The courts and blood transfusions
Thanks to Rebecca for sending me this story from the BBC News site. The court upheld a previous legal ruling that against Miss K’s wishes it was legal for her to be given a blood transfusion, after a hemorrhage from giving birth. Her refusal is based on the Jehovah’s Witness doctrine that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood and that the blood is sacred unto god.
In many ways the court has upheld reason and science. For one, drinking blood and having a transfusion is not the same thing. It is the only medical treatment that in a critical blood loss could make a difference – there is no substitute that could work in time. To deny medical treatments based on the superstitions of people that were ignorant of biology thousands of years ago is not one that can be held to be reasonable.
However, did the courts have the moral right to overturn a person’s decision on their treatment – even though it is based on ignorance of the human body, superstition and belief in the supernatural? I have argued that a person has the right to refuse treatment, but not for those reasons for their child – that is nothing less than child abuse, and no hospital or court should cave in to such irrationality.
However the only way that I can try and say that this libertarian instinct on individual rights can be overturned would be if the decision of an autonomous, rational, self-willing human being’s judgment on this issue is impaired. That the decision is based on false information, that the decision is based on fear of the local Kingdom Hall, fear of a wrathful god, and the hope that death in this situation is a passport to a paradise earth after Armageddon.
With regards the protocol that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are calling for should a blood transfusion be issued to a believer – I hope this is rejected out of hand. The claims that medical treatment is a personal choice is lost when the clergy are allowed to make representations for their faith. The ultimate decision must rest with the patient and the doctor. Further, the doctor is probably the very first qualified medical person that can explain what a blood transfusion is and how the human body works – free from endless biblical quotations and references to what the great big scary sky fairy has said (attributed).
I have argued that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult (and follow up blog here). In no way can a fully indoctrinated person be said to be autonomous in the situation of deciding to have a blood transfusion. It is not based on an open minded analysis of what the bible means, of independent thought, nor subject to outside scrutiny. To challenge the Society on this issue is to risk disfellowshipping, and those within the organisation that are campaigning do so in the shadows. As an unbeliever, my views can be considered a part of this world run by Satan – indeed according to the super-naturalism of their dogma I could be writing this blog inspired by the devil in the same way the bible writers were inspired by god.
The court’s decision can be supported in that it does not allow for the tyranny on the human mind of ignorant superstition that goes against the welfare of the patient. Because the patient did not consent they have technically not sinned in the eyes of their god – indeed one may rationalise that this is the best outcome for someone in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and that this dogma produces such hypocrisy as a “Get out of Shoal” card.
To refuse the treatment goes against the welfare of the patient, the welfare of their child who would have grown up without her natural mother. It goes against the welfare of society that would be deprived of someone that could make a contribution as a citizen. The only winner with her death would have been superstition and the power of group rule mentality that indoctrinates people to refuse all other things but what the group teachings, and their hegemony in all matters to do with living, nature and cosmology – the total acceptance that the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society knows best the will of god, that his name is Jehovah and that only they will be saved.
I hope that people will one day grow intolerant of people propagating a false view that literally is a matter of life and death. If you do too please consider organising a blood drive as part of the “Blood Challenge – Life Over Death”.
Great post. I disagree with many points you make, but I don’t have to agree with you to enjoy the reading for information on various perspectives.
Re: your statement
“However the only way that I can try and say that this libertarian instinct on individual rights can be overturned would be if the decision of an autonomous, rational, self-willing human being’s judgment on this issue is impaired.”
You then go ahead and reveal that you include individuals under what you feel is religion under the category of “impaired.” You must think very highly of your intelligence, considering you see people with faith in a creator as “irrational.” Besides, whose definition of “rationality” are we using as a norm? Yours? Many Christians have embraced their faith as well as science but would not agree with your perspective of rationality, which basically implies that you would be irrational to them. Your statements in your blog are based on some of your core beliefs as well. If you choose to belief that the monkey at the zoo is un-evolved cousin Ed, feel free to do so.
So let’s say suddenly some ruler takes over your world and sees rationality differently from you, does that imply that your rights be removed? According to my interpretation of your text, yes. My point being, rationality itself is a very relative term. And not to support Jehovah Witnesses in particular, but as a social group they see themselves as rational because their interpretation of rationality is based on a different set of core beliefs.
Also in a previous post you mentioned something about Abraham of the Bible wielding a knife over his child. That is not true. Isaac, his son, was in his 30s. Def. not a child. Also if you include the context you’d be painting a picture of a God testing obedience rather than some universal mind-control guru that took a hold of them, or some other frenzy caused by delusions they invented. From an academic standpoint, you would not want to be found out quoting other literature out of context, neither should you do the same for the Bible.
Anyhow, interesting stuff, keep typing away. Random Q, do you get paid to type these posts, or do you blog out of pure interest?
LJ
April 29, 2008 at 3:50 am
I have indicated that the view on blood that Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) feel is impaired by their interpretation of the bible. That follows from how everyone else interprets the scriptures they use in support of their stance, and the consequences of this belief.
They are irrational because it is clear from the scriptures that this is based on superstition of what blood is; this is very much not a commandment from an almighty god but a supernatural belief in the significance of blood.
In the quote you mention I relate that to the JW stance on blood – not to all religious people, who in more circumstances then not are prepared to use reasoning on moral questions which are independent of supposed moral authority of the bible. The question often boils down to whether there is a rationale for moral behaviour independent of any supposed law giver – which I would argue logically there is.
The defense of this religious belief on the basis of rationale relativism does not hold up to scrutiny. It is only justified on a false view of the bible, a false view of what blood is, and on peer pressure and the brainwashing of a cult. There are, mercifully, not many instances where I would feel a court could overrule the private decisions of an individual but this is definitely one of them – the whole reasoning behind allowing someone to die withholding this treatment is unsound.
With regards the age of Issac, the story is of a father prepared to kill his son as commanded by god. To be honest I think the whole story is a historical narrative (i.e. the event probably never happened). Whether he is a teenager or in his 30s seems from a moral standpoint largely arbitrary. In that post I was quoting Barrack Obama who definitely is under the impression that Isaac was a child – I do not say it myself (I am aware Isaac is regarded by academics as a young man) and if anywhere in my blog I say child I am signifying the relationship between the two (as opposed to the age of Issac) as an example that no parent has the right to take the life of their offspring due to supposed commands by god.
That post can be read here: http://homoeconomicusnet.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/barack-obama-on-abraham-and-isaac/
As far as I am aware I have not personally cited that as an example of child abuse, only
that of a parent exercising death over their son based on faith and relating it to a parent denying their child a blood transfusion without which they will die based on faith.
I do not get paid for these posts – purely out of interest on the subject matter I cover.
homoeconomicusnet
May 1, 2008 at 12:13 pm