Bodily Autonomy:Jehovah’s Witness Teens and Blood Transfusions

47 thoughts on Bodily Autonomy:Jehovah’s Witness Teens and Blood Transfusions

1. Overall, I think any child 11 or older should have a say in their medical treatment, with more and more autonomy given as the child gets older.

   I’ve posted here, and elsewhere, about a situation with my best friend (long story short, heavily coerced into an arranged marriage with an abusive prick), and we ultimately have to accept the person’s stated wishes. Especially in an emergency setting, we don’t have the luxury of time to explore a person’s wishes, to know if they’re coerced or not. And sometimes, even if they are coerced, it could be because they don’t know any better.

   Not everyone values their own life above most other things. I know personally if I were directly given the choice between losing everything and everyone I’ve ever known, and death, I’d choose death. Sometimes, probably more like often, life isn’t worth living without friends and family.

   And that’s the choice the Jehovah’s Witness has to make.

2. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004041765_transfusion29m.html

   That article might interest you. The child in question, there, was 14. He went before a judge, and the judge upheld his right to refuse the transfusion. Interestingly, his parents wanted him to accept the transfusion. His guardian at the time was his aunt, and she supported his decision to refuse treatment. In that case, it really came down to the boy’s decision, even though it meant death.

   I don’t think all cases are as clear-cut as that, though. In the scenario you mentioned, I’d be in favour of forcing the transfusion. Someone who was in a bad accident and needs blood might be conscious enough to refuse, but it’s debatable whether or not she’d be alert enough to fully understand what her refusal might mean. The article I mentioned, though? The boy, while young, had plenty of time to come to terms with just what the decision meant. In this case, he’d still have the support of his parents if he had accepted the treatment.

   In cases where a teen is refusing treatment, though, I think it might be a good idea to sit him/her down with a counsellor or something, without the parents being present, to discuss the issue in private. If he/she is afraid of being cut off from the community if he/she accepts the treatment, then take it to the court, appoint a temporary guardian, and say that it had to be forced. Nobody needs to know but the teen, the counsellor, and his/her God.

   It’s a tough one, definitely.

3. Interesting set of questions. 🙂

   JWs certainly shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways. I think you framed it right as an issue of personal and bodily autonomy rather than religion. If one is old enough to kill oneself (or let oneself die) to fulfill a misinterpretation of a fairy-tale, one is certainly old enough to decide what goes on in one’s uterus and what takes up residence there.

   I think this scenario – refusing a transfusion, or, say, refusing to eat – goes radically beyond the abortion reference. With all due respect to religion – which, in this case, is none – the question is whether medical professionals and the state can allow a minor child to commit suicide in service of a nonsensical creed and under severe emotional duress and brainwashing. My answer would be “No.”

   I don’t think this analysis threatens the pro-choice position on abortion. Yes, the position here violates the child’s personal and bodily autonomy, but with the sole purpose of preserving the child’s person and body. In contrast, of course, the forced pregnancy position preserves neither and frequently threatens both.

4. I’ve been thinking about these questions on and off all afternoon, and for the most part I think, for me, it comes down to whether teenagers are capable of making autonomous decisions regarding their bodies and their lives. In the US at least, the law says that no, they’re not – eighteen is the magic age at which everybody becomes, abruptly, fully capable of making all kinds of life-changing decisions. I tend to disagree with the law; I think that, with education and access to correct data, many teens are capable of making informed choices.

   The coercion thing, though, I worry about. I’m not sure it’s necessarily better as one gets older; certainly I think we’d all like to say that we’re less impressionable now than we were as teens, or young adults, or whatever. I think that’s primarily the gift of hindsight, though, and not that we’ve gotten less persuadable per se. So I’m leery of denying a teenager autonomy based on the assumption that they’re probably being coerced. At the same time, though, I personally remember having said and done things as a teen that I probably would not have otherwise, if I’d been surer of myself – like, say, becoming a born-again Christian – so it’s easy for me to say that why yes, maybe it is easier for teenagers to be coerced or otherwise brainwashed into saying/doing/believing things they mightn’t if not for pressure from their peers and the adults in their lives.

   And of course, there’s always the gap between the way things are, and the way things should be. I tend to think that my model assumes that teenagers are treated as adults capable of making adult decisions – whereas the facts may be that they aren’t, and having never assumed the responsibility or been expected to, many of them may very well fail to make what we would consider “good” choices.

   I think, in the end, that I simply don’t have a definite opinion on the matter. I can at least agree that it’s hypocritical of any entity to hold the opinion that a 16-year-old is capable of deciding to refuse a life-saving blood transfusion while simultaneously being incapable of deciding whether to end a life-changing pregnancy.

5. Hmm…As someone who has worked as a chaplain in hospitals, I’ve met with a few Witnesses and talked about this issue. While I don’t believe, on a personal level, that what they believe makes any sense at all, it’s still not my call. Like Ashley says, it’s fine if someone (an adult) makes the choice that living as long as possible is not the ultimate goal. But kids are trickier, and in the case of Witnesses who are minors, the court usually has final say, not the kid or the parents.

   But the truth is there is no “hypothetical” kid when it comes to this issue – there are only case-by-case situations that must be untangled. A 17 year old is different from a 14 year old. Someone in NYC is different from someone in Fayetteville. To find a solution means listening to the stories that surround the issue, and working with everyone to come to an agreement that can be understood all around. What this looks like may be different in every case. Sometimes people just want to be heard and respected, and even if the judge gives an order that goes against their wishes, they might be more willing to comply if they feel that their position has at least been considered.

6. “JWs certainly shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways”?

   So you think they should have to either give up their religion or die? And this is going to what, teach them a lesson about believing in a religion that you feel is nonsensical?

   Damn. How is that any less coercive than the way they were brought into the religion in the first place?

7. Sarah J,

   I would also say that the folks who decide Jehovah’s Witness policy (a shadowy all-male group of about a dozen people who reside in the religion’s headquarters located in Brooklyn, New York) are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that teens are old enough to make medical decisions when it comes to an issue that may very well cause the death of the child. On the other hand, the religion also teaches that teens should not be allowed to decide for themselves whether having an abortion is the right thing for them to do in certain situations. That seems more than a little bit contradictory to me.

8. As someone who is interviewing at med schools right now, I really, really, really hope I don’t get asked this ethical question. Some schools ask some variation of the “Jehovah Witness blood transfusion” question. Its pretty straight forward if its an adult, because every person has the legal right to refuse medical treatment. However, when they add the “what if they have children” or “what if its for their child” twist, it becomes hella complicated.

   It also makes you wonder why religion is the exception to the rule. I wonder if the rules are different if the child (or adult) belonged to some Satanist cult that didn’t believe in blood transfusions. Would they be treated the same?

9. The following website summarizes 850 court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah’s Witness Parents, including 400 cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

   DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES

   http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

10. I think that Jenna’s suggestion might represent the best way of dealing with the situation. Once alone with the patient and perhaps a counselor too, the teen could be asked how they would feel about the idea of having the court taking the decision out of their parent’s hands. That would allow the child to tell the doctors how they’d feel about receiving a transfusion without needing to openly defy their parents.

    Medical professionals would need to be extremely careful about how they recorded what went on in a session like this because the Jehovah’s Witness organization assigns “minders” for members who are hospitalized. These minders, called the “Hospital Liaison Committee” receive lists of names from the hospital telling them whenever someone who identifies as a Jehovah’s Witness is admitted into the hospital. Ostensibly, this is to provide spiritual and legal support for those who might be facing a situation where a blood transfusion is considered necessary. In reality, they can bully members into allowing them to view their medical records and they WILL inform the religion’s clergy if it is seen that the member has agreed to having a blood transfusion. In cases where children are involved, it’s even easier for them to gain access through the parents, even if the child doesn’t want the Hospital Liaison Committee sticking its nose into their private affairs.

    If a child does acquiesce to the idea of receiving a blood transfusion, the medical professionals need to exercise extreme caution with regards to who is told about that child’s decision. Jehovah’s Witness parents have been known to remove their child from a hospital if they find out that the doctors intend to perform a transfusion. Also, any hospital employees that are Jehovah’s Witnesses should be kept far, far away from cases where Jehovah’s Witnesses are patients in the hospital because their very presence can make a Jehovah’s Witness feel just as vulnerable about having their decision to accept blood revealed to the religion’s authorities.

    Patient privacy can be maintained by asking visitors to leave when it’s time for the blood to be administered or by administering the blood when the patient doesn’t have any visitors, although the former would be preferable. The justification used to get visitors/relatives away from the patient shouldn’t be anything too complicated. They can simply state that the patient needs to get some rest without the possibility of being disturbed or that the patient needs to be moved to another area of the hospital for the next treatment and they’ll be returned to the room afterwards so there’s no reason for the family to follow along.

    Many hospitals are becoming more savvy about dealing with situations where the decisions made by individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially teens, require a great deal of discretion. In my own case, I told my doctors that some of my family members were Jehovah’s Witnesses who wouldn’t fail to try and butt in if they knew I was having a blood transfusion and though I didn’t wind up needing one (though I’d have gratefully and without reserve accepted one if necessary to preserve my life) the hospital kicked everyone except for The German (my life-partner) out of the room whenever it was time for me to make a decision about my care.

    It felt good to know that they were willing to see me as a person with non-medical concerns that needed to be addressed in order for me to be able to focus on healing. Their actions kept my nosy family members from being able to pester me about every single IV-bag the nurses connected to my body. It was just one less thing to interrupt my peace of mind and I’m thankful for that.

11. The thing about the hardline stance on JW teens and blood transfusions (give it to them no matter what) is that I firmly believe you have to be supportive of someone in an impossible situation (live and become homeless and friendless at 14, or die) rather than force them to do the decision you think is right.

    Then again, I also believe there are many fates worse than death.

    No one should be coerced wrt medical care, but neither should they be coerced or forced into violating their religion and risking total ostracization.

12. Unfortunately, most of what the author of this article expressed regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses is out of date or not entirely accurate. Things have changed within the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well in recent decades…from blood transfusions to “disfellowshipping.”

    Now, I faced this issue of blood transfusions when I was a minor and coercion was not on my mind…my relationship with God was my main concern, just like in high school when I was propositioned to smoke, do drugs, or commit fornication. I could have done what I wanted and faced the consequences with my family, my friends, the congregation, whatever. But my personal relationship with God is what mattered…that is what kept me on the “straight and narrow” then and now.

    I think the lesson from this article is that no one should make assumptions or generalize about any topic. There will always be anomolies among any group in society and those make decisions for different reasons. Are my reasons right? They’re right for me, maybe not for you.

    Now, I’m sure the replies here will be taken over by those who oppose Jehovah’s Witnesses and will blast me and all Jehovah’s Witnesses for our beliefs. Have at it.

13. There are a few matters as regards disfellowshipping that have been misrepresented to you or perhaps that you have misunderstood that I would like to clear up.

    When a minor or dependent child is disfellowshipped, they are not shunned by their family within their home. Witness parents still love their disfellowshipped child, care for their needs (physical, emotional, mental) just as they would if they were not disfellowshipped. These families do their best to support the child and assist them so that they can be welcomed back into the congregation. It would be unloving and out of harmony with Christian principles to do otherwise.

    Even in a case where one parent has been disfellowshipped, the marriage mates and children are still required by the scriptures to maintain their family bonds- love and support the disfellowshipped parent/mate (a marriage mate would not be required to continue in a marriage where infidelity had taken place – but that is their personal decision to make) and the children of a disfellowshipped parent still live with the love, guidance and parenting of the disfellowshipped individual (unless the disfellowshipped individual chooses otherwise- some have chosen to leave their families)

    Also, accepting a blood transfusion does not automatically result in disfellowshipping – no questions asked- this is dealt with on a case by case basis and all contributing factors are compassionately taken into consideration.

    Finally, I want to point out that it is unusual for Jehovah’s Witnesses to be baptized before they are teens and we are very careful to ensure that all candidates for baptism are not only fully ready for what is essentially like a marriage vow- (but made to God) we go to great lengths to ensure that the baptismal candidate is taking the step out of their own love for God and desire to live in accord with his will and based on knowledge and understanding of the scriptures. Before anyone- at any age can be baptized, he or she must sit down with three different elders and have lengthly discussion about their desire to be baptized, their reasons and motives. There are about 100 questions that these elders ask the candidate in an effort to ensure that their request to be baptized is not the result of family pressure or a desire to please their family, parents or congregation. Further, that they really understand and agree with the scriptures on all matters- and that includes the proper use of blood. This is because the bible is very clear that any dedication to God that is not willing, and out of a completely personal desire to please God is of no value.

    An example of just how seriously we take this, I have a friend who studied with Witnesses for 12 years as an adult (though her 30s and early 40s) and attended meetings that whole time. After 12 years, she finally went to the elders and requested to be baptized. The three elders who met with her could see that she was wanting to get baptized for the wrong reasons- and so, they later approached her and very lovingly encouraged her to keep working at it, but explained to her that she was not quite ready for this step. (she was eventually baptized- when she reached the point where her reasons were in harmony with the scriptures)

    Nobody is baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses without fully understanding what that means, or what the potential consequences of their decision to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses are (that is just one reason that we do not baptize babies)

    Finally, I also want to point out that there are really no operations today that can not be done without blood. Google “bloodless medicine” and you will see lists of hospitals that perform bloodless surgeries and medical procedures all the time and the doctors who use bloodless medicine report better results, better recovery times, lower postmortem rates and all of this without the risk of infecting the patient with HIV, or CJV or Hep C.

    These bloodless options are available to anyone- not just Jehovah’s Witnesses, but you can thank Witnesses for presenting themselves as willing guinea pigs to develop these procedures to the benefit of all.

14. @ Sarah J: When you wrote –

    So you think they should have to either give up their religion or die? And this is going to what, teach them a lesson about believing in a religion that you feel is nonsensical? … How is that any less coercive than the way they were brought into the religion in the first place?

    – you misunderstood me. I’m sorry that the object of my derision was not entirely clear. That object was *not* the child struggling to stay alive and in her own life, but the religion itself.

    When I wrote “JWs certainly shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways” I was saying that if JWs support the bodily autonomy of members, including children, to refuse blood transfusions, they should not be allowed to turn around and deny members bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion. That’s why I wrote: “If one is old enough to kill oneself (or let oneself die) to fulfill a misinterpretation of a fairy-tale, one is certainly old enough to decide what goes on in one’s uterus and what takes up residence there.”

    I thought Bint’s piece, as well, provided a context that made it clear (e.g., asking “if Jehovah’s Witnesses think that teens are mature enough to decide that they are willing to die rather than take blood, is it contradictory for them to claim that teenagers are not mature enough to understand the repercussions of having an abortion?”).

    Ultimately, it is the JW religion and community, themselves, that would force children “to either give up their religion [and entire social world] or die.”

15. The thing about the hardline stance on JW teens and blood transfusions (give it to them no matter what) is that I firmly believe you have to be supportive of someone in an impossible situation (live and become homeless and friendless at 14, or die) rather than force them to do the decision you think is right.

    But forcing them to accept the transfusion is the only way to deliver them out of that impossible situation. In what way is it “supportive” to tell a child, “Yup, go ahead and choose death or ostracization! I could fix it so you don’t have to suffer either, but hey, my hands are tied–it’s your body, kiddo!”

    I think this is a sadistic and masturbatory way for society to avoid taking any responsibility for helping victimized children not to die or be cast out, while simultaneously patting itself on the back for being so advanced and supportive of children’s autonomy.

    Because if someone really wants to die, giving them an involuntary blood transfusion doesn’t actually take that choice away. It’s never too late for suicide.

16. Or: If a parent tells a child, “You can go work in a factory for 15 hours a day, or you can prostitute yourself on the streets, but you can’t stay in middle school, because it’s against our religion,” what do we do? We sure as hell don’t tell the kid, hey, sucks for you, but you better make up your mind–it’s your body, after all, and we respect that.

    This is no different. Facilitating the coerced suicide of minors is not something we should have mixed emotions about.

17. Hello Val,

    Thanks for your thoughtful additions to this conversation. I must say that I think this isn’t so much an issue of something being misunderstood. Rather, I simply disagree with the policy.

    When a minor is disfellowshipped, members are indeed required to shun that child. There is no edict that I’m aware of that provides an exception for the rule that JWs are not even to share a meal with that disfellowshipped child (based on their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:11-13). Furthermore, these disfellowshipped children would no longer be allowed to attend those religious gatherings that take place in members homes (e.g. the weekly “book study”). They would not be included in the family studies that Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to do each week in preparation for these congregational services.

    In the case where a spouse or parent has been disfellowshipped, members are not required to love and support the person. If that disfellowshipped spouse or parent decides that they want the entire family to join another denomination/faith, is the Jehovah’s Witness policy such that this decision is one that the governing clergymen would tell its members they had a responsibility to support? If so, I’d be eternally grateful if you could point to where this has been expressed because in all my years of studying this and other religions, I’ve never seen this written or said.

    While accepting a blood transfusion does not automatically result in disfellowshipping, it still does constitute grounds for being disfellowshipped according to JW policies. And JWs can be disfellowshipped without answering a single question about their actions. It happens all the time when members accused of committing sins refuse to stand before the local clergy. And even when members do agree to sit before a trio of clergymen, if the accused doesn’t seem sufficiently repentant enough in their eyes, then they are disfellowshipped.

    It used to be unusual for JWs to be baptized before they are teens but, alas, that is no longer the case. When I was young, I remembered how my JW relatives criticized the Catholic church’s policy of christening infants and going on about how their religion doesn’t believe that a young child can make a conscious decision about what religion they want to join. The fact that pre-teens are ever baptized means that this religion will require children to make the decision to die or else face the public humiliation and isolation involved with being disfellowshipped. Do you see nothing problematic about a clergyman getting on the pulpit in front of a congregation full of people and announcing–by name, mind you–that a young child or adolescent should be considered expelled from the the entire religion?

    With regards to the questions asked before they baptize someone. I’ve seen ’em. I could sit and give you the answers to any one of them right now off the top of my head without agreeing with a single one. The fact is, kids are prepped before they go and answer those questions before the clergy. The person responsible for instructing the child and leading them to baptism is supposed to go over the questions with them ahead of time. Does any of that prove that the child understand the implications of those answers? Can anyone who has never experienced it understand what it’s like to lie in a bed dying and knowing that there are treatments that would allow them to recover and go on to live their life?

    As a person who has lived with and without an incurable cancer, I can personally say that I had no idea what it would feel like to be told that, in all likelihood, you will die and there’s nothing you can do about it. If there were anything that I could do to effect a cure, I’d have done it. Once I began my cancer journey, my priorities and my worldview changed so much that I can never go back to being the person that I was before. Now, sil vous plait, tell me how those 100 questions can accurately determine how someone should be expected to react in a situation like mine or even in a worse situation requires a split-second decision that will irrevocably affect their life?

    Sure, any operation can be done without blood. A doctor could cut out your heart, your kidneys, and both of your lungs without giving you blood. That’s not the question. The question is, can all surgeries be performed successfully without blood? Sadly, the answer is no. If a person loses enough blood, sometimes the only remedy to that situation is to give them a blood transfusion. If this were not the case, then how do you account for all those JWs who do die because they refused to accept blood? The religion portrays these people as martyrs for the faith and has even bragged about the children who died rather than accepting blood transfusions. These deaths would never occur if every surgery could be done without blood.

    By the way, bloodless surgery pre-dates the existence of the Jehovah’s Witness religion. While JWs have certainly made use of today’s breakthroughs in bloodless surgery, we certainly don’t need to thank them for being willing to use their children as guinea pigs in order to “rally the troops” within the religion.

18. Its pretty straight forward if its an adult, because every person has the legal right to refuse medical treatment. However, when they add the “what if they have children” or “what if its for their child” twist, it becomes hella complicated.

    Why does it become more complicated when you’re talking about a teenager refusing treatment instead of an adult refusing treatment. I’m a big proponent of abortion rights, even for relatively young teenagers, but you have to accept what that kind of stance means more broadly. Really, abortion shouldn’t be some kind of special case. I can’t imagine any ethical principle which would allow a teenager to say yes (or, importantly, no) to an abortion or birth control pills, but not to other kinds of treatment. Yeah, we might not like the decision; we might think it is terrible, destructive, sad, or downright unconscionable. But those are exactly the same kinds of arguments that opponents of abortion make.

    The bottom line is that we’re talking about substituting the values and priorities of the society/doctor/judge for the values and priorities of the patient. We’re talking about when society ought to be able to tell someone “I know that this is what you say you want, but we know better because you just can’t be trusted to make this decision.” We’re talking about giving society the power to overrule a personal decision based upon the possibility that the person making the decision might not be using the same system of values and priorities that we would, even though the decision to be made doesn’t have the capacity to harm anyone other than the person making it. At the end of the process we’re talking about, if necessary, strapping the person down and forcing them to undergo a procedure which they not only don’t want to undergo but which they have stated they believe is a transgression against their god.

    Do you trust society, doctors, or judges with that kind of authority? Do you really feel comfortable with that kind of power being in anyone’s hands? If you substituted an unwanted blood transfusion for an unwanted abortion, even if it meant saving the patient’s life, would that make you uncomfortable?

19. Val, as someone in that situation, my parents still talk to me occasionally (to proselytize), but they won’t eat with me. Fuck that foolishness. It does destroy families, and they’re not subtle about it.

    The baptismal questions are a joke. An eight year old could answer them correctly. You’re completely ignoring the societal and familial pressure to get baptized. It’s no less strong than the pressure for all girls over 15 to be actively looking for husbands (but no dating!).

    You could also conceivably live without vaccinations. You’d be undertaking an unnecessary and potentially deadly medical decision for very little good reason, but you could do it.

20. Banisteriopsis,

    My heart goes out to you. The policies of the Jehovah’s Witness organization do destroy families. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been to family gatherings and seen my JW relatives actually get up from the table with a plate of food because one of our disfellowshipped relatives came to sit down and eat too. What’s worse, they’ll happily speak to me and invite me over and even go out to dinner with me even though I NEVER agreed to join their religion but those who did believe in the JW teachings and tried their hardest to live in accordance with the rules are completely shunned if they are somehow unable or unwilling to remain a part of it.

    It’s a disgusting policy that doesn’t even resemble anything that the Bible said Jesus practiced. Funny how that Jesus-as-examplar line gets ignored whenever it comes to doling out punishment for former believers.

21. This is a really interesting question, especially since the people in question are (for want of a better term) brainwashed. So if I am 15, and was told all my life that blood transfusions = suicide (sin/guilt/death), even if I’m seen as autonomous, at that point do I have free will? I should think not, but I don’t really see how you can legislate around it. Can a hospital protest in the case of a minor needing medical treatment, against their parents’ religious views?

    Bint yes, people can be maddeningly stupid sometimes. We try to love them anyway.

22. As someone who is interviewing at med schools right now, I really, really, really hope I don’t get asked this ethical question. Some schools ask some variation of the “Jehovah Witness blood transfusion” question. Its pretty straight forward if its an adult, because every person has the legal right to refuse medical treatment. However, when they add the “what if they have children” or “what if its for their child” twist, it becomes hella complicated.

    It also makes you wonder why religion is the exception to the rule. I wonder if the rules are different if the child (or adult) belonged to some Satanist cult that didn’t believe in blood transfusions. Would they be treated the same?

    I’m not a doctor or even a medical student, but I still want to voice my opinion. In such a situation, I would take the child’s word over the parents’. If the child obviously wants to go against his parents and his religion and get the blood transfusion, then I’d do the transfusion. If the child agrees with the parents and decides against the transfusion, even though that’ll mean s/he’ll die, then I wouldn’t do the transfusion. Even though I think a child who would deny the blood transfusion and die for religious reasons has been indoctrinated by their parents, it’s not my place to go against the child’s wishes because that would belittle their religious beliefs. Just like religious freedom shouldn’t go out the window just because one thinks one religion is normal and a different religion is a cult. In a complicated situation like this that involves children, I think it’s safest to always go with what the patient wants, not with the wishes of whoever will pay for the treatment. Of course, this all has to comply with the law and ethics codes, which may contradict each other, so that adds more complications.

23. I have never posted here before, but this thread really compelled me. All of the complexities regarding this situation that have already been mentioned are well-stated. I only wish to add another angle. I was raised a JW. One of my brothers, one of my sisters, and I left the organization at different times. All of us were shunned by our family as a result.
    The emotional damage that occurs when this happens affects a person’s well-being immensely. The thought of this happening to a young person is devastating. This, coupled with the fear-mongering of “compromising your faith and pleasing Satan the Devil” is so overwhelming that many young people simply buckle under the pressure.
    Jehovah’s Witnesses, however sincere and well-meaning some of them are, use abusive and manipulative tactics to force their adherence into absolute conformity. Even with the law on an adolescent’s side, the young one’s sense of vulnerability will often result in refusing treatment that they long to receive.

24. banisteriopsis, yes, you have free will. JW kids may be “brainwashed” to think that contact with blood is sinful, but we’re just as “brainwashed” to think that it’s better to live than to commit that kind of sin.

    (pardon, but I’ve just finished Brave New World. Everything is a result of conditioning…)

    What I’m wondering about (tangentially) is vaccination. There’s a bit of controversy going on where I live because a pro-choice state assemblywoman wants to make the Gardasil vaccine mandatory for young girls, and some opponents have mentioned, fair enough, that that kinda goes against the “my body, my choice” thing. But I’m not sure if it might be a little different for vaccines, because that’s not just about protecting yourself(/your child) but about protecting others.

25. Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)

    I’m not so sure I agree with this. The desire to live is on a whole other level than what we learn later on (e.g. religion). The former is what’s kept the human species in existence throughout myriads of evolutionary changes occurring around us. It’s programmed inside of us, I think.

    Besides, this (what I wrote about) really isn’t about whether one should commit “that kind of sin”. This isn’t a theological issue. What’s in question is,

    Should physicians do what they can to allow a JW teen to live and avoid the kind of ostracism they’d receive if they admitted to wanting to live?

    Even according to the tenets of the religion, the teen has committed no sin if they accept a blood transfusion because the courts have decided that the child should receive it. Their conscience can be clear in such a case because they have still fulfilled the obligations that their religion imposes on them.

26. Bint: You’re right, perhaps that was a bit extreme. However, I also think that saying the minor has no free will is extreme. The ostracism, yes, is a part of it. I don’t think we can really speak for whether the ones who choose not to accept transfusions actually believe that blood=sin. (which is what I believed banisteriopsis was addressing in hir comment) And I can’t see a reliable way to determine why someone is refusing a transfusion.

    Though, hey, people die in the name of religion all the time.

27. Finally, I also want to point out that there are really no operations today that can not be done without blood. Google “bloodless medicine” and you will see lists of hospitals that perform bloodless surgeries and medical procedures all the time and the doctors who use bloodless medicine report better results, better recovery times, lower postmortem rates and all of this without the risk of infecting the patient with HIV, or CJV or Hep C.

    These bloodless options are available to anyone- not just Jehovah’s Witnesses, but you can thank Witnesses for presenting themselves as willing guinea pigs to develop these procedures to the benefit of all.

    Thats a bunch of BS. There are indeed a few hospitals nationwide who do SOME surgeries with alternative volume expanders, but they do NOT use them routinely in every case, nor is there any evidence showing them superior to traditional pRBCs.

    I’ve worked at Franklin Square Hospital which is on the list you cite, and they’ve only done half a dozen “bloodless” cases. 99% of their surgeries use traditional blood replacement. I suspect its a similar situation at the other hospitals on that list.

28. OB/GYN doc,

    Thank you for your input on this. I appreciate it when medical professionals chime in on subjects like this. It’s important to get the doctors’ perspectives. More than a few times, I seen how many Jehovah’s Witnesses often require a preponderance of evidence before they can even begin to question what they’ve been told.

29. @ ThickRedGlasses: You wrote

    …it’s not my place to go against the child’s wishes because that would belittle their religious beliefs.

    How old of a “child” do you have in mind? A 17-and-a-half-year-old – or a five-year-old?

    Some religious beliefs are worthy of belittling. Would you abide by a child’s wish to refuse antibiotics because he claimed the Easter Bunny forbade it?

    I’m not (only) being snarky. The notion that religious beliefs are due some special consideration is a very dangerous one.

30. Some religious beliefs are worthy of belittling. Would you abide by a child’s wish to refuse antibiotics because he claimed the Easter Bunny forbade it?

    All religious beliefs are, at some level and to some people, ridiculous. Saying to someone “I’m sorry but I believe your beliefs are stupid so I’m going to go ahead and ignore your wishes” isn’t just arrogant, it’s downright dangerous. Now this issue gets slightly more sticky because we’re talking about a child, but if the child and their parents both say they don’t want the procedure than I simply cannot imagine a valid reason why their judgment should be overruled by the courts or a doctor.

    The notion that religious beliefs are due some special consideration is a very dangerous one.

    I’d argue that religious beliefs shouldn’t be a special consideration, that the will of the patient should ALWAYS be the final word. I’d love to see doctors drop their arrogance and accept that hey, maybe individuals know better for themselves than they do. Until that day comes though, the notion of a negative right to freedom of conscience is the first clause of the first amendment to the US Constitution. What that means is regardless of how worthy of ridicule someone’s beliefs are, the government cannot force them to violate those beliefs unless practicing them infringes upon the rights of others. If a 17 year old kid says something, I think they have the ability to understand what they’re saying. If we’re talking about a 5 year old, I think that’d generally be the province of the parents. Unless you’re arguing that parenting is really a privilege allowed by the government?

31. I was raised as a Christian Scientist, a religion which advocates (but normally does not force) reliance on prayer for healing from all ills, physical or mental. As a teenager I was denied medical care on several occasions, even when I asked for it. I survived; I’m OK. Often it was harder to explain to schoolmates why I did not have medical treatment for X, Y, or Z. I am not particularly mad at my mother about my upbringing. What I would like to say is that when you encounter a religious prohibition that seems utterly preposterous to you, don’t assume that the person holding to it is insane, or unable to make decisions. Step back from your mindset and accept that there are realities other than the ones you currently believe in.
    That being said, I believe that teenagers of any faith or disability should have bodily autonomy, and the right to seek or deny medical assistance.

32. William,

    Well, I think about the fact that society as a whole has already decided that the government really should be allowed to over-ride the wishes of the parent in certain kinds of situations. Some parents think it’s acceptable to rape, beat, drug and/or purposely deprive their children of sustenance. However, we don’t seem to have any qualms about taking these children away from situations that we perceive as harmful or threatening. We see them as victims even if the child insists that they agree with the parent’s stance.

    If parent’s right to make any decisions they want about what happens to their child, then what basis is there for stopping a parent from raping their child? After all, if they start young enough, it’s relatively easy to convince the child that what’s being done to them is for their own good. The first person who molested me was taught by her father that what they “shared” was what all good fathers did with their daughters.

    If we can agree that anyone who teaches a child a message like that is a disgustingly abusive asshole that should be kept away from children (and I hope we can agree on that), should we really say that someone who goes a step further and teaches their child that voluntary martyrdom is honorable is any better and should be allowed to continue making all the decisions simply because they are the parent? That just doesn’t make any sense to me.

33. I couldn’t resist putting in my 2 cents on this, seeing as how I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses (raised in the faith; questions after reading my comments, welcome), and as much of a feminist as you can be while still following Bible principles (which, contrary to many people’s twisting of Scripture, is a fair amount).

    Now, about your post…

    I don’t know where you get the idea that children are pushed to get baptized. Anecdotal evidence? I’m not going to say it doesn’t happen; it could, as a result of regrettable, false ideals held by the elders of that specific congregation or by the parents; but I would hope that this is a very rare thing. Look, I too would look with suspicion on an 8-year-old promising to adhere to a belief system; anybody who still thinks their parents are perfect has no business dedicating themselves to God.

    “Youths are not allowed to develop friendships with non-members so disfellowshipping means that none of your friends are allowed to communicate with you in any way.”
    False. We’re not Amish or hermits. We have friends in the faith and out.

    “So, for the purposes of this discussion, let’s say this situation is one where doctors agree that the patient will surely die unless they receive a blood transfusion.”
    You can’t just generally say that. I know this is just anecdotal evidence, but my own grandmother has had three open-heart surgeries without blood transfusions. Three, and she’s alive and as well as can be expected in her 70s. The first two times, the doctor bullied her, saying that if she didn’t take blood transfusions, she was going to die, and did she want to leave her children as orphans (she was a single mom)?! I’m not trying to malign doctors here; they’ve studied years to become such, and I’m studying to become one; but the fact remains that there is a possibility for them to be incorrect, or for a miracle to occur (I mean that in both a layman’s and a religious sense).

    “Conversely, if Jehovah’s Witnesses think that teens are mature enough to decide that they are willing to die rather than take blood, is it contradictory for them to claim that teenagers are not mature enough to understand the repercussions of having an abortion?”
    (also you said in the comments…) “The question is, can all surgeries be performed successfully without blood? Sadly, the answer is no.”
    Witnesses don’t claim that teens aren’t mature enough to understand the repercussions. In fact, the exact opposite. People can argue forever and a day about the physical or emotional repercussions of having an abortion. But what I’m referring to is that a teen who’s one of Jehovah’s Witnesses understands that having an abortion is a serious act of presumptuousness in thinking that an imperfect human, rather than God (the creator and giver of life), can decide the fate of a life. It does not matter whether the mother’s life is in danger according to the doctor, whether the pregnancy is as a result of rape, or whether there’s a risk of malformation of the fetus. That is how seriously Witnesses view God as the giver of life. I understand that that sounds like extremist bunk to anyone who doesn’t have such a strong belief in God, but there it is.

    Look, God is real to me; he’s not some big sky man with a bushy white beard who works in mysterious ways. If I have the choice between taking a blood transfusion (knowingly violating God’s commandment) and having the mere possibility (not the certainty) that I will live (and come back to what? An earth filled with all sorts of badness, and the daily stresses, worries, and imperfections of this life), or not taking a blood transfusion, possibly dying, but knowing I’ve followed God’s commandments to the best of my ability and as such will attain to perfect, eternal life on a paradisiacal earth, I’ll take the possibility of death 8 days a week. I’m not being morbid, but I was a little flippant there. I’m not a martyr, but I thought about this a little more as I read your post, and I can say that it’s not societal or religious pressure that’s making me say that. I’m a very independent person; I would make the same decision whether or not my parents were in the room, and regardless of the consequences outside the room; in fact, I’m reasonably sure I would’ve said the same thing at the age of 14. The decision of not taking blood isn’t (or isn’t supposed to be) a function of trying to please any person or organization on earth, but one of trying to please God; and if you’re baptized as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, no matter what your age, it’s expected that you have a strong relationship with God, and can explain what that means for you, in a non-parrot-like way.

    One last thing: what have you seen that makes you say that girls who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are less able to “survive on their own” (what is this, the jungle?) than boys are? … That sentence came off more provocative than I meant it to; I’m just wondering.

34. Well, I think about the fact that society as a whole has already decided that the government really should be allowed to over-ride the wishes of the parent in certain kinds of situations. Some parents think it’s acceptable to rape, beat, drug and/or purposely deprive their children of sustenance. However, we don’t seem to have any qualms about taking these children away from situations that we perceive as harmful or threatening.

    I think theres a difference there. When we take a child out of an abusive home we’re saying “ok, we’re going to take you out of this abusive situation.” But thats not what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about here is forcing a medical procedure onto someone, not simply removing them from a harmful situation. The blood transfusion hypothetical seems less like an issue of removing a child from an abusive home than an issue of forcing a feeding tube down the throat of someone on a hunger strike.

    My problem is with the door we’re opening. I’d be uncomfortable with the idea of the state telling a 14 year old that she couldn’t (or had to) have an abortion. I think that would be a violation of the 14 year old’s rights, especially their right to bodily autonomy. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of that same 14 year old who grew up in a bullying culture deciding not to take a blood transfusion because of social consequences. The thing is I can’t really think of an internally consistent value that would allow this hypothetical 14 year old to make their own choice about an abortion but not about a blood transfusion. The argument could be made that not having the blood transfusion is likely going to end in death, but are you comfortable with the idea of allowing the government to use force to override a decision about a medical procedure in furtherance of someone’s subjective set of values? At the end of the day we’re talking about strapping someone down to a table and performing a procedure on them which is not only against their will, but which violates everything they believe. I don’t care if you have a mountain of good intentions, thats a terrifying image to me. Maybe its because I’ve actually been strapped down to a table and forced to undergo a procedure I didn’t want to, maybe I’m biased. Still, where does the line get drawn and how do you keep it from inching forward over the course of years?

    If we can agree that anyone who teaches a child a message like that is a disgustingly abusive asshole that should be kept away from children (and I hope we can agree on that), should we really say that someone who goes a step further and teaches their child that voluntary martyrdom is honorable is any better and should be allowed to continue making all the decisions simply because they are the parent?

    If you had a father who openly believed that it was his duty to rape his daughter on her 13th birthday, would you wait until she was 12 and a half to take her out of the house? If you honestly believe that bringing children up as Jehova’s Witnesses is inherently abusive then you should take the children out of those homes from day one, not wait until an abusive situation comes up and then strap their kid to a gurney so they can’t resist what you’ve decided is in their best interests.

    But, I’m guessing you don’t quite see the peculiar beliefs of Jehovas Witnesses as the same as a multigenerational pattern of rape. Theres a difference. One is uncomfortable and terribly sad, the other is monstrous. As a society we draw lines, we decide to what degree we’re going to impose our shared values on one another. I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with the rule that life is worth preserving at all costs, regardless of quality or meaning, even if that means assaulting someone in order to save them. Maybe I’m a cynic but all I have to do is imagine that kind of power in the hands of say, the Bush administration, and I get mighty uncomfortable.

35. William, you wrote:

    The thing is I can’t really think of an internally consistent value that would allow this hypothetical 14 year old to make their own choice about an abortion but not about a blood transfusion.

    How about the value of preserving her life? Or the more elaborate value of preserving her life in the face of a dangerous fiction and manipulative peer pressure? Her refusal of the blood transfusion will end her life entirely. Her refusal to bear a child will most likely increase the likelihood of a healthier life (by, among other things, eliminating the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth). This strikes me as incredibly consistent.

36. How about the value of preserving her life?

    In the face of her objection. Sorry, I know that its kind of a radical view, but I see suicide as the most basic of human rights. If you can’t decide when life simply isn’t worth living anymore, then freedom is illusory.

    Or the more elaborate value of preserving her life in the face of a dangerous fiction and manipulative peer pressure?

    And who gets to decide what is a dangerous fiction, what is life, and what is manipulative peer pressure? These are not static concepts, nor are they always likely to be defined by those we agree with. Precedent changes, perception changes, even “objective” definitions change over time. I’m really not comfortable with second guessing the medical decisions of individuals.

    Also, we’re talking about a 14 year old girl. Lets change the scenario just a little bit. Would you support overruling her decision if she was 16? What if she was an emancipated minor? Would you support the decision if she was 17 years 11 months? What if she was 18 but lived in a state where the age of majority was 19? Would you support the same policy of ignoring her choice if she was an adult? This isn’t nit picking, if the value you’re proposing holds then those changing scenarios really shouldn’t change the basic argument (her beliefs are stupid, her community oppressive, and this needs to be done to her against her will for her own good).

    Her refusal to bear a child will most likely increase the likelihood of a healthier life (by, among other things, eliminating the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth). This strikes me as incredibly consistent.

    Ok, assuming that life is always worth preserving at all costs, so whats the tipping point? At what likelihood of serious health problems would you propose forcing someone who had a religious objection to abortion to abort? 100% likelihood of death? 75%? What doctor (or, more likely, what court or law) makes the call?

    Lets take abortion out of it. Lets say we’re talking about a minor with a terminal illness who decides to refuse treatment. How many years (by a doctor’s shot in the dark estimate) do they need to have left before we force them into whatever treatment whatever physician has deemed appropriate? Lets say it isn’t even a terminal illness, lets say whatever the illness is has a serious impact on quality of life but cessation of treatment will end in death, do we always force the minor to continue with treatment?

37. Sorry, I know that its kind of a radical view, but I see suicide as the most basic of human rights. If you can’t decide when life simply isn’t worth living anymore, then freedom is illusory.
    Actually, I agree with you in general, but not for an otherwise healthy child, especially under the circumstances we’ve been discussing.

    And who gets to decide what is a dangerous fiction, what is life, and what is manipulative peer pressure? … I’m really not comfortable with second guessing the medical decisions of individuals.
    I’d say the court and the child’s doctors get to decide. Courts are especially skilled in making decisions about autonomy. They do it all day and I think we’ve reached the conclusion that they are the absolute worst decisionmakers except for everyone else.

    As for second-guessing a medical decision of the child, I suspect (though only suspect) you’d be willing to do so in other circumstances. If the child, for example, announced that the Easter Bunny forbade him from taking antibiotics, would you respect the child’s judgment and let him die?
    Also, we’re talking about a 14 year old girl. Lets change the scenario just a little bit. Would you support overruling her decision if she was 16?
    No, let’s change it in the other direction. Let’s nail down the principle first, before pushing it to the edges where it will start to break down. The child at issue is 4 years old and claiming quite soberly that the Easter Bunny has spoken. What do you do?
    This isn’t nit picking, if the value you’re proposing holds then those changing scenarios really shouldn’t change the basic argument (her beliefs are stupid, her community oppressive, and this needs to be done to her against her will for her own good).
    You are right. The value doesn’t change. The value is “protect children from nonsense that might kill them, because they won’t get a second chance.” Only application of the value changes, as individuals mature from children into adults.
    We make decisions and apply rules on this basis all the time. Age of consent. Juvenile justice. Contract law. Labor law. Driving privileges. Smoking. Drinking. Compulsory education. Vaccination.
    Ok, assuming that life is always worth preserving at all costs, so whats the tipping point?
    I never proposed preserving life at all costs.
    At what likelihood of serious health problems would you propose forcing someone who had a religious objection to abortion to abort? 100% likelihood of death? 75%? What doctor (or, more likely, what court or law) makes the call?
    A child or an adult? For a child, certainly at 100% probability of death. The lower you go, the less certain I am and the less likely to take action. I don’t see this as affecting the underlying value, though. The decreasing probability decreases the likelihood that the principle applies, as well.
    Lets say we’re talking about a minor with a terminal illness who decides to refuse treatment.
    Why? We haven’t even been able to agree on the basic principle as applied to an otherwise healthy child. If we can’t get past that, hard cases are not worth considering.
    If I understand the principles you have in mind, you would refrain from giving life-saving treatment to an otherwise healthy infant who objected to the treatment. Is that overstating it? If so, what about a four-year-old – and if the result is different, why?

38. Actually, I agree with you in general, but not for an otherwise healthy child, especially under the circumstances we’ve been discussing.

    My question would be: why? Why should being otherwise healthy negate the right to decide the course of your life?

    I suspect, and I could very well be wrong, that the discomfort here has less to do with health than to do with the circumstances surrounding the choice, the suspicion that the choice has not been made of the person’s own free will but is instead the result of coercion. Thats a real concern, and it does make this a very difficult hypothetical, but I worry about the idea of giving doctors or the state the power to veto what would otherwise be a personal decision based on the suspicion that coercion might be taking place. In this specific case the end result might be good (thats probably even the likely outcome) but I shudder to think how this power will be used in the hands of many doctors and politicians.

    I’d say the court and the child’s doctors get to decide. Courts are especially skilled in making decisions about autonomy. They do it all day and I think we’ve reached the conclusion that they are the absolute worst decisionmakers except for everyone else.

    I’d argue that courts aren’t good arbiters of autonomy. They’re certainly good arbiters of the previous generation’s social mores, but beyond that…

    And I really don’t like the idea of doctors having special power to overrule individuals. I’ve run into too many doctors who’ve decided that because I’m disabled or because I’m not an M.D. they don’t really need to explain whats going on. I’ve even been threatened with sedation for refusing to comply with treatment until it was explained exactly whats going on. I have a chronically mentally ill patient right now who’s language abilities have been permanently damaged because of repeated uses of powerful sedatives to ensure they’re compliance.

    What you’re proposing is substituting one coercive set of completely subjective social values for another set of completely subjective coercive values. I just think that kind of approach needs to be discussed, analyzed, and used in only the most dire of circumstances.

    As for second-guessing a medical decision of the child, I suspect (though only suspect) you’d be willing to do so in other circumstances. If the child, for example, announced that the Easter Bunny forbade him from taking antibiotics, would you respect the child’s judgment and let him die?

    That would have a lot to do with the age (just like any case). If we’re talking about someone in their teens, probably. I’d talk, urge, argue, plead, but at the end of the day I just couldn’t justify strapping someone down and forcing them to undergo a procedure they don’t want.

    The hypothetical you’re suggesting seems to conflate sincerely held religious belief with mental illness (or, at the very least, foolishness) and, as a result, disregard personal decisions stemming from it. Further, you’re implicitly advocating the use of force to ensure compliance with what you deem appropriate because of your view of the world. “Your beliefs are silly, do what I say or I’ll make you do it.” That seems a dangerous path to go down. Thats the same logic (with a marginally different starting point) that was (and still is) used to justify imperialism, racism, sexism, and plenty of other garbage.

    The value is “protect children from nonsense that might kill them, because they won’t get a second chance.”

    Who defines “nonesense,” and what is the standard used to determine if it “might” kill them? Thats the core of my concern here. That categorical imperative has been used to justify as many horrors as it has wonders. It also has built into it the culturally specific value that life has some inherant value. I’m not saying it doesn’t (I tend to believe it does, in most cases). I’m saying that I’m always concerned when we, as a society, decide to inflict our beliefs on someone else. It is doubtlessly necessary in some cases, but the tendency a lot of people have to constantly expand the power of government to enforce compliance to social norms disturbs me.

    Age of consent. Juvenile justice. Contract law. Labor law. Driving privileges. Smoking. Drinking. Compulsory education. Vaccination.

    Would you argue that the right call has been made on most of those? That it takes more maturity to buy a beer than a gun? That you can be sentenced to life for a crime committed before you were old enough to have a work permit? Is smoking a more dangerous activity than operating a motor vehicle? Even these “standards” are fluid and changing. The age of consent varies from state to state, as does the age of majority. Vaccination requirements are routinely waved not only for those with religious concerns, but for those who fear the possible negative effects of vaccination. The age at which someone can drop out of school is not the same everywhere. These are not set standards, they are subjective (and generally arbitrary) decisions made by various officials based on a great number of concerns (child welfare often being towards the bottom of the list).

    A child or an adult? For a child, certainly at 100% probability of death. The lower you go, the less certain I am and the less likely to take action. I don’t see this as affecting the underlying value, though. The decreasing probability decreases the likelihood that the principle applies, as well.

    But the idea you’re proposing would likely extend far beyond 100% probability of death. The law is not designed to deal with those kinds of nuances. I simply don’t believe that legislators, courts, and doctors are suddenly going to show restraint when granted this new power. They haven’t in the past, I don’t see why they will now. Too many doctors already view their patient’s bodies as their own personal playgrounds. Too many doctors see themselves as medical patriarchs, not as well-paid mechanics.

    If I understand the principles you have in mind, you would refrain from giving life-saving treatment to an otherwise healthy infant who objected to the treatment.

    An infant cannot form consent, they are essentially reflexive creatures, effectively unaware of their world, and they are certainly unable to consider the consequences of their actions in any way.

    If so, what about a four-year-old – and if the result is different, why?

    For me it comes down to development. A four year old, while certainly more aware than an infant, isn’t really capable of thinking about the future or understanding the consequences of their actions in anything more than an immediate way. I wouldn’t argue that a 4 year old (or even a 7 year old) is unable to make decisions. I’d even go an extra step and say that the state should sometimes step in and override parents of very young children in extreme cases. For me the tipping point starts to come somewhere between 10 and 12, although individual differences in maturation means all 12 year olds aren’t likely to be equal.

    Its a complicated issue and I’m not convinced there is a right answer (if there is, I surely don’t have it). I’d think using similar situations could be helpful. At what age can you be tried as an adult for murder? At what age can you have sex with someone of a similar age and not have it be statutory rape? At what age would you be allowed to make medical decisions in opposition to your parent’s opinion? At what age can you become an emancipated minor? All of these things get to the core question: how old does someone have to be to understand the consequences of serious actions. I think I’d be comfortable with something like 13 or 14 being the age at which medical autonomy is established, and I think 16 would be a bit old. But, thats me. I’m sure others will have a different opinion. I think the discussion alone, regardless of whether anyone agrees at the end, is valuable.

39. Wow. That is a lot of information to react to. That said, I really was fascinated by all the questions brought up. It’s given me a lot to think about. It’s a touchy subject to discuss the age that youth should be allowed bodily autonomy. I agree that 18 or even 16 is too old. But how can you really be sure, especially when every case is so specific? Another question would be to wonder if bodily autonomy should be divided according to the specific issue. Meaning, should the age for a teen being able to decide whether or not to get an abortion be the same as the age for a Jehovah’s Witness deciding to risk it all and save their own life with a blood tranfusion? It seems as though choosing an age for bodily autonomy would cover both cases. But the two situations are really so different, and if you factor in all other possible cases, it’s nearly impossible to pick an age that works for everyone. My personal opinion is that, if you are old enough to concieve a child, you are old enough to make the decision of what to do next. So in terms of abortion, I think all young girls should be able to make that choice about thier own bodies. About Jehovah’s Witnesses, that merits some disussion, and I have no good answer.

40. Another question would be to wonder if bodily autonomy should be divided according to the specific issue. Meaning, should the age for a teen being able to decide whether or not to get an abortion be the same as the age for a Jehovah’s Witness deciding to risk it all and save their own life with a blood tranfusion?

    I do agree that there are magnitudes of difference between getting an abortion and refusing life saving treatment. I guess for me the question really boils down to: at what age do we respect someone’s decision to end their own life? Thats a tough enough question without adding the really difficult religious/social coercion dimension.

    The Jehova’s Witness thing becomes really sticky for because of the end results: regardless of what happens. On the one side you have someone who is stating their intent, but as a society we worry about the finality of their decision and whether they really made it of their own free will or if they’re deciding to die because they fear the social consequences of accepting life saving treatment. The fear there, as I see it, is that the child is having their freedom of choice removed by coercive social ecpectation (the Jehova’s Witnesses). The problem is that, baring some kind of direct signal from the child that they’re being coerced, the only solution is to violate the stated intent of the child based upon our own social expectations. In both cases you have people doing something “for the child’s own good” and in both cases that something is essentially taking away any agency the child might have. Thats a just plain shitty situation, but I don’t really see any alternatives.

41. Stephanie,

    My evidence is the same as yours. I’m judging from what people who have been baptized young and later left the faith have said along with what I’ve witnessed with my own eyes. Are you using anything different from that? We could both hope that baptizing adolescents is a very rare thing but does the governing body up there in Brooklyn actually release the data so we could get some real numbers to look at here? I’ve looked and I haven’t found it. If you could point it out to me where they have, I’d greatly appreciate it.

    I disagree with you about whether a person who idolizes their parent has any business dedicating themselves to God. I see nothing wrong with such a dedication. This dedication can potentially motivate a child to strive to adhere to a certain standard that could be beneficial. What I see as problematic is when adults drill it into a child that they have a religious duty to act on that dedication by becoming a full-fledged member of the congregation even if they are a little kid.

    With regards to whether JWs are allowed to have “friends in the faith and out”, I’m afraid the organization’s own literature just doesn’t back up your claim. One of my relatives recently gave my daughter a copy of the latest “Questions Young People Ask” book. In it, in the second paragraph on page 144,

    “After all, to remain close friends with someone, you need to share that one’s interests and values. If you forge close friendships with people who don’t adhere to your Scriptural beliefs and standards, such association is bound to affect your conduct. For good reason, the apostle Paul wrote: ‘Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers.'”

    on page 146:

    “Similarly, at school you’re surrounded by people who lack the protection that comes from being one of Jehovah’s friends. If you were to abandon Jehovah’s standards just to be close to your classmates, you would only endanger your own spiritual health and happiness. How much better it would be if you tried to help your classmates join you in the lifeboat, so to speak, by showing them how to serve Jehovah.”

    If you want to check out what their website says, How Can I Avoid Getting Involved With the Wrong People? might be a good start. I have no doubt that some JW teens may have non-JW friends but the religion definitely teaches that this is not right. Your statement seemed a little ambiguous in a way, too. Were you saying “false” to the part that I wrote about JW teens not being allowed to communicate with disfellowshipped JWs? If so, I’d appreciate it if you could point me to any info to back that up.

    This isn’t about whether miracles are possible. I think I can make a pretty strong case for the existence of miracles by simply relating my own experience with chest surgeries and disabilities. The thing is, for every example that you can name where someone didn’t die despite not listening to their doctor, we could all name someone who DID die just like the doctor told them they would if they continued on a particular course of action. What you were calling bullying is really no different from what JWs do when they knock on people’s doors early in the morning. I can’t even count how many times my family has tried to tell me about the “life-saving message” that they are convinced is the only thing that will save me from the Armageddon where God is going to smite all the non-believers. They think they are telling me what I need to consider in order to have a shot at saving my life. Okay, I understand that. That’s why it’s also understandable to me for a doctor to ask those kinds of questions to someone like your grandmother. When I was going through my surgeries, I was a single mom. I’m glad that my doctors seriously discussed all of the possibilities with me so that I could make an informed decision. Anything less would have been unethical.

    You wrote

    “But what I’m referring to is that a teen who’s one of Jehovah’s Witnesses understands that having an abortion is a serious act of presumptuousness in thinking that an imperfect human, rather than God (the creator and giver of life), can decide the fate of a life.”

    That’s a mighty big assumption that just doesn’t match up with the facts. In reality, people who are JWs disagree about this stuff too. If they all felt the same way, the guys up there in the grand authoritative council wouldn’t be constantly having to deal with disfellowshipping JWs who didn’t abide by this doctrine. It’s the same for JW women as it is for other women. They are just as capable of independent thought as anyone else. It’s not about whether you have a strong belief in God. Contrary to what the JW organization teaches, one can have a faith in God that is equal to or even above that of your average JW and still not agree with your religion’s doctrines. Of course, if you’re taught that the world is just full of bad people who don’t actually read the Bible for themselves, then it’s easy to think that JWs are different from the rest of the world because they/you are more devout. If you really want to see just how much JW ideas about abortion vary from what you’ve stated, just ask around about what’s the correct thing to do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. If what you’re stating is true, then the JW organization would be against women having abortions in those cases. But guess what? It’s considered an exception to the rule. The ruling is that it’s not really an abortion because you’re just getting the tube removed and as a result the fetus gets aborted but since there’s an excuse that they find valid, it’s not considered an offense.

    God is real to you. Okay, congratulations. You officially have something in common with almost everyone else on this planet. The vast majority of the Earth’s population would say that they truly believe that there is a God. However, that doesn’t mean that what you’re believing in is really of value. If you think that simply believing that you’re doing God’s will is something honorable, then do you have any idea what sort of behavior you’re condoning? How many horrendous actions have people made because they were convinced that there was a paradise awaiting them if they just followed orders? And, you know, I have no problem if you’re willing to die for a cause. The issue is should a parent be able to decide that it’s better for their child to die than to do everything possible to give the child a chance at life. When I was 14, I was convinced that I knew what I wanted out of life and what direction I was going to go in. If a person never changes his mind about life between when they are 14 and when they are a decade or two older, then there’s something seriously wrong.

    The thing about societal or religious pressure is that it’s often so ingrained that we can’t see just how much it may or may not be affecting our decision to do something that (coincidentally?) coincides exactly with what that society or religion is telling you that you’d better do or face ostracism. If I told my daughter that I wouldn’t hug or kiss her anymore if she pierced her bellybutton, she might decide not to get it pierced but can anyone prove that her decision isn’t largely influenced by the fact that she doesn’t want to ever be deprived of my affection?

    Lastly, about this: “what have you seen that makes you say that girls who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are less able to “survive on their own” (what is this, the jungle?) than boys are?”

    I’m going to be provocative too. No, it’s not the jungle. It’s the patriarchal cult that thinks teaching kids to be martyrs is noble.

42. William,

    My problem is with the door we’re opening. I’d be uncomfortable with the idea of the state telling a 14 year old that she couldn’t (or had to) have an abortion. I think that would be a violation of the 14 year old’s rights, especially their right to bodily autonomy. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of that same 14 year old who grew up in a bullying culture deciding not to take a blood transfusion because of social consequences. The thing is I can’t really think of an internally consistent value that would allow this hypothetical 14 year old to make their own choice about an abortion but not about a blood transfusion.

    Well, that’s sort of my problem with this too. This gets to the heart of what I struggle with here–is there a consistent value that could allow for one but not the other? This is a big issue for PWD (people with disabilities) because society has already decided that it’s acceptable for other people (e.g. doctors, family members, court appointed guardians) to make the decision to “pull the plug” on people who have no expressed any desire for that to be done to them. In fact, it occasionally pulls the plug on people even though the person has expressly stated that they wanted to be allowed to continue receiving treatment.

    If you had a father who openly believed that it was his duty to rape his daughter on her 13th birthday, would you wait until she was 12 and a half to take her out of the house? If you honestly believe that bringing children up as Jehova’s Witnesses is inherently abusive then you should take the children out of those homes from day one,

    This isn’t about whether bringing up a child as a JW is inherently abusive. There are so many ways of being a JW that it really comes down to is whether the person is refusing medical treatment for their child because of their religious beliefs that the child might or might not share.

    But, I’m guessing you don’t quite see the peculiar beliefs of Jehovas Witnesses as the same as a multigenerational pattern of rape. Theres a difference. One is uncomfortable and terribly sad, the other is monstrous.

    Maybe I haven’t really been very clear then. I do see refusing medical treatment for your child with no regard to whether it may kill them as quite monstrous. As a parent, it sickens me to my heart that someone would sacrifice their child for their religion. I keep thinking about those stories in the Bible where it was said that worshippers of Molech were putting their infants into the temple fire. One could say that doing this was an uncomfortable and terribly sad situation and I think there are plenty of folks who would see it that way, but then there are those who would see this as a horrendous practice and I’m not sure I could say they were wrong for feeling that way. Ironically, the God of the Bible seems to take the latter position as expressed in Leviticus

    The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

    I’m not comfortable with the idea of this kind of power in the hands of the Bush administration. However, that’s the same reaons why I’m not comfortable with this kind of power being in the hands of a group of men anonymously making these decisions for people they will never meet nor am I comfortable with the fact that society already has a tendency to want to dispose of all it’s “defective” members and that all these decisions are being made within that context.

43. Please watch the new YouTube video on Child Baptism just added Sept 5.

    It contains direct quotes from the Watchtower Society’s publications.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l8ELIQEdZE

44. You people seem to miss the point of why a child would refuse a blood transfusion. It is not for their parent or for their friends or for any one else… It is for their God. They have read for themselves in their own Bibles and have learned what their God asks of them and they trust that God… as their studies have proved to them no doubt, not one word of HIS has ever failed. I do not force my children to believe what I believe. I do ask them to ask their own questions and to look it up and see for themselves what God’s Word has to say concerning the matter. They have resources outside of the Watchtower, such as Encyclopedia’s and several Bible versions..and so much more. No parent wishes to lose a child in death. Especially not a Witness Parent. That is why we educate our children on the value of life, asking them not to take it for granted. To make wise choices. But to always remember who gave them that life.. because if something should happen he can restore that life. In fact , he promises to do so and not just for the good -see John 5:28,29 and Acts 24:15. If you had faith in your God and trusted him the way that these children do then you would support them in this most difficult of decisions but it is most obvious that you do not. How is it that you the created presume to tell the creator what is acceptable and what is not? Isaiah 48:17, 18. Read your Bible before you go condemning… really…it’s in their people.

45. Oh, and as for the question of rather that same child should have the right to choose to have an abortion… I say that she..just like every person created by God has the free will to choose. You might think of this though before saying she would be shunned for such a decision… It is more likely that she would be shunned or disfellowshipped for the wrongdoing that got her pregnant to begin with. My girls know that their life is valuable and they know that their God loves them…which makes them strong. They learn to take in knowledge for themselves instead of relying on what others say. I have taught them that. Because my God taught me to do that. He really is a God of true freedom. You should learn more about him.

46. So I guess we’re both just speculating on the baptizing children issue. But I would point out something conciliatory: sometimes, it may be a cultural issue, rather than a doctrinal one. You will find the same religious ideas being taught at any Kingdom Hall you go to in the world; you won’t necessarily find the same enactments of overriding principles. A huge example would be the guidelines of dress and modesty – very big differences between, say, the Western world, Latin America, and Africa; even, in the United States, between, say, the Midwest and the more urban areas. And another commenter talked about husband-hunting being foisted on teen girls. Unfortunately, I’ve seen that too. But again, culture. I’ve been in Spanish-speaking congregations (filled with, I’d say, mostly Mexicans, with a smattering of Cubans, and a few South Americans from I can’t remember where), and I’ve been in WASP-y, English-speaking congregations. The husband hunting that occurred in the Hispanic congregations was much more a function of Latin culture than it was some kind of twisted enforcement of Scripture or giving away of daughters. So yeah, I’ve seen problems come. But Witnesses aren’t claiming to be perfect; in fact, I’d say the problem I have with much organized religion is their elevation of one human (e.g. the Pope; a reverend (*cough*extortioner*cough*) of a megachurch) to infallibility status, which is something Witnesses condemn. But things ultimately get straightened out; or if they don’t (and I’ve seen that too), then God’s keeping account as well; patience and trust, patience and trust. And to finish out my point … I haven’t seen any indications of marriage-hurrying in the English congregations where I’ve spent most of my life (believe me, I’m still single). So … culture.

    Now, you wrote:

    I disagree with you about whether a person who idolizes their parent has any business dedicating themselves to God. I see nothing wrong with such a dedication. This dedication can potentially motivate a child to strive to adhere to a certain standard that could be beneficial. What I see as problematic is when adults drill it into a child that they have a religious duty to act on that dedication by becoming a full-fledged member of the congregation even if they are a little kid.

    Well, I hate to turn this into “it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is,” but the word “dedication” has a very strong meaning for Witnesses. It’s not just some lighthearted New Year’s Resolution kind of thing, to try to do something “that could be beneficial.” It IS a very serious obligation and promise to act in certain ways and believe certain things (though obviously, only the former can actually be ensured), so what I was trying to say was that children, who still see the world through rose-tinted glasses and most probably have been sheltered from the craziness of the world no matter what their religious background, should not be making such a serious decision.

    About friends – more semantics, and sorry about the ambiguity (yes, Witnesses are expected to avoid contact with disfellowshipped people).

    Every Witness, adult and child, has to decide the degree of closeness they develop with any non-Witnesses. I doubt that, if you asked a Witness who their best friend is, they would answer you a non-Witness. At the same time, depending on any number of circumstances, maybe the Witness has more “friends” outside the congregation than inside the congregation, but is closer with their friends that are inside the congregation. You see what I mean? Gradation. Even the YPA book says “close” friends, too.

    You wrote:

    The thing is, for every example that you can name where someone didn’t die despite not listening to their doctor, we could all name someone who DID die just like the doctor told them they would if they continued on a particular course of action.

    I know that. I was just trying to point out that both instances do occur.

    You wrote:

    What you were calling bullying is really no different from what JWs do when they knock on people’s doors early in the morning […] I’m glad that my doctors seriously discussed all of the possibilities with me so that I could make an informed decision. Anything less would have been unethical.

    I’m really going to have to beg to differ on that one. Huge difference. There are awkward, regrettable anomalies, but 95% of the time, Witnesses leave when people say they’re not interested. If I weren’t a Witness, I would view door-knocking Witnesses just like any other habitual stranger trying to talk to me – “Damn, those people are annoying. I’m going back to bed …” Nothing near bullying. (But believe me, I dislike the good-intentioned-but-really-obnoxious Witnesses who talk your ear off against your will just as much as you do.)

    And let me tell you, “serious discussion” to facilitate “an informed decision” is a far cry from verbal and emotional abuse by a professional.

    Faith and devotion are gray-area terms in a polytheistic world, so I’m not going to get into that right now. But about ectopic pregnancies: (since you seem to be familiar with Witness literature: 3/15/75 WT p. 191-2)

    A possible or potential danger, even a grave one, does not justify taking matters into one’s own hands and deliberately cutting off the life of the child in the womb. [However, ….]

    A tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube [the Fallopian tube]; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born. [Italics added]

    No way am I saying that simply believing in God makes consequent actions honorable. You’re absolutely right that abhorrent actions are performed in the name of holy things. But as the comments for this thread suggest, the integration of legal and religious is a sticky situation, and given your familiarity with Witnesses, you’d know that I’m not trying to position on the political side of things. I was just trying to straighten out misrepresentations of Witnesses, as well as give some personal experience like you did. And yeah, I guess I do think that there are some ideas that can be thought of as an adolescent and that can last you through your adult years. Or maybe I was just a mature 14-year-old.

    Dying for a cause? Really, I just took a break from laughing so hard; ‘conformist’ is the absolute last adjective any person (Witness or no) would use to describe me. ‘Teaching kids to be martyrs’ is repulsive, and given what I’ve just said about decision-making in the views of Witnesses, I think it’s untrue to say that that’s something Witnesses do.

47. Pingback: Recent Links Tagged With "argument" - JabberTags

Comments are currently closed.