Freedom of Religion Versus Right to Life

Genghis Khan

Genghis Khan

Ancient Mariner
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070202.BCTUPLET02/TPStory/National

The reason for the title will become apparent soon enough.

In the Canadian media, a Vancouver couple that gave birth to premature sextuplets has been receiving a lot of attention.  The babies had a fighting chance of surivival but blood transfusion would be necessary.  This would be an easy choice for most couples, but this couple is a Jehovah Witnesses, whose faith condemns blood transfusions.  After two babies died, the Canadian government stepped in and took the other children in order to save their lives.  The children would be given back, but with the understanding that if their lives were similarly threatened, the same would occur. 

Personally, I think the government did the right thing.  I think that freedom or religion stops where it threatens another human being's life.  Right to life trumps all other rights.  The babies obviously cannot make the decision for themselves and the parents are undoubtedly unnecessarily endangering their babies' lives. 

If you read the above newspaper link, you'll read of a similar story a few years ago, also involving a Jehovah Witnesses father whose daughter was dying of leukemia.  He found in himself the will to go against his religion and wife and do what his conscience told him, to save his daughter, which was unfortunately unsuccessful.  Whether he actually found a passage in the Bible contradicting his beliefs or whether he was rationalizing, I think he did the right thing.

For a religion that condems violence, it is both surprising and abhorrent that they'd call slow death like the Vancouver sextuplets would have faced as "God's will".  It is also unnecessarily cruel. 
 
If the choice is of the individual (assuming this person is old enough to know the consequences of their own action), do as they will - I say (after all, that is what killed Bob Marley - the refusal of a life saving blood transfusion). But to hinder the treatment of even your own flesh and blood too young to even know they exist, is wrong.

However, to suggest they simply step aside and let western medicine take over, no matter their faith/belief/etc. - is that right for them? Well, yes - and no. This is a hard question to pose to people who are blinded by their own religion. The easiest thing to do is to scrap religion and just get on with life.

This is undoubtedly going to turn into some religious debate.
 
I read an interesting discussion about this story and issue on another site, and the consensus there was:

It is reasonable for the parents to refuse treatment for their children when the issue is not life-threatening. This applies even when the refusal of treatment would create severe difficulties. Imagine a child born with two fingers fused together - both fingers fine underneath the skin, but the skin holding them together. Easy treatment to separate them and give the child a normal hand. Though most people would choose to treat such a condition, it would be within a parent's rights to refuse such treatment because the child will still live without it.

But when the refusal of treatment would result in death - as in this case - such an approach is not acceptable. It is a form of parental negligence. Imagine if a mother refused to feed her child, resulting in the child starving to death. Such negligence would be obviously criminal. Here, refusing treatment is much the same.

There are really two issues at stake here. One is the right of a parent to raise their child how they want, and how far that right extends. Another is when a religion advises or mandates actions that do more harm than good. From a legal perspective - the Canadian gov't perspective - this incident is only about the parental rights issue. Many others have been drawing the religion into it, but that's really something entirely separate.
 
As cruel as it may sound I don't think the Canadian Government did the right thing. As brainwahsed as I believe they are there is a reason they refuse such medical treatment. It is the immense faith in God they (supposedly) have that leads them to such decision. To the person who isn't religious willing giving up your life or that of a family member sounds ridiculous, given life is so pleasant. Well is it really? There is desease, war, famine, theft, rape etc. These people whole heartedly believe that there is an afterlife that is better for them, so giving up the physical is not that big of a deal. They leave the decision up to God, so whether the child lives or dies it was up to God and whatever happens it was for the best.

Note: I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but then again, that's what they think/believe.
 
Onhell said:
As cruel as it may sound I don't think the Canadian Government did the right thing. As brainwahsed as I believe they are there is a reason they refuse such medical treatment. It is the immense faith in God they (supposedly) have that leads them to such decision. To the person who isn't religious willing giving up your life or that of a family member sounds ridiculous, given life is so pleasant. Well is it really? There is desease, war, famine, theft, rape etc. These people whole heartedly believe that there is an afterlife that is better for them, so giving up the physical is not that big of a deal. They leave the decision up to God, so whether the child lives or dies it was up to God and whatever happens it was for the best.

Note: I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but then again, that's what they think/believe.
Click to expand...

Bullshit (no offense to yourself, I realise you're just playing the Devil's Advocate).  No religious group should make the presumption that their faith is best for their children.  What if their children don't want to be Jehovah's Witnesses when they grow up?  Well, we'll never know for two of them.  Whilst it is in the parent's rights to raise their children as Jehovah's Witnesses, they are wrong to refuse them treatment.  I have to go now, so I'll expand on my thoughts later.
 
Raven said:
What if their children don't want to be Jehovah's Witnesses when they grow up?
Click to expand...

You've never known any Jehovah's Witnesses, have you? According to what I've heard from ex-Witnesses I've known, they use cult-like indoctrination to retain members. JW parents don't just raise children with their beliefs, they brainwash them into staying in the cult. The ex-JWs I knew got in the same way - raised by JW parents - and said it was very hard and psychologically damaging to get out.
 
Onhell said:
As cruel as it may sound I don't think the Canadian Government did the right thing. As brainwahsed as I believe they are there is a reason they refuse such medical treatment. It is the immense faith in God they (supposedly) have that leads them to such decision. To the person who isn't religious willing giving up your life or that of a family member sounds ridiculous, given life is so pleasant. Well is it really? There is desease, war, famine, theft, rape etc. These people whole heartedly believe that there is an afterlife that is better for them, so giving up the physical is not that big of a deal. They leave the decision up to God, so whether the child lives or dies it was up to God and whatever happens it was for the best.

Note: I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but then again, that's what they think/believe.
Click to expand...

There was a movie 20-something years ago that discussed this issue and in the end they arrived at a conclusion which I agree on, despite not having a very strong religious belief myself: modern medicine could very well be God's way of performing miracles in this day and age. We don't need burning bushes or stone tablets, we need little pills and liquids that save lives. On another note, if I - as a non-JW - neglects to give my child the proper care I'm charged with abuse and social services are likely to take my child away from me. Why would JWs be treated after another scale? If people are too stupid, regardless of reason, to do what's necessary it's their problem as long as no innocents are being hurt.

Also, in Robinson Crusoe (I seem to remember) the message about God and religion is that God helps he who helps himself. Not passively puts everything in God's hands. JWs are a strange bunch of people but brainwashing can do that to a person, I guess...
 
Reminds me of the punchline to the drowning man story, which I suspect you've all heard ... "I sent you a bus, a boat and a helicopter - what more did you want?!?"
 
Onhell said:
hehe, yeah, that's a classic.
Click to expand...

One which I haven't heard.... :(

In response to SMX's post, no, I don't know any Jehovah's Witnesses, ex or otherwise.  What you say makes sense, though, and I guess that religious fanatics like these don't exactly rate their children's physical health over their spiritual health.  I still think that the Candian government did the right thing-it's hypocritical to have double standards that allow certain groups of people to cause harm to come to their children, through neglect or otherwise.  As many have said, if any other person refused treatment to their child, they'd be hauled before court for criminal neglect.
 
Raven said:
Heheh.  Yes, I do think I've heard that before.  I just didn't recall the full joke in relation to the punchline.
Click to expand...

It's from all that Metal ringing in your ears :P
 
First - this wasn't the decision of the GOVERNMENT of Canada, nor even that of a provincial government. It was the judge (I could be arguing semantics, but I think its important).

As for the actual topic at hand - The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the basic law upon which all Canadian legislation is based) explicitly states the following:

Section 2: Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion....

Freedom of religion is, as you can see, pretty explicitly laid out. Aside from the pre-amble to the document, it's the VERY FIRST THING mentioned. Ergo, one would think that the judge was wrong in violating the parents' freedom of religion, right?
No. On both religious and constitutional grounds, the children MUST undergo the surgery.
The parents said they refused the treatment because of THEIR faith - but why are the children automatically a part of that same faith? Religion and faith are something you have to make a conscious decision to adhere to; it's not something you're automatically born with. Since there kids aren't at the stage when they can make a reasoned, logical decision to adhere to any faith, let alone one which would cause them to die, it's best to do what we can to let them live until they can make such a decision.

the Charter states later that
Section 7: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
the RIGHT TO LIFE seems to trump the right to liberty here - you can't be free if you're dead, and those who are essentially helpless to exercise their own liberty (the babies) must at least have their lives protected.

Finally, we return to section 1 of the Charter:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
In other words, the right to freedom of religion can be ignored when someone's life is at stake.

J-W is little better than a cult. I hope the kids are removed permanantly from the parents' care. They're too messed up to raise them properly. They neglected the kids' needs by with-holding essential medical treatment. They're sick, sick people.
 
"Here, have 2 bits..."

To elaborate on something SMX said earlier:
If you are born into (or fuck up and volunteers) the JW it's close to impossible to break out of... they do a good job of convincing people that sin is all the rage in the out-side society, and if someone quits, the family/former friends COMPLETELY shuns them...

So I gotta ask, what makes you say they are better than any other cult, Ironduke..? the lack of "the funny tasting Cool-aid"..?

Just because they've been around for a vile don't make 'em completely kosher, you know...

As for the blood-transfusion chapter in the bible:
I'm pretty sure, without being a avid student of THAT particular book, that they were trying to cut back on cannibalism... (which, unlike refusing a vital blood-transfusion, actually makes sense...)
 
From my conversations with ex-JWs, their sect is cult-like. It's not quite a cult in the usual sense of that term. Most real cults are focused around a charismatic leader like Jim Jones, David Koresh or Sun Myung Moon. However, JWs use things like strong intimidation to retain members, as well as keeping their social circle fairly isolated from the rest of the world to reduce the input of alternative viewpoints. So they're not a true, complete cult ... but in some important respects, they act like one.

It should be noted that there are plenty of other organizations which could be criticized in much the same way. To name one example from my personal experience, Alcoholics Anonymous often functions in the same cult-like manner. I could write pages and pages about how, in my opinion, this is justified when AA does it. The short version is that AA's techniques are proven to save the lives of hardcore drunks. But when I broke away from heavy AA involvement at the 5-years-sober mark[sup]1[/sup], there were still some people who tried to use cult-like behavior to keep me in.

Of course, just because JW isn't alone in their methods doesn't make their approach any better.


[sup]1[/sup]AA usually lets people with over 5 years sober go more easily, as studies have shown that 95% of those who make it to 5 years never drink again. And in case anyone cares, I celebrated 13 years clean and sober last week.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
[sup]1[/sup]AA usually lets people with over 5 years sober go more easily, as studies have shown that 95% of those who make it to 5 years never drink again. And in case anyone cares, I celebrated 13 years clean and sober last week.
Click to expand...

well, it's really impressive, I've never had problems with alcohol, never depended really (exept nicotine).....I've heard that alcohol dependance is worst even than heroine's, so... what to say ? congratulations, and wishes never to fall again !!
 
Congrats SMX!

Back on topic. Most cults are actually quite benign and inconsequential, but the Manson Family, the Brand Dividians and other loonies like them have soured the word/term "cult" forever. They usually keep to themselves in small numbers and could care less about "the spaceships" or mass suicides. Many help late-teens early twenties young people individuate from their families and start some sort of independance, most end up leaving the cult. I should/could go back to my sociology books to give a better picture, but this is the cliff notes. However, sects/religions/cults like the JWs or scientology are very dangerous and detrimental not only to their members, but those who are/were close to them.
 
Congrats, SMX...

Back to topic:
I still consider the JW  cult, and if you think about it: they do have a charismatic leader... in fact, several...
hers the power structure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses#Organizational_structure
So, they have one charismatic leader in every perish, telling people "If you leave us, the lord himself will come and beat the crap out of you with a crowbar", and then theres the big hunchback himself:
- Don A. Adams - current president of the Watchtower Society, since late 2000
(source):
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jw.html
(Just scroll half way down...)

And he's in charge... OF EVERYTHING!!!

He doesn't give TV interviews, or appear in public, and that's why most people, like SMX (no offense, pal), don't think of the JW as a cult ruled by one single individual...

You may also want to check out the Watchtower Society... It's totally nut's, man...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_C ... er_Society

(FYI, this is me...) ---> :smartarse:

hehe...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top