Thread: Should this be allowed?

A 14-year-old boy who refused blood transfusions in his fight against leukemia -- based on religious beliefs -- died Wednesday night in Seattle, hours after a Skagit County judge affirmed his right to reject the treatment. Dennis Lindberg, of Mount Vernon, died around 6 p.m. at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle, according to KING-5 television. As a Jehovah's Witness, Lindberg objected to receiving blood. Doctors had said he needed it to survive his cancer treatment.

In court Wednesday, Superior Court Judge John Meyer said that Lindberg, though in the eighth grade, was old enough to know that refusing blood transfusions might amount to a "death sentence," and that he had the right to make that decision.

Doctors at Children's diagnosed Lindberg's leukemia early this month and began giving him chemotherapy. Because such treatment destroys the body's ability to make red blood cells, transfusions were necessary, doctors said.

Lindberg's relatives disagreed about whether the boy should have been forced to get the transfusions. His aunt, who was his legal guardian and is also a Jehovah's Witness, supported his decision to refuse them.

Health | Mount Vernon leukemia patient, 14, dies after rejecting transfusions | Seattle Times Newspaper

Why shouldn't it be?

Originally Posted by freckles

Why shouldn't it be?

Well, I can think of lots of reasons, one of which being he is a minor, and I do not think he is mature enough to make a decision over life and death. If a 14 year old were to atempt to commit suicide, I think the law would see it as its duty to prevent that. I believe the court ruled incorrectly in this case.

Just another example of the lunacy that is organized religion. . .

I think that constitutionally it has to be allowed, because it falls under freedom of religion...

Originally Posted by Morpheus

I think that constitutionally it has to be allowed, because it falls under freedom of religion...

BS. Dangerous religious practices should not trump common sense. Biblical law allows for stoning of adulterers. Let's say these Jehovah's stoned a member of their congregation found to have committed adultery. Should we simply dismiss that as freedom of religion as well?

Everyone, no matter what age, should have the right to refrain from healthcare, the right to die, and the right to control what is done to their body. If a child that age can have an abortion or get birth control, that child can also decide if they want to seek medical treatment. It's their body. If their legal guardians disagreed, it might be another story. The state had no right to get involved period.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine

BS. Dangerous religious practices should not trump common sense. Biblical law allows for stoning of adulterers. Let's say these Jehovah's stoned a member of their congregation found to have committed adultery. Should we simply dismiss that as freedom of religion as well?

I'm very skeptical of Western medicine myself, we should focus on prevention of disease not drugging and cutting...

But anyway, your analogy is not a good one. Regardless if some one practices voodoo, or Christianity, refusing medical care is much different than a ritual stoning or blood drinking ceremony.

Originally Posted by Morpheus

I'm very skeptical of Western medicine myself, we should focus on prevention of disease not drugging and cutting...

But anyway, your analogy is not a good one. Regardless if some one practices voodoo, or Christianity, refusing medical care is much different than a ritual stoning or blood drinking ceremony.

There is no comparison. One is the right to choose what you do to your body and another is inflicting harm on another.

Originally Posted by Morpheus

I'm very skeptical of Western medicine myself, we should focus on prevention of disease not drugging and cutting...

But anyway, your analogy is not a good one. Regardless if some one practices voodoo, or Christianity, refusing medical care is much different than a ritual stoning or blood drinking ceremony.

If we can force children to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school every morning, forcing them to accept medical care when it's in their own best interest (even if it flies in the face of their absurd adherence to some barbaric ritualized mythology) seems quite trifling.