so , if government must not interfere with people´s religious beliefs...is it ok to let a child die because?

Question

their Jehova witness parents refuse to let him/her have a blood transfussion (something that goes against their religious beliefs)???
if government must not interfere then there are no exceptions, aren´t there?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsC6LxM5yxtGY4hi2EzlauDty6IX?qid=20070610163152AAGAGRi

Answer 1

Of course there are exceptions. When it comes to endangering the life of someone who is too young to be able to intelligently make his or her own decisions, the government should step in.

Foxtrot - You wrote, "In the US alone more than 2000 people a year die on average as a direct result of a blood transfusion. On top of this, are the yens of thousands which are infected with one of the many types of hepatitis." - And what of the many more thousands whose lives are saved as a direct result of blood transfusions? As for the "yens" of thousands whom you claim are infected with one of "many types" of hepatitis, you need to check your facts. With the testing of blood donors today, the incidence of hepatitis infections due to blood transfusions in the United States is extremely low.

Start checking the facts instead of relying on Watchtower literature!
.

Answer 2

The main purpose of the govenrment is to protect the rights of individuals. If a person willfully and knowingly prevents another person from receiving medical care that may be necessary for that person's survival, the state has the right to pursue charges of neglect or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

Children are individuals, so the state has an obligation to protect their rights. If anybody, family or not, willfully and knowingly prevents them from receiving medical care that may be necessary for that a child's survival, the state has the right to pursue charges, as stated above.

Now, the parents can argue that, given the inherent risks of a blood transfusion, a parents has a duty to his/her child to refuse that particular medical service. In some cases, this may be true, and all involved medical personnel are required to take note of these situations.

Furthermore, suppose the child WILL die without a blood transfusion. Isn't the chance of survival still better than assuring that the child will die?

Finally, suppose that, in the future, we could make blood transfusions perfectly safe. Would the religious injunction still hold in such a scenario? If so, then the duty to refuse a particular medical procedure no longer applies.

Answer 3

This is what I find 2 b funny: lots of people like 2 point fingers about the blood issue, but some things always get neglected.

Why don't those people who nitpick JWs for their stand on blood ever mention (assuming they know in the 1s place) the many failed transfusion attempts, esp. after court-ordered forced transfusions, that end up killing children?

Why don't many people realize that there are a multitude of alternatives to blood transfusions? And before any1 refutes that, please direct those comments to the many JWs who have traveled cross country in order to have successful bloodless surgeries when local hospitals refused to even attempt it.

The biggest question (for all "Christians") is this: True, we (JWs) stand fast on the blood issue because we believe it 2 b a direct commandment from God. Assuming we're right, why would we violate a direct commandment from the same God who we believe holds the power to either grant us everlasting life or destroy us?
On the same note, if you are ever "in need" of a transfusion, what does that say about your faith that God will resurrect you?

Answer 4

The thing that kills me is, if someone said they couldn't legally be forced to do something because they were a secular humanist... they would just be laughed at.

Religion has waaaaay to high a status in society.

Oh, and no I don't think it's right. The state steps in for child neglect all the time. Religion should not be a factor whatsoever.

Edit:
Wow, I simply can't believe that foxtrot (above) actually stated those words.
Seriously, 2000 die from blood transfusions? What infinitesimal fraction is that of those who are saved by transfusions?
No one just ups and says "Hey, I feel like getting some new blood today." Transfusions are done when they HAVE to be done. They're done because it's the choice that will save a life.

Answer 5

Laws are there for the protection of the many.despite the wishes of the few. In this country it is a crime to let a child die because it needs a blood transfusion. Jehovah's Witnesses are aware of the laws here and chose to live here with these laws. I know there are times when protective services have stepped in to save a child's life when it is against the parent's wishes. I can't imagine thinking God would not want you to save your child and as a parent it is unbelievable to not do everything possible to save your child. but that's another thought. If you break laws, you go to jail. As Martin Luther King said, "Every man has an moral obligation to break an unjust law." so he broke the law and went to jail(Letter from a Birmingham Jail). He was fighting for the civil rights of blacks and the law wasn't just. So if you let your child die, you will go to jail for murder. I hope this helps explain how morality and legality intertwine.

Answer 6

It would seem that when parents give clear evidence of studiously working to protect and prolong their child's life and best interests, the parents should be given the deference and respect befitting any other serious family decision.

Particularly related to blood, it seems remarkably ironic (and undisputed) that many MULTIPLES more have died as a direct result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.

Fair-minded healthcare experts admit that the medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells. Perhaps pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness critics) ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).

Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.

Jesus Christ, as God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood (it would hardly have been necessary to remind Christians to abstain from murderous bloodguilt).

It would seem that all conscientious Christians would feel bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". Ironically, this decree was the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). God and Christ apparently felt (and feel) that respect for blood is quite important.

Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:

(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which would contain blood] and from blood.

(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which would contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.


Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.

A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?


Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 7

This is a difficult question to answer. I sort of think, that if it is a minor's life at stake than some one of authority should step in. I mean really why should a child die when his life could be saved. Can't the parents see God as bigger than that. Can't they see that God can use people to make things better including medicine.

Answer 8

Thousand of children have been died because the support of Chirstianity to the war.


The Land Letter was a letter sent to President George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002 which outlined their theological support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. The letter was written by Richard D. Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. It was co-signed by Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries, Bill Bright, chairman of Campus Crusade for Christ, James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries, and Carl D. Herbster, president of the American Association of Christian Schools.

Answer 9

Oh my goodness, here we go with the blood thing again.
Let us go ahead and reverse this.
In the US alone more than 2000 people a year die on average as a direct result of a blood transfusion. On top of this, are the tens of thousands which are infected with one of the many types of hepatitis. (Of which all will eventually die-there is no cure for hepatitis).
So, should the government take away the children of those parents that endanger their children's lives by allowing blood transfusions?

I think that any one that is willing to have their children receive a blood transfusion should have their children taken away and placed into protective custody.
And if the child happens to be one of the 2000 that die as a result of receiving blood, should the doctors, nurses, and parents be charged with murder?

Also, receiving a blood transfusion in no way guarantees a life saved. You and I both know that a percentage of people who receive blood transfusions (like people in a car accident)
die anyway. Now what killed them? Was it the mass trauma?
There are plenty of safe alternatives to blood transfusions (to this we owe a thank you to JW's), yet the fact remains that the Red Cross has repeated to us so many times "Blood Saves Lives", that this half truth has gone from myth to fact in the minds of those brainwashed from hearing it over and over.
The credulity with which people have such blind faith in the blood transfusion is a good metaphor for why evolutionary doctrine has gone from a maybe to a fact in the minds of many.

Sorry 'wierd darryl' don't read the watchtower (opps your slip is showing) I guess you do not realize the 22 thousand ameicans of recent history who were infected with hepatitis laden blood. Where did this blood come from? from the prison population in the US and Canada.
You need to get your facts straight!
I suppose you could do like I did and start searching the internet, use some key words like blood transfusions and hepatitis, infected blood supply, you know use your superior intellect!
I guess you did not notice my details: I am not a JW, but I am thankful that they exist. I did learn some of my personal stand against blood transfusions from them, and followed through with my own personal beliefs in that, when I had sugery last year, I opted for bloodless.

The scary thing about you people who think the government should intervene against someone else's religious beliefs?
The government already knows how to manipulate you. That is how they got you to tow the line to allow them to overthrow a government which had posed no threat to the US. And now 500 Billion of your tax dollars are disappearing every year into the money pit of Iraq. Not to mention that your sons and daughters are dying at the average of 3.6 a day for that debacle. Soon, yes the government will take away more rights. Just as Adolph Hitler did. Yet, you will all be for it if it is against a religion you do not like, but eventually they will get to you.
Is it OK to let your child die for a war?
We know that no JW's child has died in the Iraq occupation, how many of other religions?
Shouldn't the government intervene and refuse to let your children go to war?

Answer 10

Does one incredibly assume to have as lots understanding simply by fact the guy who Created them! And, the scriptures of the Bible are His evidence of His life. yet, in case you have been in a position to settle for Christ or understand of Him, that's amazingly possibly simply by television, information superhighway, Newspaper, and so on. and you reject Him, even nevertheless He has made Himself universal to you, then it incredibly is once you would be punished on your wrongdoings!