Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan
That does seem like a pretty strange belief to me to willingly let 5 of the 6 children die before they're even two months old. I guess that's what would have happened in 1860, but we have global medicare now and have made advances in medicine. Maybe they should consider the occasional advancement in religious beliefs?
|
Consider another 'advancement' (that is a loaded word). Patient autonomy, patient's rights, and the notion of the patient as consumer are all relatively recent phenomena, arising primarily in the sixties. Before that, medical patriarchy ruled the day. Jehovah's Witnesses nor any other patients would generally not have been able to refuse treatment once the doctor ordered it. If a doctor said you required amputation, usually that's what you would have gotten. Your disabled child might have faced forced sterilisation, and there would be no stopping it. If you were dying a slow and agonising death you could not refuse ventilator treatment. If a doctor said you needed a Caesarian section, you had no choice but to go under the knife.
So, in earlier times, there would not have been a big issue about this (unless you were a Jehovah's Witness). The children would receive treatment, like it or not. By institution patient autonomy however, our society faces new challenges. What is more important, the right to choose what happens to your own body or the preservation of life at all costs?
Obviously in this case there is a complicating matter, that of guardianship. Clearly these children were incompetent to make their own decisions, whether about their bodies or about their religious values. But when a patient is incompetent who should make decisions on their behalf? A loved one, such as a parent, or the state? If the state is the guardian, whose values will it implement? Is the preservation of life at all costs a universal value, one that should override any other views?
The standpoint of Jehovah's witnesses on the issue of blood transfusions has not changed at all over the course of history. It was still that way when attitudes toward the medical profession changed enough to allow patients to decide what they would do with their own bodies, for better or worse. So is it fair to blame religion for not 'advancing'? Or should we blame the patient's rights movement for enabling these believers to practice what they preach?