Here's the story:

Link



This breaks my heart. Although I am one to support the right, as foolish as it may be, for fully informed, sane adults to refuse medical treatment (which does not directly effect the health of others), it is difficult for me to imagine that the most intelligent and mature fourteen-year-old on the planet is ready to make such a life-and-death decision.

Although this is not the place to debate religious doctrine, if Mincin influenced the boy's decision because of her beliefs, I would say to her "You killed your nephew because of a stupid superstition."

To be debated:

Did the judge rule correctly? Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

Did the judge rule correctly? Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

In the case of a 14 yo, No they are not mature enough to make such a decision especially with the depression caused by such afflicitions a very real possibility.
Sadly after years of indoctrination from a religious cult I doubt his mind could have been changed and expecting the Guardian to be any different is a loss.
However it is his life and body and I wouldn't accept anyone else making the decision for me. Much like people who have sterilized themselves to "save the earth and reduce their carbon footprint" the silver lining is they cant inflict this onto other children and therefore spread their lunacy onto innocents.

It appears he did. The state of Washington believes in certain cases that a 14 yro is capable of making these types of decisions. I don't agree but then again I don't agree with much of what we say 14 yros are capable of deciding for themselves. How is this any different?

By the way, V-wolf , if this is not a place to debate religious doctrine then you should not fire pot shots at the JWs by calling what they believe to be superstitious. You know, that's a little bit of a sucker punch.

Well, if this site allows thinly-veiled invective against radical muslims, then why not against JWs? Both seem to lack an excess of reason. If theirs is a system that can cause a young man to choose certain death over a chance of recovery, then I would say that they are now held in my utmost contempt.

Backing away from this...

Did the judge rule correctly? Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

A mature fourteen-year old is capable of a great deal of things. However, miraculously rejuvenating himself, sans medical treatment, is a bit of a stretch. If his life was in danger, and his legal-age biological parents were clamoring for his treatment, I fail to see exactly what value, if any, that his opinion had in the matter.

Fourteen year olds with death wishes...as far as I know, they are sent to psychiatric wards, and treated for depression. If this case sets a precedent, then I shudder to think of how many young men and women will be permitted to "responsibly" condemn themselves to death, for whatever reason.

Parents exist for a reason, you crazy kids! raargh.

I support people's rights to ignore medical advice and kill themselves. As long as smokers and JW's light up behind closed doors and spare the public their insanity, I say let them huff and puff their religion all they want.

Ok vanguard here's your chance to shine.

Here is what VS said.



What glowing words of wisdom would you have had for Mincin?

I personally don't think a fourteen-year-old adolescent has the maturity to make such decisions and apparently the aunt didn' have enough sense to. Death is final even for the JW crowd.

Vanguard, you should be angry with the JWs, not VS.

Yes but I am sure you hate abortion right? What’s the difference, if religious conviction can murder someone what else should be allowed that same liberty. It certainly is a very scary world we live in.

One can be upset with how others chose to interpret the will of their God. I too have many issues with the Muslim population as well as with the JWs on this particular issue. However, I do not engage in condescending commentary (i.e., blaming the aunt for her "stupid superstition") on their beliefs for two reasons: 1) it's not a good-natured thing to be doing from the get go, and 2) it runs afoul of this forum's rules.

Unfortunately, V-wolf's comment has now become a lightening rod on this issue though there has been much worse said (not by her) on this site about the beliefs of God-fearing indivduals. The problem is there is no recourse. Any effort on my part to take such commentary to task would illicit the moderator's attention. It seems the rule on AD is now "make sure to preface your comment by reminding us all of the rules against religious discussion and then take a crack at how silly those religious folks can be." If this is also being done with the Muslim faith then IMO it should stop.

This I completely agree with. The bulk of the outrage however should be directed at the legal system that granted him this right. Who granted him this "mature minor" privilege? It certainly wasn't the JWs or his aunt. Speaking legally, there is no infraction here. Practically speaking, I have an issue with a system that would temporarily place an empowered minor with a family that actively promotes such beliefs about medical science. Didn't they contemplate these kinds of eventualities? Or maybe they did?


Probably none. This is a classic example of one's religious beliefs running contrary to society's expectations. Assuming Mincin did influence the boy, what should she have said? "Though I sincerely believe blood transfusions are against God's will, and though we have dutifully taught you this, and though you are now in agreement with this belief, I don't think you should really follow it." Yeah, right...

Nor did the legal system.

No, I'm not angry with the JWs - those are their beliefs for better or worse. If there were any anger against V-wolf it was momentary. You know, even a tennis pro can hit a bad shot every now and then.


Actually gordo, who murdered anyone? The state considered a 14-yro competent enough to make this kind of decision. Are you suggesting the state murdered him? Maybe it was the aunt because she provided advice to a competent individual? Yes gordo, there is a big difference...

If my comment merits a warning from the moderators, I will accept that. I freely admit that this situation absolutely infuriates me.

In my opinion (which may be flawed), the prohibition against blood transfusions goes far beyond theological doctrine which is not subject to debate here, for a couple of reasons.

In the first place, I doubt whether it can be argued that such a prohibition can be considered absolutely inherent to religious belief. By this I mean that a prohibition on blood transfusions, even if we accept, for the sake of discussion, that such a thing has been decreed by divine fiat, is not the essence, or anything close to the essence, of what it means to be a Jehovah's Witness. The essence, of course, is the divinity of Jesus Christ, which I would certainly not debate here.

The second, and more important factor, is that I must draw the line when religious doctrine directly results in extreme harm to human beings.. I believe that death counts as harm.

Given the combination of the relatively minor importance of the prohibition of blood transfusions to the essence of Christianity, and the extreme harm to real, living human beings done by it, I stand by my statement.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into in the first place." - Alexander Pope

Did the judge rule correctly?
Yes. Please ask yourself, can people be cured of irrationality? Should we bother? Should irrationality be covered by universal health care?

Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?
The ancient Incas didn't believe children became adults until their 25th year. ...How we have progressed since then!

Should a 14year old be able to make decisions about his own treatment? Generally speaking yes. However, I hate anything to be based upon age. I have seen a wide variety of maturity levels in 14 year olds. My oldest was attending college at 14 and would certainly pass any maturity test. I have seen many other children at 14 who appear barely capable of rational thought. I do not think age should be the sole criteria for maturity in minors.

Honestly now, many 14 year old boys are the size of grown men. Would you have the hospital physically restrain someone in order to treat them? How do any of us know whether or not he would have lived with treatment. He did die the same day. Perhaps it was already to late to help him before the hearing. If he would have had the transfusion and died anyway, there would still be a big fuss.

People are always looking to place blame, but he might have died either way.

How many look at this case and say "I can't believe he would choose death over medical treatment!" The treatment the boy refused was not guaranteed to save him. The article puts his chance of surviving the "next five years" at 70%.

So he refused a 70% chance at living five more years. He refused a life of perpetual chemotherapy and the subsequent necessary blood transfusions. Leukemia (in general) and ALL is the most common cause of death in children in the US from malignant disease. The survival rate is between 20 and 75% depending on how early it is diagnosed. This case, a teenager, does not indicate early detection to me. I could be wrong. The fact that transfusions are expected indicates that the leukemia is severe. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society factsheet seems to indicate that transfusions are the exception rather than the norm.

Did the judge rule correctly?

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

How can we tell? No evidence has been presented either way. We don't know what evidence the judge heard before making this decision.

I can say that I believe this is yet another case where a child's parents have failed their child. Those people disgust me and what they would have wanted their son to do isn't really of importance here. They abandoned him long ago.

His aunt testified that he did not forgo the transfusions out a twisted suicide wish. Apparently, (and I can almost hear the pride in her voice) he refused these transfusions because they conflicted with a doctrine set down for him by his JW peers.

He was fourteen. I have no doubt that if his theology had not obstructed him, he would have chosen life over death. 70% odds against a 100% probability of death, are pretty good odds, you know.

Besides---Don't the JWs eschew suicide in any form?

I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to make this well-reasoned case. For some reason, the consensus is that there is no acceptable scenario where a 14 yro can decide on his own demise in this way. Or is it that he may have been influenced by his religiously "brainwashed" auntie that gets into everyone's craw?

The reasons listed in your post convince me there was plenty good reason for him to make the decision he did even without the fact that his religion counsels against it. Ah, but his religion was also a factor and there is no way a 14 yro can base such a decision on religious tenets? Look out folks, there are plenty of law-abiding, life-loving, young, intelligent, thoughtful, and mature religious folks out there who, in certain circumstances, would chose death rather than go against their God.

JWs are respectful, law-abiding citizens. Because I have a disagreement with much of what they say I do not presume to "know" what they should or should not be teaching their young.

Did the judge rule correctly? Is a mature fourteen-year-old legally capable of making such a decision?

I have heard nothing that prompts me to believe the judge ruled incorrectly. Yes, there are many 14 yros who are capable of making such a decision especially when you consider the struggle with the traditional medical treatment this young man had experienced up to that point. Unless, he went out kicking and screaming I say allow him the liberty of chosing for himself. From the sound of it, we could have definately used a few more like him.


Wow, you presume to "know" a lot about this one particular boy's psyche.

i know that when faced with a choice between life and death, humans, being the greedy, insufferable ___ards that we are, will always choose life. Regardless of our beliefs, our singular core instinct is still to survive.



Definitely. Sure. More kids who choose death over life.

Even if his parent's were crackheads and drug-addicts, they wanted him to live. That says much more for them than the JWs who convinced him to "let it all go".

Maybe the next world has gained another soul. I am certainly in no position to say. All that i can state with certainty, is that this one has lost a life, filled with potential, to the machinations of theologic deception.

There is always hope. This is cancer rule one. This is humanity's rule one. To proceed, when all seems lost, to forge ahead, ever further into the unknown. Man looks constantly upwards, to escape that which lies below.

And here, we have a boy who simply gives up. Fourteen years of age, surrounded by peers who were encouraging him to die.

Advocate this all you want, vanguard. To me, it is sickening.

IMO, this is not always true. There are many who consign themselves to the reality that the end of their life is limited and are fine with it's onset. There comes a time when many "greedy, insufferabe ___ards" accept this.

I did not mean it this way though it makes for a good sound bite. From the limited info we have on this young man he seemed like a fine, upstanding citizen and we could definately use more like him.

For academic kicks, in one breath you claim you are "in no position to say" and in the very next breath you attribute "with certainty" his death "to the machinations of theologic deception". Hmmm, sounds like you think you are in a position to say...

There is much here I am in agreement with but who said the boy "simply [gave] up"? Who said he was "surrounded by his peers who were encouraging him him to die?" Wow, there's some editorial license for ya'! Come on and admit it akalae, you can't fathom a responsible, principled individual going to his death for his God. It's like mixing water and oil. How can they mix when religion is one grand deception (there's my bit of editorial license though I suspect not by much)?

How about a bit of bridge building? The notion of someone giving up his life because of an issue with blood tranfusions actually scares me. I do not ever see myself advocating this for my loved ones. If I think medical science can do it, I'll give it a try. But then again, I can make room for those conscientious objectors who think otherwise. Can you? Oh yeah, by definition 14 yros cannot make this decision.

I would love to debate some of your points there, vanguard. But! Religion is a taboo topic on his site. What I try to do, is circumvent it by labeling it culture. you know, muslim "culture", american "culture". Doesn't always work though. That Jaime---She's pretty sharp.

Looks like I got off lucky!

A lot of people have pointed out this kids death as some sort of suicide. Some have eluded to the kid being murdered either by his aunt or the JW beliefs. Though many of you think that JW beliefs are "superstitions" or rediculous or idiotic, JWs believe what they believe and they don't harm anyone with those beliefs in regard to this thread. That said, it is clear that JW believe that the soul is in the blood.

This child believed in what he believed and you believe in what you believe. Trust me when I say that I think that what some people here believe to be idiotic, but that is only because we have differing belief systems; usually political, but religiously too I am sure. That doesn't make one more right than the other. If JWs believe that the soul is in the blood, and by transfusing blood, they will take on another persons soul, then let them. It isn't hurting anyone else.

With what the Judge had to work with, given the religious undertone, he made the right decision. If we can't cross the church/state line by hanging the ten commandments up in a courthouse, we definately can't allow a judge to overrule a persons religious beliefs. Doing so will say that the state takes precidence over religion, or that the state overrules religion. The boy and his legal gaurdian didn't have faith that God would heal, they beleived that by introducing someone else's blood into the boy, his sould wouldn't be pure, and therefore when Jesus came to judge the dead, the boy would not be resurected. Whether this is insane or a superstition, that isn't for us to decide. This is purely a religious beleif in everlasting life, not that God would save him. With all of the uproar about church and state, this is the right decision. Let the boy live and die on his own terms, his just happened to be through his belief in his faith. You can't take religion out of the state, but allow the state to rule over religion. This is definately a two way street, and the state didn't have any place in making this decision. The boy and his legal gaurdian are the ones that should have, and thankfully did make the decision. This case is about church/state issues, not a suicidal child.

Trust me that cuts both ways.


We don't trust minors to make many decisions. They can’t drink alcohol, buy a car, drive a car at 14 in most places, obtain credit, buy cigarettes, join the military, etc. But in your logic, it’s ok for them to refuse medical treatment. Saying that the death of a minor isn't hurting anyone else isn't true. It obviously hurt the minor. Yeah, right scubatim, death is pretty final - a permanent arrangement. I wouldn’t have as much trouble with this if the boy had been a legal adult – 18. The kid was 14-years-old. Is there any age you think too young to make such a decision - 12, 10, 5?

What do you mean by "both ways"? scubatim said nothing critical of the opposing view.



B- It's not just scuba's logic. The state of Washington also believes this to be the case or they wouldn't have granted him "mature minor" status or did you miss that detail? You can argue what you think should be the case for minors as long as you recognize it isn't just scuba's or my stand that prevents your view from prevailing - it's the law.

By the way, how do you know it "obviously hurts the minor"? Don't you know or know of people who have welcomed death as the release from an extended struggle? I smell more editorial license here...

Look, I do agree with you that it seems odd we'll grant certain minors the privilege of deciding for themselves regards to medical services but we won't grant them the right to do many other things (don't forget they have the right to contraceptives and pregnancy counseling without parental consent!) When do we say a certain age is too young? Who knows? Washington State seems to think 14 is old enough despite what you or I may think.

He didn't have to. This was an acknowledgment that others on the board disagree with him just as much as he disagrees with us.



Who says I have to agree with the state of Washington?

If you recall, the legal gaurdian supported his decision. If his legal gaurdian didn't support his decision, then I would have a problem with the end result. If the legal gaurdian had insisted that the boy recieved the transfusion and the judge overruled that decision, then I can see the issue. Since I clearly stated that the decision was up to the child and his legal gaurdian, not solely the child. Any objection to the gaurdian and the child making the decision? Do you think we should have judges intervene any time someone makes a decision that goes against your belief? If the family decided that the child's death is better for the soul of the child than to have a transfusion for that pesky reason of religion, it isn't hurting the child. Forcing him to go against his beliefs would be tragic for him. Forcing your beliefs on the child would make no sense at all.

Of course I can always count on BoF to oppose me!

I searched "Washington 'mature minor'" and, according to some unofficial-looking websites (but I'll use them anyway), the "mature minor" classification is not emancipation. Furthermore, it appears that the MM classification was intended to enable teens to make decisions about some very specific areas of health care that one might reasonably expect to come up: STD care, abortion, prenatal care, mental health care, substance abuse, and emergency medical care. The proviso given for non-emergency medical care (which I think applies here) states that MMs can give valid consent if:



So somewhere along the line, there must have been a hearing to determine the kid's MM status, but you have to wonder if it ever sincerely addressed the real life-or-death situation that the kid would be facing. I also initially questioned whether consenting to treatment was equal to consenting to forego treatment, but you can't separate the two - giving the kid the ability to consent is a hollow right if you are going to force treatment on him no matter what.

But here is what I think a lot of people on this board are really thinking: if a person (of any age) puts that much stock in their religion, can they really be thinking clearly? And is the JW guardian acting in the kid's best interests, or is she more concerned with adhering to her own faith? When members of a fringe religion like Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists refuse treatment (or when a Muslim blows himself up), it's tempting to call them crazy, but are their beliefs any more crazy than Catholics standing in line for Communion? Most people, to some degree, make at least some of their life decisions based on their religion. These people just take it to a much greater degree. I'd like to have seen that kid get the treatment he needed to live, but I don't want to make the case that he's incapable and then force it on him - I want to talk some sense into him and have him consent to it himself.

I am not a bible thumper by any means, and I think it is rediculous to refuse life saving treatment for any reason. That said, I also believe that our federal government should eliminate all offices and departments that aren't clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Now, how many of you just rolled your eyes and thought I was an idiot? Come, on. I have to believe at least three of you off the top of my head did it. I am sure more. And that's ok. But that is my belief. This kid and his legal gaurdian beleive in something and held to their convictions. Why? Here is an exerpt from one site that describes JW beliefs.:

It is their belief that even on your deathbed, if you waiver from the teachings of God, no matter how long and faithfully you have followed His Word, you will fall from salvation and not recieve everlasting life. I know, it sounds crazy, but this is their beleif and since it doesn't put innocent bystandard lives in harms way, we can't trample all over their rights to believe in whatever they want just because we think their beliefs are idiotic.

As far as the mature minor ruling, I am totally against the entire concept. This infringes on the rights of the parents or legal gaurdian to make adult decisions for the child in their care. If there isn't a parent, or the parent is deemed unfit to act as a parent, the courts should appoint some representative from the Department of Human Services to make decisions in the best interest of the child. At no time should we allow children to make decisions such as these and other decisions one would expect a parent (or adult) to make. I beleive most, if not all of this country, declares 18 years old as the age of majority, meaning that is how old one must be to sign a legal document. Wouldn't there have to be some waiver signed to have life saving treatment preformed or refused? Isn't that a legal document? In this particular case, the legal gaurdian was involved in the decision making process, and had a legal, though not necessarily valid, reason for the decision. We really need to let the boy rest in peace.

This is a debate board scubatim. Oppose is a strong word. Many of us disagree with you, but opposition makes it sound like you are running for office and have an opponent. That doesn’t happen here.

I had already posted in this thread - post #6 – before you entered the fray. My response to you wasn’t much different than my the one I made to vanguard in #6.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=232288


There’s an old saying, “be careful what you wish for." If you continue trying to play the "victim card," you will find plenty of people willing to accommodate you - not in opposition, but in disagreement.

Just to reiterate, I don’t think the boy was mature enough to make the decision and that both the guardian and the court erred.

Give me a break {b]BoF[/b], no one is calling you out. If you debate in opposition to my position, you oppose me in the debate. It was a comment to illustrate that you and I ususally debate each other directly in many threads. Nothing more. No one was calling you out. My point about people rolling their eyes at one of my beliefs was to illustrate that many people will disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong. The same is true for the topic of the thread. You may disagree with the decision this boy and his gaurdian made, but that doesn't make it wrong for the judge not to over rule that decision. In the last couple of posts, it seems that you have only opposed my points of us disagreeing, but not debated the basis for my position.

You're right, you don't have to agree. But as a self proclaimed "liberal", you SHOULD respect the legal guardian's right to not force the kid into it.

After all, it wasn't just the child that believed in the lack of transfusion....

The fact that this is their religious belief alone should allow people to back off. Frankly, I don't see it being logical, and in recent months I've been in an intense Bible study and don't see anything that would back this up... but whatever man. Catholics thing the Pope is a decendant of Paul. That's cool.

The issue that I find with this whole argument, is that in America, we're attempting to force a child and their guardian to accept medical care. Granted, it's a good idea to have medical care, but dangit... this is America, and if you don't believe in it, why is it an issue?

I assume that the kid believed he was going to a better place. I sure hope he did.

Actually, from the little research that I have done, JW followers beleive the soul is in the blood, and that having a transfusion is prohibited. I don't think you will find it in the bible, but that is their beleif. They also beleive that no matter how faithful you have been, you can still fall from grace by not following God's Word to the bitter end.

They don't believe in eternal life after death, but when Jesus comes to judge the living and the dead, those that have reached salvation will rise again, and spend all of eternity in paradise. Those that don't achieve salvation, will be non existant. So, in the boy's beleif, he is in line to be in a much better place.

You and I agree that though not a popular belief system, it is his, and we should respect that.

Aervans176, don't tell me what I should think or whom I should (you don't need to shout with those all caps) respect as a self-proclaimed liberal. The fact that I disagree with you automatically gives my position credibility.

It seems some of the board's self-proclaimed conservatives support the guardian.

These are all self-proclaimed conservative Republicans.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showuser=6505
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showuser=8004
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showuser=3607

Why do you think liberals should agree?

You are right, BoF, since all of us conservatives are supporting the decision made between the boy and his gaurdian, you should disagree. That makes perfect sense to me.

I would have taken the same position even if vanguard, aevans176 and you had never posted. Try not to give yourself too much credit. You should not be surprised if a liberal takes a position different than yours. Since you were late to the dance, ( my first post was 12-1, yours was 12-4) your position obviously has nothing to do with mine. From the start, I have seen this much the same as the thread originator - VS - does.

BTW: Your above line twists my words.

I find it interesting that the boy was allowed to make this decision for himself. Had he decided to have sex with an adult- that adult would be charged with rape- statuatory rape.

Why is this kid allowed to make a decision that would cost him his life if he, NOR his guardian were allowed to allow him his choice of an of-age adult?

If he can't decide about who he has sex with- no matter how yucky - how can he make an informed case over his own life?

Had he tried outright to commit suicide- he would have been commited as a juvenile, even if "emancipated" and sent to child/juvenile residential treatment if he didn't learn his lesson in acute care psychiatric settings.

WE are very schizophrenic about adult decisions and how it impacts teens, we are not consistant at all.

If this child is not allowed to make the choice to serve in the military, have a credit card, or take a loan, why is he allowed to make a life threatening decision, that, in fact, allowed him to die>

I am all for "death with dignity" terminal cases, but not for fourteen year old>

There are certain situations, as in consensual but underage sex with an adult (as CR mentioned), where teenagers/minors should not and are not allowed to make desicsions.

Ok, the idea of a mature minor is useful in situations where the minor is more mature than his/her adult caretaker. I don't *necessarily* see that here. The adult caretaker should be held to the same standards any caretaker is held to where the care-recipient is a minor, unless the caregiver is abusive and immediate intervention is essential (and no, despite my personal beliefs, I will not take the position that indoctrination is a form of abuse). If the court chooses to allow a minor to be 'emancipated,' then that court has the burden to demonstrate that the minor is indeed mature enough to bear adult responsibility . Given the tumultuous, often self-harmful, manner in which teenaegrs think, the burden of proof, IMHO, should be more focused when said minor is seeking emancipation becaurs of issues that pertainto his/her health and life (i.e. documented physical abuse or life and death issues).

Mature minors is a term that may have applied to many ADers. Probably not the gerneal public. Does this influence our take on it? Defintely. In any case, under what cirumstances should a teenager be allowed to make his/her own decisions aobut his/her own life? I submit that this case, which involves dominantly religious beliefs, is not one of them.

Maybe so, but this child's gaurdian supported and approved of the decision. Legally, the gaurdian made the approval from what I can gather, not the child.


I give myself all the credit I deserve, and I will give myself more as we go on! You are wonderful to debate with, by the way.

Okay- so should the guardian be able to "okay" sex between that 14 year old and a, say, 30 year old woman? Or man?

If the guardian can't okay sex- then should they be allowed to "okay" what is essentially suicide in this case?

I'm actually for letting the kid and the family decide their own fate in this case, when they are in agreement. But if the kid wanted treatment and was overruled by his JW guardian (and if Washington had no mature minor statute), I would want some way for the state to be able to intervene on his behalf. In that case, it wouldn't be the kid's beliefs you are asking the State to respect, but the guardian's, even when the life in question is the nonbeliever kid's life.

Here is a more illustrative case for the state not bowing to religious beliefs: Muslim women wanting to wear face-covering burkas for their driver's license photo. While you want to respect religious beliefs when at all possible, the state has a compelling interest in being able to identify drivers, and it should overrule the individual's preference for following her religious beliefs. You can make a case that the state has a compelling interest in keeping this kid alive, and should be able to overrule the family's religious grounds for refusing treatment. Every citizen is an asset to the state, you might argue.

Here's another angle to think about: if you want the state to stay out of their decision-making process in this case, shouldn't the state stay out of the decision-making process when a woman wants an abortion?

If his gaurdian objected to him not recieving treatment, than yes, I would side with the guardian. The reason we have parents and guardians is to make decisions on behalf of the child in the best interest of the child. I don't think under any circumstance children should be the sole decision maker on issues of this magnitude. No matter how mature the state says they are.

When it comes to the Muslim woman wanting to wear the burkah in her drivers license photo, I can see the validity of making them remove the part that covers the face. As long as the burkah doesn't impair their ability to see while driving, there is no reason why they can't wear it then, but one reason we take photos for the drivers license is to be able to identify the person. We as a society have the need to be able to know who is who, and that includes what they look like. If a crime is committed, or a person is missing, showing a picture of a woman in a burkah isn't going to help at all.

Any examples of a woman wanting to have an abortion because her religion demands it? The state should stay out of the decision making process in the case of this thread because it was a religious belief that motivated the decision. If the kid and the gaurdian simply didn't want it because they didn't think it was necessary, then someone needs to step up and be the adult on behalf of the kid. Obviously, the guardian wouldn't be doing what is best for the child. In that situation, the state should appoint someone to make decisions in the best interest of the child. Now, if the family was able to establish that the kid wasn't really JW, and the gaurdian influenced the decision on behalf of her own belief but not necessarily the childs, then that creates an issue. Since the boy and the guardian agreed because of religious beleif, and no one has come out with any evidence that the child wasn't really a JW follower, the end result of the court case is valid.

So you don't support the legal independence of fourteen-year olds, but condone this particular teenager's death, simply because it was "religiously motivated?"

The article states that as a "mature minor", he was eligible to make the decision for himself and he did. THe aunt might have convonced him of a few points here and there, but in the end, the child made the decision to kill himself.

This is a case of a child being granted complete juridstiction over his own life, long before the law ought ot allow it. THis is a case of a child being given leave by the state, to flaunt his own biological parents' wishes, and die.

When you have two parties vying for control of a child, one urging him to live, and another, (and I will restrict my usage of harsh words, for Vanguard's sake) urging him to "open his arms to the glory of the lord, and fly with his angels to paradise", I find myself wondering which of the two parties was really suited to raise him.

akalae - Way to pull me back into the debate!

As Amlord has stated the parents wishes should not be pivotal. I understand the feelings they have in keeping their son alive but the ball had probably been rolling for some time in preparing the boy to manage his life without much involvement from his "biologicals". You know, where were they when he needed them before? For the parents to step in now almost seems counterproductive among other things. Otherwise, I am in agreeement this is considerable power to grant a 14 yro. At least his decision included input from the the only other two entities legitimately empowered to be involved, his guardian and the judge.


Ooops, I think you forgot - the parents were considered by the state to be the one's "ill-suited" for raising their son and the aunt fanatic was the one "suited"! So how does that work with your logic now?

By the way, I take it that your poetic "fly with his angels" license is not necessarily something that was said by the parties involved but rather akalae's biased, patronizing mockery of what he believes religious folks are saying and thinking at any given time. Actually, I don't mind knowing so much - it helps to know your opponents blindspots. Your "delicacy" is somewhat appreciated though your comments only touch on the surface of what my initial point was all along - a green light for condescending narrative about the fanciful thinking of misguided religious fanatics. Assuming you are not a theist, it would be akin to my saying, "Wow, too bad that akalae just doesn't get it about God. What is it about him that keeps him so ignorant?" If my comment were not hypothetical, I wonder how many reactions I would get from the mods or fellow "non-believers" crying "foul"? Boo hoo...

My pleasure. Let's see if we can debate this without goign off on a theological tangent, eh?

I am, in fact, a theist. Religion is not an issue for me--only the men who claim to represent it. Humans are fallible, in ways that gods, demons and angels cannot even begin to fathom. It has been my experience, that a mob is mob, whether they are clutching pitchforks and torches, Qu'rans and makeshift suicide bombs, or (god forbid! ) bibles.

Now, these JW's may believe whatever they like. Religion can grant focus to unfocused lives, act as a lens for scattered rays of faith, desperate to converge. However, it can also kill pople, and this is where I take issue with organized religion. It is the influence of the JWs that killed this boy. Killed him dead, so to speak.

I support religion, only so long as it does not interfere with one's ability to live.

If you noticed, I pointed out that if the guardian had objected to the childs wishes and wanted him to get the transfusion and the judge ruled that the child got to make the decision, I would have a problem with that. Since the legal guardian supported the decision, I think the ruling is right. When you only take snippets of my comments, you twist the meaning and change the entire context. If you actually read the posts that I have made, you will see that I don't condone children making adult decisions alone. At some point, the state deemed his biological parents unfit to be custodians of the child. The state then approved the aunt to be fit as the child's custodian. If the issue is what the biological parents wanted, then that is a completely different debate. If the aunts ability to be the child's custodian is the issue, that too is a completely different debate. At no time was the aunts ability to be the child's guardian an issue, bringing the two parties vying for control of a child is irrelevent. That is not one of the issues in this case as it has been presented. Since the judge did not rule that the aunt was unfit to be the custodian, and did not reinstate the biological parents as cusotdians, the issue remains whether or not the child and his guardian should refuse treatment for religious purposes. That is the issue to be debated. Since there is such an uproar anytime church and state get involved in the same case, the judge made the right decision to not let the state overrule the child and his guardians decision based on faith.


And what makes you so righteous to be able to oppress another persons right to decide in his or her faith (or in this case the faith of the child and his guardian) what they do with their own lives? For you to damn someone or a group of people because of what they believe in is simple minded and oppressive. You would rather the state step in in this case to stop this boy and his guardian from practicing their free will to make decisions for themselves based on whatever reasoning they choose; in this case it was faith. Is that the American we live in today?

I like how you group suicide bombs with the Qu'ran and Bibles. That is a logical statement-if you were only trying to invoke emotion into an intellectual debate and not debate the facts and the issue. With your logic, protesters with signs are simply mobs that you should throw into this group. Political parties as well. In fact, you could go on to say that cities, states, even countries are just mobs. Where does your logic end with this line of thinking?

So then, you are condoning the state. I see.

At what point does the article say that the aunt was involved in this decision? You say that this was done with the approval of the child's guardian---in fact, as a mature minor, his guardian had no say in the matter anyways. The decision, legally, was complely up to him...and those he chose to consult when he made this decision.

Scubatim, his aunt gave him permission to die. Oh yes, blame me for taking creative license with the facts, if you like, but the fact is, that this young man was put into a situation in which a blood transfusion was required to survive. The only legal guardian capable of advising him? An aunt, who believed, that no matter the situation, blood should never be drawn.

Doesn't that count as a kind of coercion?

Actually, if you read the article provided, the aunt supported the child's decision. Again, I will say that if the aunt had not supported the decision, then the transfusion could have been force at the aunts request. Please do us all a huge favor and read the article and get the facts right. I have said it before. If the aunt had objected and the state still let the boy make the decision, then I would have a huge problem with it. You again avoid what I have said to try to make a point that is mute.

So what if the aunt gave him permission. In the aunts eyes and the boys, God gave them permission. If you want to be specific, no where did she not want blood to be drawn, but refused to allow another persons blood to be administered into the boys body. Huge difference. So what if this family made a personal decision to follow their beleifs no matter how far from what society considers the norm?

I will summarize what I have said several times once more. If the aunt (legal guardian) objected to the boy's refusal to have a transfustion, and the judge overruled her objection and allowed the boy to make the decision, I would have a serious problem with that. In this case, the aunt supported his decision. The only reason the judge was involved at all was because of the biological parents that had their parental rights terminated objected. Legally speaking, they do not get a say in what happens to that child. They should have thought about that before they gave the state reason to remove him from their custody. The boy and his guardian made the decision to refuse the transfusion because of religious beleifs and the state has no grounds to overrule that decision. Again, if the guardian objected and the state still let the transfusion be refused, that would be an issue, but that isn't the case in this debate, so it is irrelevent.

Would you have an issue if the guardian were in fact his parents? What if they were JWs and consulted against the transfusion? Could you restate what your primary issue is? Do you have a problem with the fact that it wasn't the parents' decision to make or that the child was allowed to follow his own wishes?


No, the fact is that a blood transfusion based on historical statistics from similar circumstances offered the boy a 70% chance of survival over the next five yrs. Do I have that correct? It offered no such guarantee of survival and in fact could have made his struggle all the worse were it not effective. Some license, akalae, is OK but only so much...

This seems to say to me, that the decision was his own.

The state made the legal decision. Does this make it right?

His aunt was a practicing Jehovah's witness. She passed her belief on to her charge, as is common amongst many families. I cannot say fo