Does religous belief transcend life?

A 16-year-old male student, identified only by his family name Yoon, died of leukemia in April while refusing a blood transfusion that possibly could have saved his life. It's not the first case of its kind nor the last because Yoon was a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith which follows strict beliefs that blood should not be misused or tampered with under any circumstances. The incident has raised the question in some circles whether parents have the right to deny their children blood transfusions that go against their religious beliefs even when life is at stake. In Korea, children do not come of age until they reach 20, and parents have full control until then. But legal discussions on the issue have been almost nonexistent since doctors usually go along with the decision of parents who reject transfusion for a child.

Under existing law, parents who do not provide medical treatment for their children face up to five years in prison and 15 million won in fines. However, lawyers and Jehovah's Witnesses debate whether the law is applicable since other methods of medical treatment besides blood transfusions are used.

"I repeatedly suggested transfusions to Yoon and his parents, but they didn't accept it," his physician, Kim Jun-hui, at the Inje University Paik Hospital, central Seoul, said. "I feel sorry because there is a high possibility that leukemia, when found at an early stage, can be completely cured with transfusions."

Yoon's leukemia was believed cured in 2003, but it reoccurred when he was studying in Canada in February. In many other countries doctors push for treatment which they think is necessary and the issue has landed before the courts. For example, a Canadian court last month ruled doctors could force a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness to undergo transfusion despite her protests if they deemed it medically necessary. There has been only one related ruling in a Korean court. In 1980 the mother of a 10-year-old girl was imprisoned for rejecting blood transfusions for her daughter, who died from intestinal hemorrhaging.

"Even though she is a mother, she does not have rights to refuse transfusion which a doctor suggested and to lead her (daughter) to die without getting necessary medical treatment," the written judgment said.

There are some 90,000 Jehovah's Witness members in Korea and hospitals estimate there are about 100 cases of treatment at bloodless medical treatment facilities per month. Lawyer Kang Ji-won said the courts should cut across the parental rights of Jehovah's Witness members in urgent cases since children can be misled by their parents.

"At their age, their religious belief is easily hammered (into them) by their parents. It may not be their real intention," said Kang, a well-known juvenile advocate.

But believers say it is hard to find the third person who can take responsibility of the child.

"Who's going to take accountability if the child is dead even after undergoing a transfusion? A doctor? A judge?" Choi Yong-muk, a Jehovah's Witness who deals with the faith's medical affairs here, asked rhetorically.

"It is easy to say that a third party should represent the endangered child, but there is no alternative," said Choi, president of a high-profile English home schooling company.

I would have no problem if it was a 'sure thing' like a transfusion being necessary to sustain life. This is a little more complex since it was only a possible treatment not an imminent life saving necessity.

Child was 16, the child lacks the life experience to do much other than parrot the brainwashing / teachings of his religious upbringing. Child was a MINOR.

On one hand I despise interference but on the other hand this is condoning a kind of reckless homicide on the part of the guardians in the name of *their* religious faith. But if 16 yr olds control their bodies for abortion (by judicial precedent) without parental consent, why should the *parents* be able to withhold lifesaving treatment? That isn't the parent's faith in practice (regarding *their own* health) but rather them extending control over a separate life entirely.

I don't believe crap like this should be allowed when it involves life and death and the life on the line is a minor. Even the repugnant Roe vs. Wade case history acknowledged the Public has a compelling interest in the life of its progeny.

This is consistent with my opposition to so-called religious practice in the form of genital mutilation be it female *or* male circumcisions (two examples). An individual's life (and physical body) is sacrosanct and it is that individual (when grown to maturity)--NOT a parent--who must be allowed to determine relgious-practice based "modifications" or life ending refusal of care. Again the parent is making permanent, irreversible decisions that child will have to either live with forever or die for as in this article's case.

It's one thing for an adult Christian Scientist like Jim Henson to refuse modern treatments and ultimately die. It's entirely *another* thing when the victim is a minor child entrusted to a parent or guardian until legally-recognized maturation.

The life, health and physical wholeness of a minor child should trump parents' religious inclinations every time. To do any less is little different from being those who were not Good Samaritans and walked right on by. To do any less is like turning a blind eye to abuse in the home next door. To do any less is like standing by as the Nazi's round up Gypses, Jews and homosexuals for death camps. Each of these scenarios have rationalizations, have values and principles at stake but all of them involve *not* acting to save or protect a life in danger.

He is 16 years old. He can probably articulate his faith very well. Why don't they let him decide? Why don't they ask him and let him explain?

Jehovah's Witnesses do not refuse all medical treatment. In fact, they have helped to pioneer many innovative bloodless treatments that are now used by the common public due to health concerns related to blood transfusions. They know more about blood and how it is used and the alternatives better than most doctors. They're not ignorant.

Why shouldn't parents be able to demand an alternative medical treatment for their children? This is not the same as denying treatment altogether. Jehovah's Witnesses have shown that a lot of the times blood is prescribed, it is actually more dangerous and causes more problems than some of the alternatives would be. My grandmother had leukemia, was given many blood transfusions, and ultimately, the transfusions are what killed her. If someone wants to say that there is something better and that's what they want for their child, then they should be able to do that.

I wonder about this world's slavish devotion to this treatment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.