If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Refusing treatment on religious grounds
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Just been discussing this case with some friends:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8690785.stm
and it has thrown up some interesting questions. What are your thoughts about this case?
I find it very difficult to know what to conclude about it. Had he been a bit younger, then I definitely would have said that both his wishes, and the wishes of his parents, should be overruled. But given that he was judged to be capable of consenting to treatment, it's more complicated....overall, it's a terrible tragedy that a 15 year old is dead because he thinks some imaginary man in the sky wouldn't want him to have a blood transfusion. But I can't work out whether or not the doctors should be allowed to overrule his decision. Tough one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8690785.stm
and it has thrown up some interesting questions. What are your thoughts about this case?
I find it very difficult to know what to conclude about it. Had he been a bit younger, then I definitely would have said that both his wishes, and the wishes of his parents, should be overruled. But given that he was judged to be capable of consenting to treatment, it's more complicated....overall, it's a terrible tragedy that a 15 year old is dead because he thinks some imaginary man in the sky wouldn't want him to have a blood transfusion. But I can't work out whether or not the doctors should be allowed to overrule his decision. Tough one.
0
Comments
Make all sorts of religious indoctrination for under 18s, whether at school or at home, illegal.
It's just about time we stopped letting people get away with certain actions simply because they were driven by religious beliefs.
This was exactly my friend's position, which is what made me post the story. He thinks parents should be banned from raising their children in any religion at all, and that this boy's parents have effectively killed him with their brainwashing. Controversial.
I don't know what I think, but I know that if he were say, 13, then I would definitely think the state should intervene, force him to have the transfusion, and disregard whatever bollocks his parents might be spouting. But the fact that he was judged to be competent to consent makes me less clear about it. I can't quite make up my mind.
And how exactly would you enforce such a law? If for a moment I thought that was a remotely sane idea, then for the sake of balance, let's just ban Dicky Dawkins and his idiotic ramblings while we're at it (actually I think that would be a good idea anyway but that's just me).
This is a phenomenally tricky issue and saying that the parents' views are idiotic just because they don't correlate to yours is unhelpful. If the kid was over 18 (i.e. legally an adult), I'd say that he's entitled to do whatever he likes and refuse treatment on whatever grounds he chooses. Were the poor sod over 18, it would have been a fairly cut and dry issue.
However, as he is under 18 and, under the eyes of the law, does not have the legal capacity to be making such decisions, it should revert to the parents / legal guardian. However, this poses more ethical questions if the parents' beliefs mean that the child would die. Fuck, it's a moral and ethical nightmare and one for which I probably don't have the answer. All I do know is that the issue is a hell of a lot more complicated that saying "Ban all religious indoctrination" or "to hell with their beliefs".
Whilst the doctors have taken the Hippocratic oath to treat all people regardless, due consideration must be given to the wishes of the patient. As Clementine says, ultimately, it's a lose-lose situation for all concerned.
In all seriousness Aladdin, I'm getting worried about you. The more I read your posts, the more I fear you're joining the tin hat brigade.
I seriously don't think it's a particularly complicated issue. It's just made complicated by the status we give religion in society. But when it comes to black and white facts, would we prosecute parents if their child died as a result of their neglect? Of course we would. And to my knowledge, religious or ethical beliefs are no defence here. And if they are, they shouldn't be. So the idea that parents should be able to decide to purposefully let their child die, for me, is completely black and white. They should have no say whatsoever as to whether their child's life is saved.
Where the issue is slightly greyer is the idea of when someone is capable of making such a decision. But there are plenty of areas where this is also the case, so the solution is already there. Set an age and stick to it. And include a safeguard for people over that age who may still be deemed incapable of making a decision.
Weird thing is though, even if you were over 18, if you're mentally ill, then the decision would be taken out of your hands. If you're deemed incompetent to make the decision, then the doctors can make it for you. So if you're mad enough, and your beliefs are crazy enough, they'll section you and give you the blood transfusion no matter how old you are, but if your beliefs are reasonably conventional, they won't.
So then all it comes down to is cultural norms and habit! If I say I'm a jehovah's witness and don't want a blood transfusion, I can't be forced to have one, because believing in that particular fiction has been around long enough for it to be compatible with being considered sane. But if I said I don't want a blood transfusion because I am immortal, and was beamed down by aliens from another planet, they would section me and treat me against my will. Hmmm.
:thumb:
Agree 100%.
So should the parents be given a say if the kid could only survive on a life-support machine for the rest of their life? Should the child's life still be saved regardless, even if it means a lifetime of being a vegetable? That surely falls under the definition of the child dying as a result of their neglect?
The state shouldn't force it, everyone has a right to refuse treatment for whatever reason unless they are deem illfit (mentally insane etc) and religion doesn't count as being insane (although at times it should)
Same with his parents, if he is deem not old enough to make that decision his parents can, in which case it is there responsability but I do not believe them teaching their child a religion is murder!
Well that's a quality of life judgement, which is a bit different. That's nowhere near the same as saving an otherwise completely healthy person, who will undergo a complete recovery, in all fairness.
Furthermore, people do occasionally get better from what were previously thought terminal conditions so quality of life judgements are just that - judgements.
Religious freedom is guaranteed by the HRA unfortunately. For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with you for the most part, however, I think it's a lot more complex than you give it credit for. I guess it all boils down to how much authority you believe the state should have in these situations.
What you are suggesting is that he should have been treated without his consent and that is assault.
In cases, such as this, where the child isn't deemed capable of giving "informed consent" then the hospital can apply for the child to be made a ward of court - usually though that action is only taken in cases of life or death.
What if I refused treatment because the little voices in my head are telling me that the doctor is trying to kill me? Or because my father has brainwashed me into thinking that the doctor is trying to kill me?
Like you say, consent alone isn't enough. It needs to be informed consent where the person is deemed sufficiently rational to have made that decision. We wouldn't let a five year old refuse a blood transfusion because she was scared of needles, but we do let a fifteen year old refuse one because he's scared of the man in the sky. Obviously there has to be a threshold somewhere, we have to somewhat arbitrarily decide that once above it, you're sufficiently rational to make decisions such as this. The difficulty is where that threshold is, and it's very unclear. It's not obvious that this boy is above it, although he may be. Strange though, that if I had been brainwashed by my parents into thinking the doctor was trying to kill me, I think you would be justified in forcing me to have treatment. But if they've brainwashed me into a religion, we suddenly have to respect that.
I'm not saying we should definitely intervene, but there's much more to be said for it than you've acknowledged here. And I'm inclined to agree with I'm With Stupid that religious considerations are doing too much of the work here.
Aladdin pictured yesterday in his underground bunker.
I think that refusing treatment on religious grounds is rather bloody stupid, personally. However, if that's a person's wish, it's a person's wish and I see no reason why I should be able to enforce my will on that person.
Would you enforce your will on other people? Aladdin and Jamelia would.
As they know what's best for us better than we do...
Loving the picture.
Eh? When have I tried to force my will on anyone?
I don't claim to know what's best for people better than they do. Although, I will stick my neck out and say that all other things being equal, not dying is better for you than dying. Fascistic of me, I know.
You did say earlier that "but I know that if he were say, 13, then I would definitely think the state should intervene, force him to have the transfusion, and disregard whatever bollocks his parents might be spouting." I'm struggling to see the difference between a 13 year old and a 15 year old in this? Surely, the way the law calls it, you're either an adult or a child...
In both of those cases there is the question of mental capacity to give informed consent.
So, we should intervene against someone's wishes because our own belief about his "god"? What gives us that moral right?
Of course legally is has to be black or white. But in reality it obviously isn't. The capacity for rational agency doesn't get switched on on your 18th birthday - it develops slowly and gradually. I'm comfortable enough thinking that a 13 year old probably doesn't have sufficient capacity for rational agency yet, and a 25 year old does, but a 15 year old...who knows? This case is difficult because I can identify the easy cases on either side of the boundary, but I don't know where precisely the boundary is. I don't know which side of it this boy falls. I understand the law has to deal in absolutes, but in practice, it's not that clear.
But I definitely don't think parents should be in a position to decide whether their children live or die. They aren't your property any more than they are the state's. So in the case of five year olds, 13 year olds, if the parents want to refuse treatment on religious grounds, they definitely should be overruled. You may accuse me of trying to force my will on the parents. I consider it's me preventing the parents from forcing their will on their children.
Of course, I fully expect Stargalaxy not to waste his time trying to understand that argument, and instead just to call me a damn commie. I can live with that. But anyone who thinks imposing one's will on others is presumptively wrong needs a good argument as to why parents can do it to children, but the state can't. And anyone who agrees that the state ought to stop parents beating their children to a pulp or neglecting them needs a good argument as to how that's different from letting them die from lack of medical treatment.
Anyone who seriously thinks it would be morally acceptable for a parent to refuse life saving treatment for their (say) five year old on the basis of religion, or that the state ought to respect that view, is batshit crazy. There have been cases of this in the States: Christian Scientist parents who, when their three year old child stepped on a wasps nest and was stung hundreds of times, refused medical treatment and took her home and prayed for her. She died.
I don't remember what happened in that case, but they ought to be prosecuted for manslaughter. They caused her death when they could have prevented it, and religious beliefs should not give them the right to do that.
If you think that makes me terribly intolerant and illiberal, I can deal with that. The alternative is that parents are permitted to let their children die, just as long as they can appeal to religious belief. If I believe my son is immortal and doesn't need food or drink, I could be prosecuted for letting him starve to death. The same should apply if I refuse him life saving treatment.
And on that note, I'm off to the pub.
Indeed. My whole point was, whether or not someone has this capacity is not clear. There are loads of difficult cases, like 15 year olds, and people with ridiculous religious beliefs.
You're making out it's far, far clearer than it actually is whether someone has the mental capacity to give informed consent.
totally agree with this, in my opinion, whatever someone need to get through their life (albeit a tragically short one) is no business of mine. If someone wants/needs to believe in a god to live a happy life, why do we feel the need to abuse them because of that. Lifes easier when we all just get along.
All these people who rail against religion and call them idiots are just as bad if not worse than religious fundies. Lifes about being happy, your life must be pretty miserable if you feel the need to shit all over other peoples beliefs. Variety is part of the fun of humanity
The issue isn't that, which is why this topic is now about something totally different.
As an example of my friend his parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and he was forced with those believes as a young age, up to the date he turned 18. He didn't believe, but his parents did. If he never, and he was brought into this same situation this 15 year old, he would have to refuse - even if he didn't want to on the basis his parents do. But when he turned 18 his parents were fine with him not believing, why exactly? Because he is legally known as a adult who can make their own decisions?
The issue I have is that the kid made his choice on the grounds he believed what his parents had told him. It probably would have fucked his relationships up with his parents if he had accepted it, that's unhealthy.
Nothing. But your argument fails to define informed consent. And that is the entire debate. Nobody as far as I can tell has objected to an adult making whatever decision they want for whatever reason they want. In every other field, we define these things with an age at which you can be considered capable of making a particular decision. So what is it? The age of criminal responsibility? The age at which you can have sex? The age at which you can decide who you want as your MP and go into frontline military service? The age at which you can teach someone else to drive? And of course all of these examples have safeguards in place for people who clearly can't make such decisions after that age.