Jehovah's Witness Interference with Pediatric Care

[captainstandup]

Let's consider another twist to this discussion. Would healthcare providers that are of the JW faith refuse to initiate, continue or assist in any manner with the administration of blood products? If involved in any manner wouldn't they be complicit in "denying the patient eternal life" This seemingly would exclude JW's from all positions within healthcare that in any conceivable manner is involved in the administration of blood to another human. Obviously critical care nurses and paramedics, air and ground, are routinely required to initiate and continue blood administration.

On a religious note: I ask these questions out of curiosity and not of disrespect. I'm curious as to how the consumption of blood has been paralleled with blood transfusions in the JW faith? The passages repeatedly cited in this thread were clearly written before anyone could remotely conceive of a day when blood transfusions would be possible. I realize this is a matter of faith and interpretation for those in the JW faith but I wonder if these passages were meant to alter human behavior of the day and time of their writing? Was cannibalism practiced or were there rituals that involved the consumption of human blood that needed to be addressed?

[DirtyBlackSocks]

If you want to debate the way scripture is interpreted you'd be better off finding a priest in that particular religion and discussing it with them. It's not fair to try and get a representation of an entire religion's belief from some one who has not made it their profession.

I would have to agree that Doctor's and Nurses would have to break their faith in performing blood transfusion's if they were Jehova's Witness, but by the same token I'm sure the argument is made that if the person receiving blood isn't JW it's not an issue.

Still, it's a good question. In my mind, being willing to perform a blood transfusion on some one else, but not on yourself or your children. Would make you a hypocrit.

What comes first for Doctors, the hippocratic oath or religion and faith?

[unknown]

What comes first for Doctors, the hippocratic oath or religion and faith?

Regardless of what you believe why and/or how...... Your faith should be first. If not- do you really have any faith at all?!!!!!

[PatrickW]

Regardless of what you believe why and/or how...... Your faith should be first. If not- do you really have any faith at all?!!!!!

So if I'm a doctor and believe that I would be harming my patients by giving them blood transfusions (damning them to hell), I should be able to refuse to administer blood products to dying patients because of my own beliefs? Who's to say my beliefs are wrong? That's a huge taboo. You can't question other people's beliefs. Why? Because you can't.

People are free to make all the stupid decisions they want about their own life, but when their beliefs start infringing on others' lives by withholding potentially life-saving procedures from someone else (like in the OP's case), that is negligent homicide. And really, I'd even go as far as to say that attempting to teach an impressionable child beliefs that may later cause their death is shameful abuse of power. There would be a lot less problems these days if kids weren't presented beliefs as fact at an early age and brought up to just accept it.

[Eydawn]

Hey, y'all? Did you notice the question of JW doctors participating in blood transfusions for their patients has already been addressed? They're professionals just like the rest of us- they suspend their personal opinions to do what's best for the patient. How is that any different than a doctor who personally abhors the idea of abortion referring their patient to Planned Parenthood, knowing full well that patient may avail themselves of a procedure the doctor feels is wrong? The doc's gonna do what they need to professionally.

If a JW doctor is very strict, they're going to do what any professional would do when confronted with a situation in which they feel they would be compromising their moral/ethical standing; they're going to allow a colleague to take over that particular case.

Incog, yes, in your *personal* life your faith must come first. In your professional life, you act in the best interests of your patient. You don't force any belief system, treatment limits or not, on your patient simply because that's what YOU believe.

It's like the difference between forcing a mother to let you baptize her stillborn in the back of the ambulance and doing it at her request. Option #1 is very wrong, regardless of how you feel about unbaptized babies, and option #2 is at your discretion if you are comfortable providing that emotional/spiritual supportive care for your patient.

If you can't bring yourself to do a certain procedure for a patient, you transfer them to a doctor who will. You serve THEIR interests- not yours.

We've all sworn some form of the Hippocratic Oath. It doesn't say do the best possible for your patients unless your church says otherwise. We all know that.

And the question of teaching a child religion is one that is still up to the parents. I don't notice anyone up in arms about the Islamic militaristic branches that are teaching 10 year olds to die for the glory of Allah with a bomb-belt around their waists. I'd argue that's a helluva lot more dangerous than teaching them that you don't accept blood transfusions. I'm frankly a lot more concerned with it, too.

Read the articles Zilla posted. They're very informative on the whole when to supercede the parents deal, concerning JW's.

Wendy

CO EMT-B

[p3medic]

Religion is the opium of the masses, the blind will follow like sheep....

[unknown]

So if I'm a doctor and believe that I would be harming my patients by giving them blood transfusions (damning them to hell), I should be able to refuse to administer blood products to dying patients because of my own beliefs? Who's to say my beliefs are wrong? That's a huge taboo. You can't question other people's beliefs. Why? Because you can't.

People are free to make all the stupid decisions they want about their own life, but when their beliefs start infringing on others' lives by withholding potentially life-saving procedures from someone else (like in the OP's case), that is negligent homicide. And really, I'd even go as far as to say that attempting to teach an impressionable child beliefs that may later cause their death is shameful abuse of power. There would be a lot less problems these days if kids weren't presented beliefs as fact at an early age and brought up to just accept it.

I don't know where your going with this buddy-- but it doesn't have a thing to do with the statement I made.

AND If you think it did then you are way off course.

Bottom line, beliefs first or point blank YOU don't HAVE ANY FAITH AT ALL---so its a farce is what I am saying- he really doesn't believe in the JW faith is what I am saying. IF they are a doctor and IF they don't follow the faith first- then they really don't believe-- it's all or none - no grey area. You either believe or you don't. I can't make it any plainer......

[p3medic]

Where do we draw the line when it comes to respecting the beliefs of others? Its ok to withold life saving therapy to a child based on the parents interpretation of a passage in a book, but not ok to have several wives? Is it ok to circumcise young women, or men for that matter? Is eye for an eye ok? How can we have laws that restrict one religion's beliefs yet not anothers?

[captainstandup]

Without laws to protect the young, or those without the capacity to make informed decisions, charlatans such as Jim Jones, David Keresh, Marshall Herff Applewhite, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Sun Myung Moon, Victor Paul Wierwille, can operate with impunity. Under the veil of religious freedom cults or sects can practice aberrant rituals regardless of the risk or actual harm done to some or all of their followers. This is certainly not intended not to infer that JW's are members of a cult, but is instead; intended to illustrate the need for civilized society to have rules (laws) that are representative of the will of the greatest number of its members.

If society establishes laws that accept an isolationist or hands off approach allowing one religion to deny life saving treatment to children then by default this approach must be equally applied to White Supremacists, Aryans, the New Black Panther Party, Satan Worshipers, muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists, Pagans and Witches, etc, regardless of socially aberrant practices that are harmful to others. Perhaps this would include mutilation of young girls as practiced in some foreign cultures or even virgin sacrifice. Any activity would be ok and out of society's reach provided it was protected by the curtain of religious freedom.

Due to their irreversible consequences, matters of life and death cannot subjective. If there exists even one "micron" of doubt or conjecture then life must be the default choice. Once a person has the ability to comprehend the gravity of life and death decisions, as related to themselves, it would seem logical they be afforded the right to choose.

[kristo]

Bottom line, beliefs first or point blank YOU don't HAVE ANY FAITH AT ALL---so its a farce is what I am saying- he really doesn't believe in the JW faith is what I am saying. IF they are a doctor and IF they don't follow the faith first- then they really don't believe-- it's all or none - no grey area. You either believe or you don't. I can't make it any plainer......

Most people's religious beliefs do not effect them as professionals. While we do have a freedom of religion, and you are entitled to think and act in this way (faith first), I believe that if that faith in any way stops you from doing the right thing, professionally (eg. blood transfusions) you are not fit to perform your duties in that job. The most professional thing to do would be to inform your boss of the fact and either request a position within the hospital/whatever where you will not be faced with this dilemma or to resign.

That said, what I have observed in these matters is that health care providers try as much as possible to be considerate of their patient's religious opinions. Examples of this include female doctors for muslim females, adjusting to various rituals at the end of life, and avoiding blood transfusions if they can.

If a procedure that hurts somebody's religious feelings is unavoidable, an adult patient can refuse it. Children, however, cannot give informed consent, and parents are not allowed to abuse them by refusing necessary treatment. Staff can have whatever religious beliefs they want, but they are expected to perform their duties and uphold the same standard of care, regardless of religion.