Parents on their way to prison for not providing medical care for child.

[David T]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

Yes totally agree.

Although I would complain about parents raising their children in urban/suburban environments as child abuse as well. And mini vans and culdesacs, and suvs that never go off road. Oh the list goes on oh the horror.

 

[Jack Reynolds]

Heartbreaking article. Do you believe that if life saving medical care is available, a parent has the right to withhold it due to religious beliefs? If so, where do you draw the line? What procedures would you deny your child due to your religion? My thoughts are that if an adult wants to not receive medical care, that's their choice. However when a child is involved I believe that the state has a duty to step in and save that child. Please read and give your thoughts.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/a-religious-oregon-couple-didn’t-believe-in-medical-care-after-newborn’s-death-they’re-headed-to-prison/ar-AAzPFXD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=AARDHP

It seems to me that any belief, tradition, custom, ceremony etc that was created by a man based on his interpretation of scripture should be very carefully analyzed. These charismatic leaders all claim to have been visited by an Angel in the back yard or witnessed the actual shadow outline of the Virgin on a garage door.
Only a fool will arbitrarily deny the existence of a supreme being or power. It's too easy to be a follower. Time to think for your self.

 

[Revoltingest]

Only a fool will arbitrarily deny the existence of a supreme being or power.

Who says it's done arbitrarily?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think parents are responsible for caring for their minor children.
They have the right to chose what kind of schooling they will receive; what religious,or spiritual education they want their child to have, etc.
They most certainly have the right to decide what their child will or will not be subjected to, in the matter of health care.

For example, when a child is prescribed medicine, a parent may take a look at the ingredients, and decide if the child can actually use it.

Whether that is for physical or religious reasons is not the issue.
If is is for physical reasons, the doctor finds an alternative - he doesn't insist on what he prescribes, because he is interested in the child's overall wellbeing - physical, mental, emotional.
So what's the problem with the religion reason again?

Clearly it's a bias against a religious view. It's the same as a violation of one's rights to religious freedom.
Parental Rights and Liability
The legal concept of parental rights generally refers to a parent's right to make decisions regarding a child's education, health care, and religion, among other things.
Where is the parent murdering the child, by using alternative medicine?

I read the article after posting.
In a case where a parent does nothing to aid an obviously sick child, they have neglected to care for their child as they ought to. It's child neglect. The law has the right to determine the punishment lf it is against the law.

Parents aren't the owners of their children; parents are stewards of their children. That stewardship is predicated on the assumption that the parents will see to the needs of the child and have the child's best interests at heart.

When that assumption proves to be a bad one, it's reasonable to re-evaluate things and take steps to ensure that the child's needs are being met.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for the update. They knew on some level, they were doing wrong.

From the looks of it, the State of Oregon has been dealing with this problem from this church for several years now....so much so that they seem to have been the primary reason the State toughened the laws for these cases.

 

[David1967]

I don't even understand why getting a transfusion would be a sin anyway.

@Deeje correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the JW's equate blood transfusions with eating blood, which is banned in the Old Testament.

 

[David1967]

That is indeed a sad case of misplaced faith.

Indeed.

Having said that, we have also seen cases where the treatments given to minor children against their parents wishes have led to further harm to the child. So it isn't always so cut and dried.

I agree. There is not a one size fits all solution here. Each incident should be looked at on a case by case basis.

In recent years particularly, the use of medicinal cannabis in the treatment of severely epileptic children has been very successful, but because this plant has been banned as a dangerous drug (in the same category as heroin, which is ridiculous) parents have had their children taken out of their care and the medics have administered pharma drugs that do not address their seizures anywhere near as well as cannabis did, and left them with awful side-effects.....yet they are denied the medicine and their parents are branded as criminals.

There was another case of a 2 year old child with terminal brain cancer who was sent home to die because there was nothing more that the oncologists could do for him. He had endured the most grueling treatments; chemo and radiation, which made him sicker than the cancer. The parents had heard about medicinal cannabis and felt that he nothing to lose. To their surprise, he began to recover his appetite, and his health improved to the point where he was almost a normal little boy again. But something happened to prevent him from having his daily dose of CO and they would not give it to him in the hospital....so in a short time the cancer came back. This time there was no reprieve and the poor little fellow passed away.

Isn't it ridiculous that a natural medicinal herb like cannabis that has been shown to help so many people is still considered taboo. I saw a statistic last week where in 2017 some 45000 people in the U.S. died from opioid ( a legal drug mind you) overdoses. The outrage to this pales in comparison to the selective outrage directed at medical cannabis. I don't get it. I know a couple who had to take their child out of state for the cannabis oil that stopped the childs seizures. But if they brought the it back with them they faced arrest. On a good note though, Oklahoma just passed legal medical cannabis.

Their medicine is designed to suppress symptoms, not to get to the cause of the problem and fix it.

That is sometimes the case, especially regarding pain meds.

There is a balance to be struck and the courts need to hear both sides of the story

Absolutely. Balance is the key. Unfortunately this world tends to be out of balance on most things. The case being discussed in the OP (IMO) is a clear case of child neglect.

 

[David1967]

suvs that never go off road

Its like having a thoroughbred horse and never letting it run.

 

[David1967]

witnessed the actual shadow outline of the Virgin on a garage door.

Or on toast. Is this her superpower? To reveal herself to mankind on garage doors and toast?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Deeje correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the JW's equate blood transfusions with eating blood, which is banned in the Old Testament.

... and endorsed in the New Testament.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

@RedhorseWoman, @Stevicus

Understandably, everyone has opinions, but to make statements based on opinionated views, rather than facts, only establishes that you let your emotions be your guide and judge. Hence, why you CANNOT provide any data to support your opinionated views.

On the internet, one can pull up any kind of information, but is it credible?
Here are a few I pulled up.
Blood and blood products

Since September 1991, all blood in the UK has been screened for hepatitis C. People who received blood for transfusions before this date might possibly have been exposed to hepatitis C.

If you have had an accident or operation in the UK which required a transfusion of blood or blood products before 1991 you may have been exposed to infected blood. It is worth noting that you may not be aware that you were given blood, especially if you were very ill afterwards. If you want to verify this, anyone who has received blood will find it mentioned in their medical records.

The World Health Organization (WHO) indicates that 89% of blood donations worldwide are currently screened following basic quality procedures. Forty-seven percent of the blood collected in developing countries is not screened in a quality assured manner. Thirty-nine countries (24%) reported that they do not routinely screen for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or syphilis. Nine countries reported that they do not screen for hepatitis C at all.

Medicine Without Blood
Proponents of “blood management” hope that transfusions will one day be a thing of the past.

But some members of a small but vocal subset of the medical community envision a future where transfusions are rare, and maybe even someday obsolete.

Their proposed alternative: patient blood management, a collection of medical practices and surgical techniques to help doctors minimize blood loss and avoid transfusions. And some have set their sights even further to bloodless medicine, which requires doctors to carry out normal medical procedures—including surgery—without transfusing the patient with blood, red cells, plasma, or platelets.

Because a blood transfusion can have complications, blood-management proponents argue that avoiding the practice altogether is in patients’ best interest.

...they’re asking: If doctors can avoid a transfusion, why wouldn’t they?

Why experts are rethinking blood transfusions

Alternatives to Blood Transfusions

What are the facts?
Blood transfusion is not the safest medical treatment. There are alternatives. Patients do not die from a lack of a blood transfusion.
Even many people who are not Jehovah's Witnesses request bloodless treatment, as a matter of preference.
They actually choose safer medical care.
Those are the facts.

Come on guys, why do we always have to do your research for you?
Here - Be well informed about Jehovah's Witnesses and how medical care benefits millions.

I do agree that blood transfusions are not always the safest treatment. However, as I stated in a previous post, there are times when a blood transfusion is the only viable treatment available. In my father's case, his blood would not clot due to the blood thinners he was taking, and the only option to save his life was a transfusion. Those suffering traumatic blood loss will not benefit from "alternative" treatments.

Additionally, the crux of the matter is simply that JWs do not have a choice in the matter. Their leaders tell them which fractions they can accept and which fractions they cannot (and, btw, the Bible mentions nothing whatsoever about blood fractions or about using donated blood in medical treatment.)

JWs can blather on endlessly about how much safer alternatives might be, but it comes down to the fact that they are ruled by men who make the rules for them and they do not have a choice. It's no blood even if blood is the only possible treatment, and they have to die or be punished.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Sad. I think your experience should have told you something. Compromise is never an option. Either one is loyal to God, by obeying his laws, or one is not.
It indicate how much faith Jehovah's Witnesses have.
(Hebrews 11:6) . . .without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

God has absolutely nothing to do with utilizing blood in medical treatments. The injunction was against eating the blood of an animal killed for food, and even then, someone who ate flesh from an unbled animal was not condemned to death for doing so, as JWs claim will happen to any JW who accepts a blood transfusion.

Loyalty to "God" is not the issue. Loyalty to the Watchtower leaders IS the issue.

BTW, can you show us the scriptures that outline which blood fractions are and are not allowed by "God"? Also, show us the scriptures stating unequivocally that medical use of donated human blood is forbidden. Thanks.

 

[David T]

Its like having a thoroughbred horse and never letting it run.

It turns Lions into Persian house cats if left unchecked for too many generations..

I love the sendak art!!!

This dude John Muir lived exactly like the above art his whole life. Wrote about it inspired a whole nation to create national parks. That's a life well lived. I won't be that but it's the correct perspective for the rest of us. He called it mountainity. Maybe a wild church is in order.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the JW's equate blood transfusions with eating blood, which is banned in the Old Testament.

For us, consuming blood by any means is considered a violation of God's law on the sacred value of blood. We only have to look at those laws to see the importance of its use and God's response to its misuse.

When a patient cannot eat by mouth, they are often fed intravenously, so receiving blood through the veins is still taking blood into the body. This is God's law, first given to Noah along with God's permission to consume animal flesh. It was incorporated into the law of Moses, and restated again for Christians....so we believe that there can be no compromise on the use of blood under any circumstances.

In our experience, blood based medicine has proven to be completely overrated. The medical profession came to embrace this methodology as the best (and easiest) way to address blood loss in surgery and in trauma units, but no one it seems noticed the downside until JW's refused to accept it. Some doctors abandoned them as fanatical and uncooperative patients, placing unrealistic demands on them and just gave up on them. But thankfully, good doctors saw sincere people with strongly held religious beliefs and tried their best to find alternative treatments for them. The techniques developed worked so well that they are now the preferred option in hospitals around the world dedicated to non-blood patient management. Unfortunately, some doctors don't keep up with best practice.

It is interesting that in the war years when blood was in short supply, medicos sometimes used sea water as a substitute for blood. They knew that keeping the blood volume up in the veins prevented them from collapsing and red cells were made up quite rapidly in the bone marrow. Without blood, these soldiers survived and recovered well, depending on the severity of their wounds and their ability to stop the bleeding.
Saline continues to be our preferred treatment along with many other techniques that mean blood is totally unnecessary, even in trauma cases. Most people have no idea that these safer alternatives even exist.

Our bodies are not designed to accept foreign tissue, so when someone else's blood is introduced, it fires up the immune system to fight it, reducing the body's defenses and creating bigger problems for recovery. I speak from our own experience. The sensational stories in the media are all rubbish. Anyone who died without blood, in all probability would have died regardless. The assumption that blood will always save lives, is simply not true. More people die after receiving blood than ever die without it.

Thanks for asking David.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

For us, consuming blood by any means is considered a violation of God's law on the sacred value of blood. We only have to look at those laws to see the importance of its use and God's response to its misuse.

When a patient cannot eat by mouth, they are often fed intraveniously, so receiving blood through the veins is still taking blood into the body. This is God's law, first given to Noah along with God's permission to consume animal flesh. It was incorporated into the law of Moses, and restated again for Christians....so we believe that there can be no compromise on the use of blood under any circumstances.

In our experience, blood based medicine has proven to be completely overrated. The medical profession came to embrace this methodology as the best (and easiest) way to address blood loss in surgery and in trauma units, but no one it seems noticed the downside until JW's refused to accept it. Some doctors abandoned them as fanatical and uncooperative patients, placing unrealistic demands on them and just gave up on them. But thankfully, good doctors saw sincere people with strongly held religious beliefs and tried their best to find alternative treatments for them. The techniques developed worked so well that they are now the preferred option in hospitals around the world dedicated to non-blood patient management. Unfortunately, some doctors don't keep up with best practice.

It is interesting that in the war years when blood was in short supply, medicos sometimes used sea water as a substitute for blood. They knew that keeping the blood volume up in the veins prevented them from collapsing and red cells were made up quite rapidly in the bone marrow. Without blood, these soldiers survived and recovered well, depending on the severity of their wounds and their ability to stop the bleeding.
Saline continues to be our preferred treatment along with many other tequniques that mean blood is totally unnecessary, even in trauma cases. Most people have no idea that these safer alternatives even exist.

Our bodies are not designed to accept foreign tissue, so when someone else's blood is introduced, it fires up the immune system to fight it, reducing the body's defences and creating bigger problems for recovery. I speak from our own experience. The sensational stories in the media are all rubbish. Anyone who died without blood, in all probability would have died regardless. The assumption that blood will always save lives, is simply not true. More people die after receiving blood than ever die without it.

Thanks for asking David.

Blood is not given as nourishment. A person entering the hospital with severe malnutrition is not given a blood transfusion. Blood transfusions are not the same as eating the blood of an animal killed for food.

Can you tell us the scriptures that outline which blood fractions are and are not acceptable to God? I don't recall ever seeing anything like that.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't even understand why getting a transfusion would be a sin anyway. After all, if (according to some religions) we're all children of God and brothers and sisters to each other, what's wrong with sharing some blood with one's brethren? As long as they're the same blood type, that is.

What baffles me even more is that one thinks of hell as the place where the worst sort of people would go - mass murderers, tyrants, terrorists, serial killers, but it also includes people who got blood transfusions.

Absolutely agree with you here..... in truth, there is no chemical reason why god could not have created humans (if we were, in fact, created as these people believe) such that every single person has unique blood, and mixing any two people's blood would result in death.

There! Fixed! But wait... that isn't how it works, is it?

I have listened to other theists description of giving blood, and some have likened giving blood as a kind of Holy Communion with one another-- a literal giving of a part of your very life, to someone else, so that they may be well, or even continue to live.

Which I always found touching and kinda cool too-- is not that the truth? Does not blood remain alive, and it is donate to the recipient while still alive?

I will never understand the twisted mind that came up with "no transfusions" myself; it's not even biblical, unless you really really twist things around...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

As usual Bob, you always say things like that, and you never show anything. It's all talk. Wherever is your evidence?

I'm not here to correct your severe educational lack. Sorry. You are just going to have to continue in your obvious ignorance.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

@RedhorseWoman, @Stevicus

Understandably, everyone has opinions, but to make statements based on opinionated views, rather than facts, only establishes that you let your emotions be your guide and judge. Hence, why you CANNOT provide any data to support your opinionated views.

Oh, I can-- but I absolutely refuse to do YOUR work for you---because I know YOU WILL JUST DENY ANYTHING I COME UP WITH AND SUBSTITUTE YOUR LYING WEBSITES INSTEAD.

As you did on the part of your post I did not quote...

In fact, you did exactly as I expected you to-- you refuse to learn anything new, if it interferes with what you desperately WISH were "true".

 

[nPeace]

I do agree that blood transfusions are not always the safest treatment. However, as I stated in a previous post, there are times when a blood transfusion is the only viable treatment available. In my father's case, his blood would not clot due to the blood thinners he was taking, and the only option to save his life was a transfusion. Those suffering traumatic blood loss will not benefit from "alternative" treatments.

Anyone can reason that something must be done.
Your mom could have reasoned that way, both in your case, and hers.
Apparently faith was needed in all three cases. Who knows what we who profess to have faith in God, will have to face in the future?
No wonder Jesus said,
(Luke 16:10) . . .The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.
It was obviously a warning.

Those who compromise are therefore setting themselves up for failure. Remember that all of Jehovah's servants must be tested as to loyalty.

However, sometimes we give into fear, due to our lack of faith, but it's not too late - we still have time to get back up, and build that faith.
Peter is an example.
He started to sink in the waters, when he lost his focus on Christ, and lacked faith.
He betrayed the Lord, when his fear due to his lack of faith.
However, he became strong in faith later.

Additionally, the crux of the matter is simply that JWs do not have a choice in the matter. Their leaders tell them which fractions they can accept and which fractions they cannot (and, btw, the Bible mentions nothing whatsoever about blood fractions or about using donated blood in medical treatment.)

The crux of the matter is that we need to know what is required of us from the master - Jesus Christ.
From what you said there it is obvious to me that you haven't gotten pass the milk. Hebrews 5:11-14
No mature Jehovah's Witness would agree with that. I have never seen, nor heard that before. It simply is not true, so whoever you heard that from lied.
From your stance in defending unbelievers in their false assertions, I could well understand why you believe lies made to smear a group of peace-loving worshipper who are seeking to do the Lord's work.

As previously shown, I'm sure if I asked you to prove that statement, you couldn't.

JWs can blather on endlessly about how much safer alternatives might be, but it comes down to the fact that they are ruled by men who make the rules for them and they do not have a choice. It's no blood even if blood is the only possible treatment, and they have to die or be punished.

I understand why you say make such a charge, that again, is you opinionated view. At what age did you start to rebel against the teachings?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

That is easily shown to be yet another bible-lie. Proof? Pretty much any number of former theists who are now atheists....

... myself included. We are proof that your god absolutely does not honor that biblical claim.