can not make the distinction between an adult and a 14 year old
I have no problem that a 18 year old Jehova freak dies because he refuses a blood transfusion

I very much have a problem with a 14 year old minor, under pressure from his family doing this kind of stuff

the parents should be chemically castrated

for the record, I'm very much
-pro choice
-I'm in favor of the "suicide policy" for people who wrote in their will that they don't want to live as a veggie and that they should pull the plug if their terminal

the problem is that none of this crap appplies to his event

the boy died because of religious believes forced onto him

Simply put, you are not being objective about the issue at hand and are allowing your personal bias against religion to poison your judgement. That's why I also mentioned the issue of abortion, as that is a very similar circumstance to this in which it is the religious to tend to argue against individual sovereignity.

And pal, the kid is dead. The parent's genes are not being passed on. And they wanted him to have the transfusion. You clearly did not read the article. Quit knee-jerking.

However, his birth parents, Lindberg and Rachel Wherry, who do not have custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly influenced by his aunt, who is also a Jehovah?s Witness.

simply put, you don't have an idea what you are talking about. You are talking about civil liberties. Do you really think this kid died with the memoires of Martin Luther King in his hand shouting with a Braveheart voice "freedom". Get a grip. This 14 year old died because of religious crap forced on to him. Do you really that he made the decision all by himself? A 14 year old is very much the product of his upbringing.
Cut the crap of the individual sovereignity. A 14 year old can not make that kind of decision. By your standards, a 14 year old is certainly old enough to serve in the armed forces because he's old enough to make judgement about live and death. If you can not comprehend this then I feel sorry for you and all the other that this is some kind of acceptable thing.

It's just a number. I'm sure he demonstrated in court his understanding beyond a doubt, or else the judge would have ruled otherwise.......