Judge Says 14-Year Old Can Refuse Transfusion; Boy Dies
"In Seattle, Washington on Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled that a 14-year old boy was mature enough to decide to refuse a blood transfusion on religious grounds. A few hours later, Dennis Lindberg, a Jehovah's Witness who suffered from leukemia, died. The AP reports that doctors believed there was a 70% chance that a transfusion which would permit additional chemotherapy could have led to survival for five years. Lindberg's aunt had custody of him, and Lindberg's birth parents, who attended the hearing, believe that the boy was unduly influenced by his Jehovah's Witness aunt in making his decision. However they did not appeal after doctors said the boy had already likely suffered brain damage."
I am impressed that the judge allowed the boy the free choice to decide if he wanted to die or not. I think back to the Terri Shaivo case, and all the entanglements that were involved. Maybe that case would have gone differently if she herself had been able to choose. One of the comments to the post pointed out that "Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits."The religious element adds an interesting twist to the case. Faith is such a key element of how we make life choices, it defines our entire world-view. But does it leave us actually able to make free choice? Does it predetermine our choices? I think there is a fine line between faith and religion. For example, the catholic church (pre-Luther) dictated to the people what they should believe, and how they should behave. Islam does this now, the prescription of belief is so dogmatic this is little room for personal conviction and choice. If you sway from the proscribed tenets the result is stoning, hanging, dishonoring your family. This is what I see with the JW's. The belief that blood is SO sacred that they would rather their follower's die than receive life giving treatments, doesn't leave much personal choice.
Is it possible for religion to further enhance and actually benefit our lives in a holistic sense? Can it give us freedom rather than box us in with rules?
5 comments:
The death of a young person is always tragic, no question about it. You can be sure he would have far rather lived. Yet people routinely put their lives on the line for any number of causes, and they are generally lauded as heroes for it, not deluded nuts. Which are they? Take the one who “gives his life for his country,” for example. Only some of that person’s own countrymen will think his death noble. Everyone else will conclude he died in vain.
The lad suffered from leukemia. Nobody imagined they could cure him. Instead doctors thought he would likely (70% chance) survive at least for the next 5 years with their regimen which included transfusions. The courageous youngster was assessed by a judge who interviewed the parents, his aunt (who had custody), social workers and the boy's doctor. “I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion,” the judge stated. “He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision."
Being of the same faith and familiar with his mindset, I can identify with his thinking. He would not want to be portrayed as a fanatic nor the victim of fanatics. (The boy’s father states "My sister has done a good job of raising him for the past four years,” though he feels she imposed her religious beliefs on him. The facts speak otherwise. Dennis had made he beliefs his own.
Don't more youngsters die each year in high school sports than in refusing transfusions? Each year I read a few local examples of the former. I'm not sure I would know any of the latter were it not for news media relaying any such event around the globe. Does anyone think high school sports should be banned or it's coaches judged accessories to "negligent homicide,” as some bloggers thought would be appropriate for those who may have contributed to Dennis' mindset? Witness youngsters finding themselves in Dennis predicament are proportionately no more than aforementioned victims of sports.
But one also must address the assumption, never challenged in the media, that rejecting a transfusion is tantamount to suicide. (The judge stated that "I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.") How often does one read the noun “blood transfusion” not proceeded by the adjective “life-saving?” The facts suggest the label is not especially fitting.
For example, Surgeon Bruce Spiess addresses the Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists (google it, if you like) a few months ago, and declares blood transfusions have hurt more people than they've helped. Transfusions, he observes, are "almost a religion" because physicians practice them without solid evidence that they help. Several recent studies support his statement.
We all know that blood is a foreign tissue and we all know that the body tries to reject foreign tissue, even when the types match.
Jehovah's Witnesses steadfastly refuse blood transfusions (for religious reasons, not medical) and have created hundreds of Hospital Liaison Committees composed of members who interact with local hospitals and doctors. As a result, some in the medical field have pioneered bloodless techniques. By eliminating the risk of foreign tissue, human error, and blood-borne diseases, these new techniques offer a safety margin that conventional blood transfusions do not. The film Knocking states there are over 140 medical centers in North America that offer some form of bloodless surgical techniques. Might the day come, or is it even here already, when the number of lives saved through such medicine will outnumber those lost by a few members of a relatively tiny religious group that stuck to its principles amidst much opposition?
Blood issue at a glance: The Watchtower leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses say NO blood, BUT they actually DO ALLOW some blood "fractions".
Problem is this variance is so esoteric complicated that by the time special elders appear in the ER with the rule book, the JW patient is at the point of no return,bleeding to death.
NOW,they blame the hospital staff for not having a "cell saver" machine instead of the Watchtower leaders who are responsible for making the rules.
I was born a 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness in 1957 and endured the Watchtower's no blood commandment with longstanding bleeding Crohn's disease.The Watchtower leadership expects followers to die for their dogma and many have.The medical staff get blamed and are 'damned if they do damned if they don't'.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood for anyone who chooses it,putting an end to this drama.
--
Danny Haszard
I have read only two (besides my own) non-condemnatory posts on this subject, perhaps from the two most qualified to speak, since they spoke to or knew people involved. Everyone else gave knee-jerk responses based on the newspaper account. I gave the sources in my own post.
One of the blogs (by a friend of Dennis) says this:
"A related side note: I have read twenty years of the New England Journal of Medicine's articles on what he had. In the list of treatments recomended, Blood transfusion was not mentioned. The only reason they recommended it was to try to buy more time for the blood thickening drugs to bring the levels up so he could accept the continuation of chemotherapy. Also, they got to it too late. He'd already had leukemia for a long time and nothing could save him; the only thing a transfusion could do was extend his misery a couple years at most."
The other (by a med student who spoke to some involved) says this:
"The treatment denied by the judge was not the stem cell transplant. It was a blood transfusion. Why is this distinction important? Stem cell transplants are the single most expensive procedure in medicine (hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do the procedure). We do them (and many health insurers cover them) because they work, but not all patients facing leukemia choose to be transplanted. Some cannot afford it. Some do not want to go through the pain of the procedure. Others (like this patient) have different reasons. If after providing all of the information, the patient does not consent to a procedure, the medical establishment usually respects this decision. Keep in mind that the legal decision here was related to the blood transfusion which could keep the patient alive for several days, not the stem cell transplant, which has 70% survival at 5 years as reported in the media. It's not as simple as a 750 word article would have you believe. (Although the Seattle PI wrote a good story overall.)"
Wow- All I can think of is the power of the cross. Love drives you to do crazy things. Thankfully God loved us so much...
The twist is if what you love leads you down confusing, dark , paths...
I have always believed that one of the greatest gifts God has given us is the power to choose... truth or deciet...life or death...
Wow- you make my head spin too early in the morning!
It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.
This is precisely what is at work here. The results grieve God.
Post a Comment