or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › article: when child's medical treatment goes against parents faith
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

article: when child's medical treatment goes against parents faith - Page 4

post #61 of 112
This is about immunizations. Just added as an example.

Quote:
Religious Exemption: All states allow a religious exemption to vaccination except Mississippi, West Virginia.

The religious exemption is intended for people who possess a sincere religious belief against vaccination to the extent that if the state forced vaccination, it would be an infringement on their right to exercise their religious beliefs. Some state laws define religious exemptions broadly to include personal religious beliefs, similar to personal philosophical beliefs. Other states require an individual who claims a religious exemption to be a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) or another bonafide religion whose written tenets include prohibition of invasive medical procedures such as vaccination. Some laws require a signed affidavit from the pastor of the church while others allow the parent to sign a notarized waiver. Prior to registering your child for school, you must check your state law to verify what proof may be needed.

http://www.909shot.com/Issues/state%20exemptions.htm


Bolding is mine. Just saying.

It's not cool if we have to lie.
post #62 of 112
I totally agree with you, Kim. I don't get why religions are so special when it comes to this. Why aren't all beliefs (religious/spiritual or no) valid? It's a definite prejudice.
post #63 of 112
Adding, as of that last update, only 19 states had a philosophical exemption.



(Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin)
post #64 of 112
OT, but I personally would like to see ONLY a philosophical exemption. No medical exemption. No religious exemption.

Parents either want vaccines, or they don't. Their call.

The rest is irrelevant.
post #65 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamaverdi View Post
OT, but I personally would like to see ONLY a philosophical exemption. No medical exemption. No religious exemption.

Parents either want vaccines, or they don't. Their call.

The rest is irrelevant.
You are one smart woman.

Or is that just because I agree with you
post #66 of 112
As long are you don't start worshiping me, then we're cool.
post #67 of 112
i would prefer to not have to say why at all...why even make it something for which an exemption is needed?
post #68 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
This is about immunizations. Just added as an example.




http://www.909shot.com/Issues/state%20exemptions.htm


Bolding is mine. Just saying.

It's not cool if we have to lie.
That info is incorrect. The requiring of a specific church has been overturned. They MUST accept personal religious beliefs.

-Angela
post #69 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
That info is incorrect. The requiring of a specific church has been overturned. They MUST accept personal religious beliefs.

-Angela
That's fair. I wasn't sure how old that was.

But I still stand by my feelings that religious exemptions are completely offensive and ridiculous. Why do I need to call my feelings a religious belief. Why isn't it good enough for me to say because I don't wanna. And it's none of your business why. My body, my choice.
post #70 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
That's fair. I wasn't sure how old that was.

But I still stand by my feelings that religious exemptions are completely offensive and ridiculous. Why do I need to call my feelings a religious belief. Why isn't it good enough for me to say because I don't wanna. And it's none of your business why. My body, my choice.
while i completely agree that it is offensive and that religion should have nothing to do with the laws or regulations... i also agree that i am at least glad that we have them because for now... that is all that some of us have that we can use.
It might not be the best but it is better than nothing.
In a perfect world we wouldnt need them.. but alas.. we dont live there.
post #71 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
That's fair. I wasn't sure how old that was.

But I still stand by my feelings that religious exemptions are completely offensive and ridiculous. Why do I need to call my feelings a religious belief. Why isn't it good enough for me to say because I don't wanna. And it's none of your business why. My body, my choice.
because the MD gods rule the world...

-Angela
post #72 of 112
Thread Starter 
Wow, haven't been back here since I posted this article.

A couple thoughts after reading through all these comments;

I'd like to reiterate that the comparison between not vaxing, to allowing your child to die from withholding medical treatment does not hold up. Vaccinations and blood transfusions are apples and oranges. With vaccinations, you bring a healthy child to the doctor, they recommend a vax, you say no, end of story. Child is still healthy. There is a very small chance the child could contract a disease that the vax could have prevented, and a far smaller chance that the child could die or be harmed from that disease. With a blood transfusion, there are two different scenarios that could happen. You either have a child that is seriously sick with some type of disease, who seems to need a blood transfusion to continue to live or to recover from that disease. Or, you have a child who has undergone serious physical trauma and is bleeding to death, and needs it's blood volume replaced (by oxygenating blood, not blood volumizers) or it could suffer brain damage or die. In either scenario, if parents refuse blood, there is a very high probability that their child will die or be brain injured, as their child did not start out healthy. People are not given blood transfusions as a matter of routine medical care, it is only under extraordinary circumstances that one would even be mentioned. Vaccinations are preventative medicine, offered to every single healthy child in this country. Blood transfusions are only offered to seriously ill children who are thought to be dying. Withholding a vaccine can not directly cause a child's death. Complications from the disease that the vaccine may have prevented is the actual cause of death. Withholding a blood transfusion from a seriously ill child who needs one, will most often cause serious injury or death.

As much as we like to look at doctors in a less than favorable light here on MDC, they all are educated enough to understand the differences between withholding vaccines from a healthy child and withholding blood from a dying child.

Also, I'd like to throw in my 2 cents on the religious aspects to this story. It seems to be assumed that all parties are giving full informed consent as to withholding treatment or giving treatment to their dying child. It is assumed that the person is choosing that their child die in order to preserve their faith. As a former JW I do not believe that this is true. In a case like this where the parents are making a decision based on religious beliefs, and religious beliefs alone, informed consent takes on two meanings. First, are they fully informed as to what the bible's view of blood is, and as to what other bible scholars interpret these passages to mean? Are they fully informed as to who interpreted these particular scriptures within their own religion, that they are risking the life of their child for, and what that persons credentials were? Second, are they fully informed about what blood does to the body, and what benefits that blood has over blood volumizers? Most importantly, do they have the freedom within their religion to obtain this knowledge in order to make a fully informed decision? I would say no to all of these questions based on my personal experiences, but of course, one persons personal experiences probably don't hold a lot of weight in a discussion such as this. However, my point is not that I want to argue each of these questions that I raised, but only to point out that the questions are there, and that further complicates the whole issue.

For example, most JW's are not aware that blood volumizers will not carry enough oxygen to the brain of a child who is bleeding out. The child will end up brain injured or dead if given blood volumizers instead of a transfusion. When they demand blood volumizers, they truly believe that these will work just as well or better than blood. They simply don't know that they are very wrong, they truly believe that their child will be fine if they just pump something like saline into the childs veins. I believe that when a JW refused blood, they generally don't believe that their child is going to die without it. And because I know this about JW's, I also believe that it must be true about other religions that withhold medical treatment from their children.

So, in these cases, I don't believe that the parents are capable of making an informed decisions, therefore, the decision needs to be made for them. I think the court stepping in was the right thing to do in this case. I wonder why the Watchtower Society doesn't change it's policy on blood, instead of playing this little game with the court system though. It would seem that since they were okay with this article, they must have been in agreement with how this case turned out. If they were upset that the child was forced to have blood, they would have discouraged the parents from appearing in the article and using their real names, yet they seemed to sanction the article. This is very confusing, because when I was a JW (1 and half years ago) we were told to resist a blood transfusion as if it were a rape. Yet, these parents obviously did not do that, yet the Watchtower seemed to approve of this. Perhaps this indicates there is a change in their blood policy in the works? Or perhaps they want the court system to know that they are very much for court orders now? Or perhaps the article was not reflective of the Watchtower Societies true feelings.
post #73 of 112
Great post, Jennica.
post #74 of 112
I agree Jennica.

I am not saying at all, that any child should be left to die for the religious beliefs of their parents and in those cases, hate me if you will (the ones who are religious to the core) a child deserves every chance, reasonable chance, to live. Especially if the treatment is something not painful (risks vs benefits) and proven (reasonably), I am all for the temporary custody of the state to save the life of a child.

All the way.

And vaccines are not life or death and so a bit of a different story. I just introduced vaccinations because it is a common medical thing where we talk about the "religious exemption".

But either way, I don't believe in religious exemptions.

I believe in an adult having a say in what happens to them.

I believe a child, who is not old enough to have such convictions, to have every chance to live to reach that age.

I do not believe in a life of extended suffering only to die anyway.

But I don't believe there are JW children, CS children, atheist children. All humans are born (within reason) with a will to live. We can not extend the beliefs of a parent onto the life of a baby or young child.

I am sure I am in the minority and soon to be hated here on this forum and issue.

But there are many different issues at play here.
post #75 of 112
In *theory* I totally agree in cases where it is 100% clearcut.

In modern medicine, there are few cases where it is 100% clearcut.

And MANY cases with shades of gray.

Problem is how to apply the idea to the shades of gray.

-Angela
post #76 of 112
If you UC and your baby comes out not breathing, and you do nothing but PRAY..Yep..call the cops...Not for UCing, but for doing nothing reasonable in an attempt to prevent a death.

If my baby falls into a swimming pool and I can dive in and save her, but I just stand there and PRAY..am I not guilty of killing her???
post #77 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
I have heard the same exact venom thrown at homebirthing/UC and co-sleeping parents who's child died.
When are we going to accept that NFL values aren't held differently then these religious values. I've said it several times on this thread- we are over the same line.
I disagree, it's very different. Homebirthing and co-sleeping (I leave out UC because only a minority of people on this board do it and isn't a typical NFL activity) can be proven to be just as safe or safer than their counterparts. No one can prove that not giving a child a blood transfusion when it needs it is "safe" at all. It isn't withheld due to safety issues, it is only withheld because the parents are concerned that they themselves wont make it into the afterlife if they allow it.

If you choose to homebirth or co-sleep because God told you to and you fear you will not make it to any afterlife if you don't, then that would be the same thing. If you never gave a second thought to safety of homebirth or co-sleeping, and even knew that it could be dangerous (hypothetically) or even cause your child to die, yet you do it anyway because you want to protect your own chances at an afterlife, then that would be the same thing. If you were in the middle of a homebirth and your midwife recommended going to the hospital because your baby was dying, and you refused her advice because you thought God wanted you to deliver your baby at home whether it lived or died, then that would be the same thing.

It's not the same thing. Not at all.
post #78 of 112
jennica you are right on about the concept of informed consent. the liturature i have been given regarding the topic of blood sure makes it sound like blood substitutes are safer than blood transfusions.

in an emergency i honestly don't know what i would do....i'm not baptized, my husband is disfellowshipped and frankly it seems to be a mater of conscience anyway....i saw a documentary on pbs with a witness family who did a transplant, how different is that from a transfusion?

but anyway in an emergency how much time is there to research alternatives/pros/cons etc, both religiously and scientifically?

and when one is being given information that is biased......

i still think its up to the parents to make the decisions but they must be given the information to do so....
post #79 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellyaellen View Post
jennica you are right on about the concept of informed consent. the liturature i have been given regarding the topic of blood sure makes it sound like blood substitutes are safer than blood transfusions.

in an emergency i honestly don't know what i would do....i'm not baptized, my husband is disfellowshipped and frankly it seems to be a mater of conscience anyway....i saw a documentary on pbs with a witness family who did a transplant, how different is that from a transfusion?

but anyway in an emergency how much time is there to research alternatives/pros/cons etc, both religiously and scientifically?

and when one is being given information that is biased......

i still think its up to the parents to make the decisions but they must be given the information to do so....
The literature is not totally wrong about this, in some cases blood substitutes are safer, because in rare cases a person can have a reaction to the blood. It is also much easier to recover from a surgery when blood is not used, which is why it is a good thing for everyone that bloodless surgery is being pioneered because of the JW's. However, in many emergency situations were a person is bleeding out, blood substitutes simply aren't going to cut it. They don't carry enough oxygen to the brain, and the brain can be damaged or the person can die. The literature fails to even mention this, and continues to argue that blood substitutes are safer. And in some cases like the one in this article, or in cases of some blood cancers, the blood needs to be transfused or the child will die, and blood volumizers will simply do nothing at all.

Also, it is not a conscience matter to take blood. If a person decides to take blood for themselves or their child, and the elders find out, they will likely be disfellowshipped. Since you are not baptized, you would have nothing to lose, but baptized members will be punished for disobeying this rule. An organ transplant biologically is not much different than a blood transfusion, and JW's in the 1960's also did not allow transplants and members were disfellowshipped if they went against this. However, they began to allow transplants, and also they now allow some blood fractions that they didn't allow in the past.

In an emergency situation, a JW will call up what they have been taught many times in the past. They will say "no blood", ask for blood volumizers, and be confident that this course of action is "safer" as they have been taught. The sad thing is that, though in some situations this may be safer, or at least just as safe, in other situations this is not a safe course of action at all and could be a fatal decision.
post #80 of 112
Hi everyone,

I am returning this thread having removed a few posts that were in violation of MDC's User Agreement and the Religious Studies Guidelines. I would like to draw attention to the guidelines:

Quote:
The MDC User Agreement still applies and members posting here will be expected to uphold their discussion with the utmost respect and consideration for participants and readers. Personal attacks will not be tolerated nor comments that are negative of an individual or group. If you feel someone has broken any rules, please contact a moderator immediately rather than replying to the thread in question. Please refrain from sarcasm and insulting or denigrating remarks that might negate the purpose of this forum. Those who cannot abide by these guidelines will not be permitted to post here.
You are free to disagree with others' opinions and choices. You are not free to attack or denigrate any person or their religious beliefs or lack thereof. If you cannot post respectfully, do not post.

Thank you for your cooperation.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Religious Studies
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Talk Amongst Ourselves › Spirituality › Religious Studies › article: when child's medical treatment goes against parents faith