Let's imagine, for a moment, that this kid had said that he didn't want the transfusion because he believed that the government really wanted to inject a micro-gps tracking device into his bloodstream, or because he believed the doctors wanted to inject him with mind-control serum. Suppose further that his aunt agreed. Most of us would argue that these beliefs demonstrate mental illness. I am not opposed to religious beliefs, but why should they have any special preference in these types of cases? A belief is a belief, yes? But a religious belief that causes harm (withholding medical procedures) seems for some of us to be on a different plane from, perhaps, a non-religious belief that causes harm.

Topics like this always make me think of the fundamental arbitrary nature of societal norms. To describe a Flying Spaghetti Monster in outer space is lunacy; to describe a guy on a throne in heaven is fine. To wear a tin foil hat to keep out the alien mind control waves is crazy; to condemn all homosexuals based on a couple of lines in a two thousand year old book is just dandy. Of course, as a liberal, I believe in liberty, and I wouldn't want to ban any beliefs. People should be able to think whatever they like. However, in the eyes of the legal system, we either have to accept that belief takes precedence over common sense, or it doesn't. Of course, we can draw some line, concerning harm caused. But in this line, it seems clear that religious belief is given special consideration over others. If a 14 year old kid can choose to refuse a blood transfusion that could save his life based on a few passages in a book, why can't a 14 year old choose legally to jump off a building, believing Saint Boobaloo will catch him in a giant baseball mitt? Why can't he choose to cut his wrists, legally, based on the belief that his blood is bad and needs to be removed from his body? Why can't he refuse all medical treatment based on his belief that Elvis will save him with a magical cookie? Surely in any of these scenarios, all of us would be arguing that he was obviously mentally disturbed and should not be making these decisions. And yet we allow - even give preference to - a religious belief that concludes the same way - with death.

Does anyone think the outcome would have been the same if one of my opening scenarios was presented to the judge as the justification for this decision? For some arguing here, it seems that this belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses gets a pass mainly or even solely because it is religious. Clearly the state would not permit a religious belief that included cannibalism or human sacrifice. Nor should it allow, in my opinion, the practice of a religious belief that allows parents to deny medical care for their children. At fourteen, the vast majority of children's religious beliefs are not maturely thought out theologies; they are the dogmatic echoes of their parents' (or guardians') beliefs.

As an aside, I haven't heard the "soul in the blood" bit before, but I do know the Biblical passages that inform this particular JW belief.

Starting with Genesis 9, verses 3 and 4:
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

And then, Leviticus Chapter 17, verses 11 and 12:
For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

And finally, Acts Chapter 15, verse 29:
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

I am not sure how to respond without sounding condecending, but trust me when I say that I do not disrespect you or your post.

The belief that one could jump off a building and be caught by a giant glove has nothing to do with any one organized belief. Correct me if I am wrong. Of course if your hypothetical suggestions were presented to the judge they would have been laughed out of the courtroom, and the judge would have ordered the child strapped to the bed and the blood would have been introduced. Tin foil hats and the Flying Spaghetti Monster in outer space are not a part of any recognized belief system, except in the mental health system. This all goes back to the First Amendment, protecting the people of America from the government infringing on their religious belief. If there were an amendment to the Constitution protecting people from the infringment of the government on their beleif that Elvis can give out magical cookies, then that person too would be protected. Religion isn't given a protected status over the comparisons you provided because religion is held in higher regard than other beleifs, it is protected because the Bill of Rights provides that protection. If the Bill of Rights covered all beleif systems, we would be having a completly different conversation, but a persons rights are a persons rights, even when society as a whole doesn't believe the same way.

Hah. Call me dramatic, but I feel that debate requires drama, just as much as it requires fact. Hand motions would be nice---as of yet, emotes seem to lack...pizazz. I love what hands can do for you in a debate...Kennedy, my god! I can't say much for his policies, but the man had beautiful hands.


I'm inclined to agree, Scubatim, but actually the Pastafarians are a pretty big religion these days. If you can call a group of snide, trendy secularists a religion. (The pasta monster is a metaphor for god. Apparently, they consider it an accurate one.)

Except there are no teachings by the Pastafarians, at least none that I could find on their website http://www.venganza.org/. It is purely a propoganda organization that has political motivation.

But quarkhead, isn't it as simple as stating that suicide is against the law and refraining from receiving medical care in certain circumstances isn't? Am I missing something? That the boy was a minor is irrelevant. If anybody attempted to jump off the building they would be considered emotionally compromised enough to merit stepping in to prevent the action from happening. Refusing medical care for an identified, terminal condition that will ultimately take the person's life is not considered suicide in the eyes of the law. That the boy has already tried other medical interventions without success makes his decision even more compelling. The judge considered this boy equal to an average adult in his ability to determine the best course of action to take.

Your case breaks down further when you compare wanting to jump off a building into a baseball mitt with wanting to refuse medical treament (both rendering the person "dead"). You have inappropriately juxtaposed the issue of this boy's religion with his recognized right to refuse the treatment. The judge did not grant the boy the right to die because of his JW beliefs. He upheld the boy's decision because he was considered competent to make it. Once considered competent it matters not what the motivation is be it that of a minor's or not.

Hmm...

well. how strange, you're right!

Mind you, for all its faults, they are pretty witty. Did you see their affirmation of faith? rAmen. pfft.

I am going to give an opinion that some of you aren’t going to like. So be it. I'm not calling anyone out. This boy was the unfortunate victim of place and circumstance. Laws regarding “mature minors” vary from state-to-state. New York sets the age at 18. I agree with this.



http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/74cclong.htm

Had the boy not been in state of Washington he might still be alive. If circumstance had not placed him among Jehovah’s Witnesses and their brainwashing, tactics, he might still be alive. While I understand and respect the 1st amendment’s “freedom of religion” clause, we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to a conflict between religious freedom and public health and safety. I think the state of Washington has drawn the line in the wrong place. Hopefully, the legislature will correct this before it happens again.

Answer me this, B - if the decision to forego any additional treatment had been based on avoiding any further undue suffering and not based on religions strictures would your thoughts on this issue shift? What if his parents were the guardians and they believed also that transfusions should not be allowed? I venture a guess that you would claim the courts should compel the boy to undergo the procedure? That being the case, much of this thread focuses on irrelevancies (i.e., parental preference, age of the minor, legal guardian's authority, legal guardian's religious stance, and the like) as this powerful decision should ultimately be based on the state's interest, and the state's interest alone, in deciding this boy's fate.

Yep, brainwashing. Good example of valid debate tactics. Any evidence that JW brainwashes their followers in the area that this family worshiped? Too bad this debate is about a situation in Washington, otherwise, your post might have some validity, minus the religion bashing towards JW. Unfortunately, for you, everything you posted does not relate to this case in the least. Especially since the child's guardian would have demanded the same outcome given the fact that she supported his decision. Again, the only reason this ended up in a court room was because the estranged parents wanted to get involved after their parental rights had been terminated by the state and the aunt was given legal custody. As such, even with your unrelated quote from a state on the other side of the country, the child still would have been able to make the same decision, only through his legal guardian.

If the adolescent had been brain dead, al la Terri Schiavo, then I would favor termination of treatment. I don’t believe that a blood transfusion or something like dialysis falls in the same category as a respirator. The prognosis for Schiavo was no improvement, but not so with this young man.

BTW: Look, vanguard, don’t “venture to guess” how I might approach a particular issue.

Don't worry, this old theology student doesn't feel condescended to.

But in your response, you've hit upon the crux of my point. Granted, it's a bit esoteric to the specifics of the case at hand, but pertinent in the broader picture, I think. I deliberately chose ridiculous beliefs, but let's get more concrete. Rastafarians believe in the religious use of marijuana. Though part of their religious beliefs, they are prosecuted the same as anyone else. A Muslim who believes that sharia embodies their religious practice are not free to stone their wives - or anyone else. Clearly there is a line. It isn't as simple as saying that religious beliefs are protected, because there are certainly religious beliefs that are considered outside the protection of the First Amendment. The question then becomes, is refusing a needed blood transfusion also beyond the pale? Is it different because the only one harmed is oneself? That can't be it, as suicide is not considered "protected speech." Further, at what point do we consider someone competent in holding their beliefs - competent in that we assume they have chosen them for themselves? In our society, surely most of us would consider sharia to be an "incompetent" belief - in the sense that no right-thinking person would choose it.

So to me, the question is really this: should refusing medical treatment be protected? I would say that if an adult chose this, it probably should be protected. I also believe that if an adult really wants to commit suicide, that should be protected too. I just think that a fourteen year-old kid, no matter how mature they are, has definitely not chosen this belief system.

Now my own typing takes me even farther into metaphysical conjecture. How much of any of our beliefs are chosen ourselves? Is the 40 year-old Christian Scientist choosing his belief? Maybe, if his parents were Catholics, or Hindus. Or even then - is his belief a reaction, a rebellion? What if his parents were Christian Scientists? Is he the master of his own fate, or was he brainwashed as a child? And if we assume that everyone over a certain age is "competent" in their belief - that they have chosen it for themselves, we come back to the question of where we draw the line. What constitutes religious belief? Is the woman who believes that her relationship with Jesus is personal, who eschews organized churches, and who believes that God has told her to spread the doctrine that refusing to pay traffic fines is holy, crazy? Or is she religious? Was the Charles Russell crazy, or religious? Or did the creed of the Jehovah's Witnesses suddenly become an acceptable belief system - protected, that is - once a certain number of followers was attained?

As you can see, cases like this raise far more questions to me, than might be dealt with - or sane.

But who would have the final say? I understand your point with Terry Schiavo. But what about this scenario? Imagine the only differences are 1) the parents themselves are requesting the treatments stop and 2) their motivations for such have nothing to do with religion. Should the state step in?



But what about "nothing ventured nothing gained"?

Apparently the state of New York does allow the state to step in until the 18th birthday. Unfortunately, this boy was in a state where a judge allowed a bunch of witchdoctors to have their day.

Again, I have a problem with this case because, the boy's condition might have been cured or at least controlled, giving him many more useful years of life. If, however, he were brain dead and only being kept alive hour to hour by a ventilator or such, then no.



Venture at your own expense.

Questions raised or not, the law still is the law, and until it changes, it must be followed. As far as teh comparisons to the other religions, I think that if a Rastafarian wanst to get high, and does it in accordance to his religion, then it shall be. There are many ways to prove one is practiciing, or if they are just claiming a religion.

As far as choosing religion, I think that is rediculous. I "choose" to be Lutheran, but coincidently, I was raised Lutheran. I think those that consider parents raising their children to be Christians as indoctrinating the kids, or forcing them is rediculous; as well as a lame excuse to bash the religious.

Bottom line is this; the court action was the result of biological parents that wanted to intervene where they legally couldn't. The aunt and the child made a decision together. You can call it indoctrination or coercion, but I call it a family making the decision together. That is what should happen more often. Teaching a child religion is not indoctrination. You can put whatever spin you want on it and imagine any hypothetical conversation getting that child to go to church, but you are off base. Making your children go to church with you is called teaching, not indoctrination. You can't claim that this child was coerced into suicide. I don't even call it suicide. He chose to follow the teachings of his religion. I give credit to the kid of having conviction and sticking to it. More than I can say for non-believers.


Does calling religious followers and leaders witchdoctors help you feel secure about bashing religion? At what point did anything in this case show that the child or the aunt expected him to survive by not getting the transfusion? You like to avoid the actual basis for which they came to the decision together, and try to make religion be the bad guy here.

WE have been dancing around religion and brainwashing and such here- but we are skipping the point about whether a minor, even one a mature minor, should be allowed to make life and death decisions-

someone pointed out that he had only 70% chance of surviving WITH the blood transfusion- but a 100% chance of death by NOT taking the transfusion- and, in fact, the refusal killed him just as dead as if he put a gun in his mouth or jumped off a building-

Since I work in mental health- the #1 type of manifestation of mental illness is religious ideation- in other words, they jump off buildings because god said so- do we allow the mentally ill to carry out thier beliefs? In a word-NO.

This was suicide, and was aided and abbetted by the state and the aunt- don't try to put in niceties or claim someone is dissin' your religion, because- well, the 14 year old was brainwashed into committing suicide, no different than Jim Jones or that group that drank the cool-aid in california

Vangaurd- what is the difference in mass suicide by other religious groups, and this young boys? Only thing I see here is the scale, one macro, one micro.

Also- none of the "decision was right, ethically and legally" group has really addressed this boy's legality to make adult decisions in other matters- I am willing to bet he was not allowed, as a mature minor to

1) Take a loan
2) take a much older girlfriend,
3) drive a car by himself

and on and on- in other words- we bar him from making fairly mundane and non-life-threatening decisions,

but we uphold his right to kill himself?

Like I said- I am all for assisted suicide for the terminally ill- for ADULTS OVER 18-

and, on top of that- the kid wasn't even terminal.

IF the kid was terminal, I would probably allow some more leeway in that direction.

Explain to me on an intelectual level how his beliefs was brainwashing. Also, since when was leukemia not terminal. Especially since he died within a month? Sounds pretty terminal to me! I think the reason those that oppose what happened is because it has a religious base. If religion wasn't involved at all, there wouldn't be an issue.

By the way, CruisingRam, just because mentally ill people refer to God when they go to jump off a building, doesn't mean that those that refer to God are mentally ill. You imply that this boy suddenly found Jesus (or in this case Jehova) on his deathbed. There is nothing pointing to that.

As far as the court deciding that he was a "mature minor", I think that is rediculous for the reasons you point out. Since his guardian and himself both agreed that taking the transfusion was against God's Word, and subsequently against their beleif, everyone should stay out of it and let them believe what they want. And yes, I believe that a 14 year old boy and determine if he believes in a certain faith or not.

I completely disagree with the claim that he was brainwashed and indoctrinated. Those are scapegoat excuses to hate parents that teach children a religious belief system from people that are scared of people that actually are able to have faith in something greater than themselves that is not there to be examined. To believe in something based on the trust of it's existance without proof sounds much like a good definition of faith, whether it is faith in God, or faith in Nobel Al that the world is coming to an end if we all (with the exception of those that are rich and can afford carbon credits, and subsequently getting richer off GW) don't change the way we live entirely.

If we cut through all of the religion bashing in this thread, the crux of the matter is this: Should a person have the right to refuse medical treatment even when that treatment is potentially life saving? A followup would involve living wills and do not resuscitate orders: should we allow people to make a decision to not receive treatment?

If the answer is "no" then so be it. The state has substituted its judgement for that of the individual and let the consequences follow.

Let's be clear: this boy's religious beliefs did not kill him, leukemia killed him. Yes, he refused treatment that violated his personal beliefs, but that did not kill him, it just sped along his fate.

You are not debating much. You are just asking more questions, but I'll play your game and answer.



http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341458_leukemia29.html
(Victoria’s original link)

Here’s a link to the advocacy group The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/hm_lls

Please understand scubaim that religion is not a synonym for good. Religions have done immeasurable harm intermingled with good. I respect the 1st Amendment rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I don’t like them and don’t consider letting the boy die part of their 1st amendment rights. So, if I try to find some colorful rather than pedestrian language to describe them, why not? I think witchdoctor fits.

BTW; I don’t want to guess your views on related topics, as vanguard did mine, but where did you come down on the Terry Schiavo case scubatim. If you want to search for them, we had two hot/emotional debates on this issue.



Not so quick Amlord. Read what The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society said about prognosis in the line from Victoria's article I posted above. Yeah, "sped it along." With treatment he may have died at 70, in bed with, as we say in Texas, his boots off.

I have done more debating here than most. In fact, I think I have remained on topic much more than those that want to hang religion out to dry on this case. But of course I am not as enlightened as others are.

Most children; can include. Not definitive terms, are they? Unless you have that magic crystal ball in front of you, you don't know that he would have survived with the transfusion. Unfortunately, that is not the topic of this debate thread, is it?

Religion has done harm, but so has the lack thereof. You claim that religion has done more harm than good by your wording. I would like to see how you come to this conclusion. Those that oppressed religion also caused harm. So there, we are even. Can we get back to the debate? If you would have forced this child to recieve the transfusion, you would have trampled his first amendment right to practice his religion. The teachings of his religion forbid blood transfusions. That is the violation, not whether or not he lived or died.


I didn't follow that case very much, but as I understand it, she apparently told her husband not to keep her alive artificially. Her family claimed they never heard her say anything like that. Her husband then told the doctors to end any artificial life, but her family took it to court. Then the federal government, in it's infinate wisdom, stepped in and put it's big, ugly nose in the private life of these people. The case went all the way to the top, and finally, the tube was pulled and she died thereafter. If I have the gist of it correctly, the government should stay out, should respect what was shared between a husband and wife and let her go. I know there are a lot of conflicting claims as to her brain function etc., but it boils down to what did she want, what did her husband want and what was best for her? If she was in such a state that she couldn't function, and was wasting away on a hospital bed, and her husband wanted to end the misery, then the right thing ultimately happend. If she was lucid and not wasting away and could recover enough to be able to survive without tubes and machines keeping her alive, then she should have continued living.


So we arrest the church and put it on trial for murdering this boy? Or, we enact laws that respect one's religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with what non believers think should happen, then people should be forced to go against their religion. Correct me if I am wrong?

No, but I do not believe that the parents would be wrong in pressing charges for negligence.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I believe that one of the first responsibilities of a legal guardian is to keep their charge alive. In this, the most important central tenet to parenthood, Mincen failed. (Mincin?)

Belief did not kill this boy; he killed himself. He did not believe that he was killing himself, but logically, he started a progression of actions that resulted in his death. (Leukemia not being one of those actions, of course.)

His aunt, belief or no belief, had a legal obligation to make sure he stayed alive. In violating this, for whatever reason, she has broken the expectation that the state holds in all of its foster parents and legal guardians.

That’s not the question. Historically, the question has been one of balancing freedom of religion with public health and safety.

This was evidenced when the U. S. Supreme Court refused to overrule a state court judgment in a Minnesota case.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...Supreme%20Court

I agree with some claims to religious freedom claims Jehovah’s witnesses make. I agree with the 1943 court case that said they didn’t have to salute the flag.

West Virginia State Board of Educaion v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...9&invol=624

This decision was affirmed by Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_S...rict_v._Gobitis

Neither of these cases dealt with public health or safety and certainly not a life or death decision involving a minor who was not terminal.



Is this an inferiority complex surfacing or self-deprecating humor?

The crux of the matter is if a 'MATURE MINOR" IS ABLE TO MAKE THIS DECISION- NOT if a competent adult made this decision.

If you are above the age of 18, and are entitled to ALL the privileges afforded a competant adult- the right to marry without adult parent- take a loan or credit card, buy beer or alcohol, vote, etc.

Okay- Amlord- do you agree that this 14 year old boy should be able to decide for himself to say, marry a 45 year old woman? Or have a sexual relationship with a man?

Or vote? Or buy alcohol? or serve in the military? I realize he can't do some of those by law- but that is my point- why is able to make a competant decision over his death when he can't even buy a drink?

Also- this is clearly suicide. If he were diabetic, should he have the right to refuse insulin, and die? Refusing treatment for a preventable death is suicide, yes.

This disease was clearly NOT terminal.

Luekemia killed him only because it was not treated- NOT because he was sure to die from it.

So, sure, I agree that poeple should be able to make these decisions WHEN THEY ARE A COMPETANT ADULT.

And call it "religion bashing" all you want- but what is the difference between Jim Jones suicides, and the Heaven's gate suicides and this one? They believed in something, and killed themselves over that belief- no different than this kid.

Let's be clear- this was suicide, nothing more.

And as far as the mentally ill and religioius ideation- the two go hand in hand. I have had three poeple claiming to be jesus at one time. Got someone yelling at me to "get saved" as I type this.

The issue is a minor being allowed to make a decision to die, that is the crux of the matter- not a consenting adult, but a 14 year old.

If it weren't a 14 year old that was brainwashed by a cult, I would agree, he should have a right to die as he sees fit- hey, if all religions went the way of the shakers, I would be very pleased- but it ain't going to happen.

We protect kids from pedophiles, from con artists, and from them being allowed to consume harmful substances that they could as an adult- we should also protect them from suicide until they are competant to make that decision.

I don't agree that his aunt had that legal obligation. I think as a family, they made the right decision. We may not like it. We may not make the same decision in the same situation, but I still stand by my position that they made a choice together based on thier faith and in having faith, trusted that it was the right decision, whether we agree or not.


Was the childs father's parental rights terminated in this case? Was the father able to inject anything in the decision making process for this child? Was the father a practicing Christian Scientist? The major difference between this case and the case of this thread are in those questions. In the case of this thread, no one has the right, except the boy and his aunt to make decisions on his behalf.

I don't understand what the big deal is. John's first post makes the most sense to me. CR, yes you'll be charged with rape for having sex with a minor, but this doesn't happen in states where consent laws are based on differences in years between the minor and adult and not a fixed arbitrary age of consent.

A court was involved. I assume due process was followed and substantive rights were observed. I don't want to make blanket statements about the reasoning capabilities of 14 year olds because some kids that age are capable of reasoning. I was this kid's age or maybe 13 when I was rocking in my grandmother's chair making up my mind about children, abortion, marriage, college, etc. Some adult's religious or non-religious interpretations about my life choices didn't detract from my right to make those choices. Youth didn't make these choices wrong, either. I've barely budged since.

I think the age exceptions being made here are really based on religious differences and not the kid's ability to understand the consequences of his decision, which obviously took his religious beliefs into account.

18 year olds are capable of being drafted for war and dying on foreign soil without ever legally enjoying a beer. A ridiculous, conflicting situation created by age-based laws if there ever was one.

Has everyone completely missed the point that the legal guardian approved of the decision? I think that is the basis for which the decision is acceptable. If the state overruled the guardian, then we all would be in agreement here. However, it appears that since the guardian and the biological parents were quarreling over what to do, the judge ultimately made it the boy's decision.


I think this is a matter of opinion.


I think this is too simplistic. Additionally, the boy didn't refuse the treatment for the disease, he refused just one part of the treatment, so technically, he died of the treatment, just as many cancer patients do.

The reason I think this is too simplistic is because the intent of those at Jonestown and the Heaven's Gate had the intent of killing themselves to follow their leader. The intent in this case wasn't so that he could die, but so that his soul would remain pure and that he wouldn't fall from grace. In doing so, he did die and that is a sad end to the story. Fortunately, he died knowing (in his mind) that he could still recieve salvation and live in paradise when Jesus came again.


That still does not mean that those that believe in God are menally ill. The two don't go hand in hand. Religious people are not mentally ill.


So now JW is a brainwashing cult? See, it may only be me, but for those that are so opposed to something (religion in general) that has helped so many to the point that they want all religions to go the way of the shakers, as you put it, I can't find much credibility in your arguments. You seem to only be out to bash religion, where many people will tell you that without religion, they would not be alive today. I know, you think they are brainwashed, indocrinateed, mentally ill patients, but don't you think that is a little simple minded? If I were to say something along the lines of I wish all liberals, or all GW advocates would go the way of the shakers, I would have several people (not naming names here) jump all over me and bash me from here till next Tuesday.

My personal feelings notwithstanding- I don't want to alter the constitution to ban freedom of religion. The issue here is once again, a child allowed to commit suicide because of his beliefs.

Lesley- I think it is very wrong that a kid can be drafted into the military, but can't buy a drink- with competency, comes privilege, but also responsibility for your own actions.

The fact that the boy can't even decide who he wants to have sex with is very relevent here- sexual relations is not as, you know, big of decision, or as final, as dying.

This boy would hav very likely lived to a ripe old age had he taken the transfusion- luekemia gets more survivable every year, especially in Juvenile cases.

I am running now for the Teams in Training for childhood luekemia- and know the treatments quite well, thier expenses, and thier effects.

This was basic stuff, like applying a tourniqute to a arterial bleed, or giving insulin, or synthroid for a removed pitiutary.

This was NOT an experimental procedure, this was more than 70% likely to save his life.

So we have to ask, do we allow kids to make the adult decision of commiting suicide?

BTW- once again, I am not even against suicide for competant adults, for any reason. I just don't think that kids should be able to make that decision anymore than they should be allowed to vote at 14.

When you die for something, is it suicide? Suicide implies intentionally killing yourself. My boyfriend's mother was diagnosed with stomach cancer. She chose to slowly starve herself to death instead of depleting the estate she and my boyfriend's father worked on so their children would enjoy an inheritance. Did she commit suicide?

Back to V-Wolf's questions:

Did the judge rule correctly?

That's an arbitrary question. Do you mean acccording to the law? When a judge renders his judgment it's law unless it's contested. Has this case been contested? Isn't there anyone on behalf of the parents' or "witchdoctored" boy's interests who is willing to take this on? Where is that same outrage we find here on AD? I haven't heard about any such effort to litigate this further. And so by legal definition, the judge ruled correctly.

Now, if you're asking what I think the ruling should have been despite the law's stance I believe there is more room for discussion. Exploring what should have been done covers a wide breadth of considerations though. What exactly did the judge consider? How competent was the boy? Why was he granted MM status to begin with? How competent in the eyes of the law was the aunt considered? How passionate was the boy in his decision? How much effort had already been made to find a cure? How well was the boy tolerating his treatment thus far? And on, and on....

One thing I do know is I can imagine scenarios where under similar circumstances (i.e., 14 yro boy, treatable disease but terminal without treatment) I would advocate the boy be allowed to make the decision. Can those who disagree with his decision say the same? Or is there no circumstance, given the parameters I have suggested, where you would agree with the boy?

Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

Yes, I can imagine in certain circumstances a 14 yro boy is mature enough. Why is it that if he belongs to a fringe religious group he no longer has that ability? Hmmmm...

Okay- once again, we are talking about a 14 year old boy with an excellent prognosis- NOT a terminally ill with no hope adult that made a competent decision to not fight against an illness she has no hope of winning.

Vanguard- One thing I do know is I can imagine scenarios where under similar circumstances (i.e., 14 yro boy, treatable disease but terminal without treatment) I would advocate the boy be allowed to make the decision. Can those who disagree with his decision say the same? Or is there no circumstance, given the parameters I have suggested, where you would agree with the boy?

Nope, not one. There is no reason in gawds green earth that a 14 year old boy with a TREATABLE disease, but fatal if not treated, should be allowed to make that decision to die- not one.

Also- since there is no harm to the boy by forcing the treatment upon him, there is even less reason to allow him to make the decision.

You will note that I sided with nebraska mom on the issue of mandatory testing for infants against the wishes of the parents- because it was so very unlikely that it would help either the infant or the mother, and that the 'cure' was much worse than the disease, in that case.

In this case, we are talking about a routine procedure that was very likely to save the boy, and by witholding the treatment, he died.


This case- lesley- is a suicide, nothing more, nothing less. A suicide prompted by a religious belief- trying to make it more than that is not being honest with anyone.

It is no different than what the Heaven's gate cult members or Jim Jones talked his believers into doing.

She wasn't terminally ill when they found it, wasn't guaranteed to die if she sought treatment, but was guaranteed to put a serious crimp on the money they saved up.


I think you're the one trying to make it more than what it is because the idea of a competent minor making a decision based on religious beliefs you disagree with galls you and there are important differences. There was judicial intervention and JW's haven't been termed cults by courts as far as I know, nor have courts ruled that dying for your religious beliefs (without killing others, of course) is illegal.

I agree that there are several circumstances in which this boy could, would, and should, have been given the opportunity to end his life. If, for example, the tradeoff was not ideological, but physical (i.e. terminal patient, treatment will result in paraplegic, bedridden misery for rest of his life), a euthanization might be possible, perhaps even necessary.

But in this particular situation, Vanguard, I do not think that a fourteen year-old ought to have been given the right to choose for himself between life and death. Teenagers are far too impressionable to make that kind of choice with any kind of rational judgement, particularly if they are being influenced by a strong, if not invasive religious belief. We do pass our beliefs on to our children, no matter what we claim. His aunt passed hers to him.

Scubatim said that the church of Pastafarians had no religious teachings, and therefore constituted an illegitimate religion. This raises an interesting question; should they write a few commandments and holy texts, does this legitimize them? Of course not. A religion is legitimized by its followers, not by texts or relics.

The Church of Satan, interestingly enough, is a legitimate, real religion, practiced by people who really believe that they are communing with the Nameless Horror From the Farthest Reaches Of The Seventh Ring Of Satanic Industries LTD. Should this boy have been an indoctrinated member of the church of Satan, (let us say, a novice of the first degree) and had lain claim to his religious right to terminate his life, so as to better join his dark master in the unknowable Pit, would this judge have given him that right?

It is frightening that these fringe Christian groups can gain so much power, despite the stigma that they lend to their moderate brethren. It certainly does not help that rural and mid-western state governments allow them such free reign with the law.

A routine procedure that went against his religious beleif. This situation can't be simplified to whether or not he would have lived. That in itself has been determined. This isn't a case about suicide, it is a case about a family following their religious beleifs, beliefs that they have a Constitutional right to have, and everyone else staying out of their business.

It is very different than the Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones suicided. No where does JW encourage people to commit suicide (that I am aware of) in order to reach a higher being or to reach heaven. In the two cases you bring up, the intent of the actions of the followers was to commit suicide to go to heaven. The only similarity is that the boy decided not to have another person's soul injected into his body to preserve his sould for the second coming. He did not commit suicide, he followed his beliefs. His legal guardian supported that decision.

I have no problem with ANY adult killing themselves in the name of religion- as long as they don't hurt others. Even still- your boyfriends mother had children of her own, had raised a family, and was completely capable of making this decision on her own- can't say I disagree with the decison if I were in her place.

Legally- he may have been declared a competant minor- ethically and morally- it is horrendous. A fourteen year old is no way competant to decide over whether to die for religioius reasons- or any other reasons. No more than they are allowed to make a decision to hook up with pedophiles.

Okay- is a fourteen year old capable of say, wanting to participate in genital mutilation, if she came from africa and this was part of her religion and culture? Mom says it's okay, she says it's okay- do we allow her to do it? Do we arrest the mom if she does do it? Genital mutilation is horrendous, and barbaric- but not life threatening on it's own. Far less of a decision than to die, really.

FGM is illegal for reasons that don't have anything to do with religion/culture/life & death/etc. If you think some JW's beliefs should be illegal lobby for it.

Please enumerate the reasons someone can't mutilate themselves. Moral and ethical please, not legal reasons. It was legal to kill jews in nazi germany- doesnt' mean it was right or ethical or moral.

Once again- a minor here. A 14 year old. Not a mature mother of at least 2. Not a full grown man that can voluteer for war.

I mean, mutilation is bad- but death is worse- don't ya think?

Poeple do all kinds of horrible things to each other and themselves in the name of thier gawds or whatever- and, if they are adults, I don't give a rat's fanny. If it results in a Darwin award, hey, the world is a better off place IMHO- we need the space, and religious poeple take up too much of it on this planet IMHO- pretty much all the conflict in the world is over religion today.
but I draw the line at minors being able to make adult decisions over a life ending issue.

I have signed and fought for "death with dignity" laws etc- have no problem with it- but a 14 year old is simply not capable of this decision and never will 14 year old be capable to make this decision, any more than a 14 year old can make a competent decision to take off across the country with a much older man or woman.

CR, I'm not sure severe self-mutilation is illegal. We call it extreme body modification, where men and women are allowed to cut their tongues and penises in half, and attach little nubs to the top of their heads and end up basically looking like freaks fit for the circus. Not sure what age you have to be, but it's legal. You can do some work "down there" too, as long as the doctor or whatever they're called don't cut the clitoris off. That'd be the equivalent of cutting a man's penis off which requires a sex change operation. Do you think teenagers should avoid making sex change operations until they're 18? If yes, always or some times?

If this kid was 6 years old I'd agree with you because I don't think children that young have any concept of religion aside for some vague notion of God and good and evil. In that case family members pressing the courts to "allow" a 6 year old to avoid a blood transfusion or w