Boy refuses blood transfusion,dies.

[Bugman]

A 14 year old boy died Wednesday of leukemia after refusing a blood transfusion on religious grounds.Dennis Lindberg was being raised by an aunt,a Jehovah's Witness.

Since being diagnosed last November he had been taking chemo treatments but doctors stopped a week ago because his blood count was to low.The state of Washington had filed a motion to force the transfusion but it was denied by Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer.So the question is,should a 14 year old have the right to make such a life and death decision?

I seem to recall some similar cases over the years and as best i can recall the courts have always ruled against the states.I'm not sure how i fell about something like this.Doctors gave the boy a 70 percent chance of living another five years with the transfusion and the resumption of chem😵pinions anyone?

You can read the story at www.msnbc.com.

 

[lk70]

He absolutely had the right to make the decision he did. The government does NOT belong in this sort of situation.

I often wonder why simply "living" is considered the best option. Having a transfusion, which you believe would jeopardize your afterlife, then living another 5 years while undergoing chemo... Well I think it's perfectly valid that he opted not to do that.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

Wouldn't the choice have been left up to his aunt, as she is his gardian and hes a minor?

 

[tcklft]

Well, it's a shame the kid didn't make it, but he got what he wanted, presumably died with a clear conscience, and now there's more food and water for the rest of us. Ya gotta look on the bright side....

 

[aurora5150]

close friends of my family, the husbands mother developed stomach cancer. the docs said they could remove the tumor and with chemo she'd most likely live. i don't remember the numbers but her survival rate was extreamly high.

she refused the surgery. she did go to chemo treatments but after a while the tumor got bigger and her life expantcy kept dropping. finally after it was too late she decided she wanted the surgery. the docs told her that she waited too long and now the tumor was inoperable. and unfortunately she did pass away.

now as for the little boy in my opinion he did have the right to refuse any medical attention offered. i know he was a minor but if i remember correctly that regardless of your age and as long as a person is of sound mind they have the right to refuse any medical treatment even if it's the difference between life and death.

do i think it's right? well i'm just gonns apply my answer to myself. if it were me and i made the choice to not receive medical treatment and it was forced upon me, i'd be pissed. because no one has the right to tell me what i can and can't do with my body. but in reference to others.......well i think it's a personal choice and that coice should be respected. i don't think it's right or wrong i think it's up to the individual. BUT...this is only my opinion as it applies to me.

 

[Bugman]

Wouldn't the choice have been left up to his aunt, as she is his gardian and hes a minor?

Cosmo the boys parents who live in Idaho were going to file a lawsuit claming his aunt excerted undue influence on him to make the choice he did.It was not mentioned in the article if the aunt had legal custody or if it was a family decision.The doctors told the parents the boy had likely suffered brain damage by Tuesday night and they made the choice not to intervene.

 

[BigJim]

In my opinion, he has the right to make that call, providing it's proveable that he isn't a brainwashed kid who's just repeating something like a mantra. He's got to be able to understand every implication.

One thing I am personally sick of is government interfering in cases like this. There was a kid called Benny from Florida who was a multiple transplantee and the anti-rejection drugs were destroying his quality of life. He and his family made the decision to withdraw them, knowing full well that he'd feel great for a few weeks, then die as the organs failed. That was an informed decision they all took.

The government took out injunctions and forcibly kidnapped him from his home, conveyed him to hospital and forced the drugs into him against his and his parents will. That was disgusting.

Considering this is a government who can back a decision to let someone like Terry Schiavo (sp?) die (or her body die anyway - medical opinion was that she was brain dead anyway, although how someone can smile and react to stimuli when they're brain dead is beyond me - I am no doctor however) over a protracted period of weeks by starvation because it hasn't got the guts to honestly euthanise her, I think the situation is both hideous and hypocritical.

 

[BigJim]

Cosmo the boys parents who live in Idaho were going to file a lawsuit claming his aunt excerted undue influence on him to make the choice he did.It was not mentioned in the article if the aunt had legal custody or if it was a family decision.The doctors told the parents the boy had likely suffered brain damage by Tuesday night and they made the choice not to intervene.

If the parents are right, then I'd say the government had every right to intervene. If that was the situation, then it wasn't an informed decision. Of course, it also makes it obvious that we need to know all the facts of the lad's circumstances.

 

[subZer0]

My concern would have been:

Because of his age, did he have enough emotional maturity to reach and understand that decision properly?

Or did he have some help from brainwashing?

Each to their own, I suppose.

But, I think that until a person is deemed to be at a more developed stage of emotional maturity, these decisions should not be left to a minor. Consider this: would the same decision have happened if it were a younger boy? A minor is a minor, after all. I don't believe this was his own decision; if it was, I believe he would have been brainwashed in order to do it. Kids just don't make these decisions on their own.

 

[BigJim]

The be fair, this was a very old kid. Some do have strongly formed opinions by that age.

 

[subZer0]

The be fair, this was a very old kid. Some do have strongly formed opinions by that age.

14 years old? That's no age to decide such a thing. They are in the process of maturity - even if they have strongly formed opinions by that age, they aren't as informed as those of a fully mature adult.

 

[BigJim]

14 years old? That's no age to decide such a thing. They are in the process of maturity - even if they have strongly formed opinions by that age, they aren't as informed as those of a fully mature adult.

That logic could go one forever though. A 22 year old is a fully mature adult physically, but wouldn't touch a 55 year old with a full life for wisdom and so on. You think certain decisions should be staggered for adults too?

 

[tcklft]

Considering how immature and uninformed many adults are, I have no problem with letting a 14 year old decide his fate.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

personally, i have many conflicting views on this subject. Suicide is against the law, but denying ourselves treatment that is the only way for us not to die is legal. Children are allowed to make decisions like this, but they aren;t allowed to drink, gamble or smoke until they reach a certain age. Parents seem to be able to deny their kids medical treatment on religious grounds, but if a child is housed in a dangerous inviroment, the government has no problem interceding, even if that child wanted to stay in that enviroment. Just rambling here i guess...

 

[Mz Chaos]

It never ceases to amaze me the way people are when it comes not only to the freedom of religion, the approach to a persons dying wishes and the want to extend a life cursed with terminal illness.

If our pet has a tumor, blood disorder, heart disease, etc. we euthanize the animal to end it's suffering. It's the humane thing to do. Why make the animal suffer any more than need be. Yet when that same circumstance applies to humans we tend to want to draw that suffering out as long as we possibly can.

And since when can't a 14 year old make the decision to be true to the religion he has chosen? Be the person be a Catholic, Baptist, Mormon or Jew, who are we to say a person has to abandon their religious beliefs just because of an illness?

If the boy was tired of the pain and sickness that he has obviously lived with for years, if he didn't want to go through the awful side effects that chemo tends to manifest just to live 5 more years, then I say let him have his wish.

Not only did his decision end his suffering, but it also ended the suffering of his loved ones from having to watch him go through that. I think he made a damned good decision and I'm even happier that he isn't hurting and suffering anymore.

 

[kis123]

My emotions on this situation are mixed; part of me thinks he had the right to live and die as he chose to-it was his life and his decision to make. On the other hand, if it were my son or daughter, I'd fight tooth and nail to save their lives even if it meant defying their wishes. That's the selfish mom in me talking folks, it might not be right, but it's real!!

Since my son is 22 and my daughter almost 18, the only thing I can do now is encourage them to fight for their lives but would abide by their wishes as long as they weren't in a suicidal state when the decision was made.

Years ago, I worked at Rainbow Babies and Childrens hospital for 6 years and you name it, I saw it. One parent lost custody of her child because they were so-called "non compliant" with treatments. They were Jehovas Witnesses and the hospital and county just took custody away from them. Funny, when one "mother" beat her child nearly to death because she wouldn't eat her dinner, no one was going out of their way to remove the child from the environment then. That was 10 years ago; if the poor thing is still alive, she has no spleen and will receive dialysis for the rest of her life since her mother's assault left her with damaged liver and kidneys. She was only 17 months old at the time.

These "organizations" pick and choose who's worth saving and who (in their opinion) isn't. They wouldn't do anything for the 2.2kilo 5 month old found in the dumpster by cats (that's about 11 lbs for us American folk), but they'd take a child away from a single mom who only wanted to follow her faith and the child was in agreement. Sometimes, this world sucks!!!!

 

[BigJim]

I know exactly what you mean Kis, and agree with every word. It reminds me of ACLU, which on the face of it is an organisation every Westerner would want to join, but is actually a self-serving pile of shite run by people who suck up to the media for their own reasons.

Grandstanding.

 

[subZer0]

That logic could go one forever though. A 22 year old is a fully mature adult physically, but wouldn't touch a 55 year old with a full life for wisdom and so on. You think certain decisions should be staggered for adults too?

But 14 years old is too young.

 

[BigJim]

Most 14 year olds are: some are exceptional. Not saying it was in this case, but some are. I was.

 

[subZer0]

But that's my reasoning, Jim. Sure, we don't have any (that I know of) indication of how mature he was, but, with Jehova's Witnesses, there is an element of 'brainwashing' to be considered. I believe that it was this, along with the fact that Jehova's Witnesses tend to be more strict in their religious practice towards themselves and their families than other denominations, that exerted the pressure on this boy to make that decision.

 

[BigJim]

With most religions, if not all, there is an element of brainwashing with topics which leave those outside of the conditioning process scratching their head in beweilderment. In this instance it was unfortunately a case of life and death.