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 5

post #81 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
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
Exactly my thing. Really that's enough right there. I don't see where the question is
post #82 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
Exactly my thing. Really that's enough right there. I don't see where the question is
Heh. Yeah.

And as for the gray areas, that's why we have ethics commitees, and all kinds of communication going on when there are these gray cases.

(I still don't think one should be able to say "religion" and then get to bypass the whole thing while others can not)
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
Heh. Yeah.

And as for the gray areas, that's why we have ethics commitees, and all kinds of communication going on when there are these gray cases.

(I still don't think one should be able to say "religion" and then get to bypass the whole thing while others can not)
But we really don't. The cancer case in TX went before ONE judge. That ONE judge ripped apart a family on the word of ONE dr. Really it was that simple.

You can say that's the exception, but if it's your kid and your family what does it matter?

-Angela
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
(I still don't think one should be able to say "religion" and then get to bypass the whole thing while others can not)
I totally agree with you here! It should be enough that we disagree. Everyone should be allowed exemptions.
post #85 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by alegna View Post
But we really don't. The cancer case in TX went before ONE judge. That ONE judge ripped apart a family on the word of ONE dr. Really it was that simple.

You can say that's the exception, but if it's your kid and your family what does it matter?

-Angela
not only that but ethics committees can't be trusted either, sadly.
post #86 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
not only that but ethics committees can't be trusted either, sadly.
True. But hopefully things usually get resolved by the interested parties before it reaches that point.

I just think we all deserve equal rights nomatter what. I just want religion taken out of the equation, besides that I think we are all in agreement.
post #87 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangebird View Post
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 totally agree with this statement.
post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennica View Post
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 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.
I don't agree with the religious aspects of this, but just to play devils advocate here, I think to most religious believers it IS a safety issue. Most people of faith believe in the afterlife as the ultimate goal. Refusing a blood transfusion is also for the guarantee of the child making it safetly into the afterlife. So in that way, religion stands above other personal beliefe systems, because the 'safety' issue can be shifted in multiple directions.

Also, so many on here are saying these parents would be 'killing' their baby. The baby was born with a deadly disease, one that would be and is the 'killer', not the parents. I think society has such a paranoid veiw on death in general, and we are all so quick to jump into feeling guilt, or sadness. In reality, if the people involved are at peace with their decision, there is no reason we should be dissputing this. Its life. Life happens, death happens.

(dissclaimer: I am NOT religious, and don't support their decision, but I do agree with PP's who are talking about a slippery slope.)
post #89 of 112
If "The people" are at peace? Would that include the child who is doing the dying?
post #90 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nankay View Post
If "The people" are at peace? Would that include the child who is doing the dying?
In sertain cases, yes, I think it would. Like I said, I most deffinately don't agree with this, them, their choices, or the religious aspect of it all. In fact, I was a former JW, so I do know some of the in's and out's of the religion. But I also just think that if my child was dying, and I chose to allow him or her to die in peace, with me and the family there, instead of doing multiple invasive procedures, I would want that choice to be respected regardless of its origin. I know this isn't axactly what the article was about, but it is the issue of where to draw the line.

Angela brought up an incedent with a girl who had cancer and was forced treatment. I think it is a very personal, and hard decision to make, and doctors shouldn't have a say in that decision. Just like they shouldn't have a say in all the other things allready mentioned in this thread. Doctors are there to inform, not force procedures upon their patients.
post #91 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
Doctors are there to inform, not force procedures upon their patients.
:
post #92 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
I don't agree with the religious aspects of this, but just to play devils advocate here, I think to most religious believers it IS a safety issue. Most people of faith believe in the afterlife as the ultimate goal. Refusing a blood transfusion is also for the guarantee of the child making it safetly into the afterlife. So in that way, religion stands above other personal beliefe systems, because the 'safety' issue can be shifted in multiple directions.
To most religious believers it is a safety issue, but to everyone else it is letting your child die. Also, making it into the afterlife is for the parents benefit, no JW would ever tell you that a child who was given a blood transfusion would then have to die in armageddon. They just don't believe that. Not giving your kid a blood transfusion is to preserve your own chances at afterlife, not to preserve your child's. Where you choose to give birth, or choosing to co-sleep is not conditional on believing in the supernatural. Homebirthing and co-sleeping are not explained or defended by telling people that you have a belief in the supernatural.
post #93 of 112
Jennica I agree with your point that homebirthing, cosleeping, breastfeeding etc are not life or death situations, and also don't have religious connotations attached.

I don't know what a JW would 'tell' you. But I do know that it would be a test to God, and I allways thought that to be involving both the parents and the child. Also, in other religions, the parents are the religious guardians of their children until a certain age. For example, religions who baptise in infancy often think the infant would serve a consiquence should something happen and it wasn't baptised. I am no expert on the subject.

I just felt uncomfurtable with the notion that these parents are 'killing' their baby. I don't agree with that at all, and I think it is the most hurtfull thing we can say about them. I am sure the parents in the situation certainly don't feel that way.
post #94 of 112
The truth hurts sometimes.
post #95 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nankay View Post
The truth hurts sometimes.
I think this comment is rude. You are intittled to your opinion, but I wouldn't go so far to say it is 'the truth', because it is just your opinion, and I'm sure not everyone shares it.
post #96 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
I think this comment is rude. You are intittled to your opinion, but I wouldn't go so far to say it is 'the truth', because it is just your opinion, and I'm sure not everyone shares it.
post #97 of 112
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
I don't know what a JW would 'tell' you. But I do know that it would be a test to God, and I allways thought that to be involving both the parents and the child. Also, in other religions, the parents are the religious guardians of their children until a certain age. For example, religions who baptise in infancy often think the infant would serve a consiquence should something happen and it wasn't baptised. I am no expert on the subject.

I just felt uncomfurtable with the notion that these parents are 'killing' their baby. I don't agree with that at all, and I think it is the most hurtfull thing we can say about them. I am sure the parents in the situation certainly don't feel that way.
Well, the point of the article seemed to be clear that they were happy with the situation of the government interfering and forcing a blood transfusion on their child. So, if they are absolved from sin because someone with higher authority said they had to comply, then it stands to reason that a child would be absolved as well if a higher authority (their parents) said that had to have the transfusion. The sin is the parents, not the child's, and the parents would be punished for it. JW's do not teach in public or in private (as far as I can remember anyway) that the child would be guilty of a sin if a blood transfusion was given to it.

I don't think it is true to say that these parents are killing their kids either. The parents obviously care about their children and don't want them to die, and in a lot of cases I truly don't believe the parents are fully informed about what they are deciding, and that is really sad. It is a really complex issue with no easy answers.
post #98 of 112
"This tendency toward avoiding a baby's death at all costs - without considering a family's physical, emotional, or spiritual needs - has created some confusing and contradictory practices. Consider how physicians approach Down syndrome, which often results in mental retardation, heart defects, a higher risk of leukemia, and other problems. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered screening for the condition before 20 weeks of pregnancy - a time frame clearly determined by the availability of legal abortion. Yet since 1984, federal law forces a child born with Down syndrome to receive almost any necessary surgery to preserve life. Therefore, aborting an otherwise normal fetus with Down syndrome for any reason is legal; however, allowing natural death for newborns with not only Down syndrome but also severe spinal and gastrointestinal defects is forbidden."

This paragraph of the article was interesting to me. Why do we have a right to purposely terminate a pregnancy, but we don't have a right to let nature take its course after a baby is born with an allready deadly disease?
post #99 of 112
I agree with alegna.
post #100 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by MammaB21 View Post
"This tendency toward avoiding a baby's death at all costs - without considering a family's physical, emotional, or spiritual needs - has created some confusing and contradictory practices. Consider how physicians approach Down syndrome, which often results in mental retardation, heart defects, a higher risk of leukemia, and other problems. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered screening for the condition before 20 weeks of pregnancy - a time frame clearly determined by the availability of legal abortion. Yet since 1984, federal law forces a child born with Down syndrome to receive almost any necessary surgery to preserve life. Therefore, aborting an otherwise normal fetus with Down syndrome for any reason is legal; however, allowing natural death for newborns with not only Down syndrome but also severe spinal and gastrointestinal defects is forbidden."

This paragraph of the article was interesting to me. Why do we have a right to purposely terminate a pregnancy, but we don't have a right to let nature take its course after a baby is born with an allready deadly disease?
Downs Syndrome usually isn't deadly.

At any rate, I think the point of that law is that the things it's referring to are usually correctable with surgery and not necessarily deadly.

I remembering reading a short article by a mom who's daughter was born with Downs. They were Catholic and had declined prenatal testing and she also had a heart defect that wasn't catastrophic but did require surgery. The doctor actually told this mother that he would be happy to NOT do the surgery since they didn't have a chance to "take care of this" before birth. (I.E. you didn't know your kid was "defective" so I'm happy to sit by and watch her die since you didn't have the chance to abort her).

I think that's the kind of thing the law is trying to prevent.
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