Religious Liberty

don · 06-26-09 5:16 pm

2009, June 26, A.C. v. Manitoba, Blood Transfusion for a Minor<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:C was admitted to hospital when she was 14 years, 10 months old, suffering from lower gastrointestinal bleeding caused by Crohn’s disease. She is a devout Jehovah’s Witness and, some months before, had signed an advance medical directive containing her written instructions not to be given blood under any circumstances. Her doctor believed that internal bleeding created an imminent, serious risk to her health and perhaps her life. She refused to consent to the receipt of blood. A brief psychiatric assessment took place at the hospital on the night after her admission. The Director of Child and Family Services apprehended her as a child in need of protection, and sought a treatment order from the court under s. 25(8) of the Manitoba Child and Family Services Act, by which the court may authorize treatment that it considers to be in the child’s best interests. Section 25(9) of the Act presumes that the best interests of a child 16 or over will be most effectively promoted by allowing the child’s views to be determinative, unless it can be shown that the child does not understand the decision or appreciate its consequences. Where the child is under 16, however, no such presumption exists. The applications judge ordered that C receive blood transfusions, concluding that when a child is under 16, there are no legislated restrictions of authority on the court’s ability to order medical treatment in the child’s “best interests”. C and her parents appealed the order arguing that the legislative scheme was unconstitutional because it unjustifiably infringed C’s rights under ss. 2(a), 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court of Appeal upheld the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and the treatment order. Held (Binnie J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. Sections 25(8) and 25(9) of the Child and Family Services Act are constitutional. <a href="http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/2009scc30.html" target="_blank">http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2009/2009scc30/20 09scc30.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>Notes In this case, it is noted that a young person 16 or older has the final say in their medical treatment even if death would be the result. If under 16, their wishes must be consulted but the courts must decide based on what is in the child's best interests. This is clearly of interest to freedom of religion advocates. Where does one stand on matters of life and death of a minor? Should a minor be allowed to die for her faith? What if the matter is not of life and death but some lesser, yet important, concern? The court in this case served as the guardian for this minor. Does the court exhibit good parenting skills? Adventists and Minors of Jehovah's Witnesses:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:In a 1989 interview, the spokesperson for Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, in California, told a reporter that that hospital alone administered 4 to 5 court-ordered blood transfusions to Jehovah's Witness Minors every year. <a href="http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/" target="_blank">http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> . (Message edited by Don on June 26, 2009)

elaine · 06-26-09 7:09 pm

There has also been a recent case of a minor with lymphoma whose parents denied him advanced treatment for recurrent disease. He was ordered by the court to undergo treatment and has shown remission of the tumor. These cases present a dilemma, and in most instances, the courts have mandated treatment for a minor when recommended by physicians.

renie · 06-26-09 9:26 pm

In bible times, children were sacrificed to their parents gods. If I had been there and knew better, would I have stepped in to save the child? What if you witnessed a person dangling his little baby over the rail of the Empire State Bldg. screaming that the baby was a gift to his god, would you step in to rescue that innocent little one? I would. Religion mustn't be an excuse for inhumane treatment. If you want to give your own life in the name of God.....go ahead. But not an innocent other. renie

don · 06-27-09 7:21 am

Loma Linda and Jehovah's Witnesses Blood Concerns<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:<a href="http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-199510000-00011.htm;jsessionid=KF8GGvlhR8TJjKlsy2YZRBryvsx4DCRWksK007JT9mv3GfTvb8Jd!-847254088!181195628!8091!-1" target="_blank">The Journal of Trauma, 1995 Oct;39(4):681-5 </a> Traumatically injured Jehovah's Witnesses: a sixteen-year experience of treatment and transfusion dilemmas at a level I trauma center. Nelson BS, Heiskell LE, Cemaj S, O'Callaghan TA, Koller CE. Department of Emergency Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, California 92354, USA. Traumatically injured Jehovah's Witnesses pose difficult management problems because of their refusal to accept blood transfusions. This retrospective review of all inpatient traumatically injured Jehovah's Witnesses at a level I trauma center over the past 16 years revealed 77 patients with 92% blunt and 8% penetrating injuries. The primary physician was aware of their unique religious status in only 32% of cases. Transfusion was performed in only 4 (5.2%) cases even though it was desired by the physician in 11 (14%) cases. One transfusion was performed against the patient's will. One minor was transfused using a court order. Two transfusions were performed in the trauma room before the patients' religious status was known. Major changes in therapeutic plans were made as a result of the patients' Jehovah's Witness status in 10 cases (13%). Early knowledge of the patient's religious status is essential to optimize patient care. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7473954" target=_top>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7473954</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Anesthetic Challenges and Considerations Presented by the Jehovah's Witness Patient Anna L. Harris, M.D. and Thomas P. Engel, M.D. Department of Anesthesiology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California. Introduction The care of Jehovah's Witnesses presents complex ethical, legal and medical issues for physicians. The Jehovah's Witness patient will readily seek out medical relief, either electively or as an emergency, and will accept all aspects of treatment other than transfusions. This refusal of blood or blood products including whole blood, packed red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma, and autotransfusion of pre-deposited blood, creates a frustrating dilemma for the physician because a routine and potentially life-saving medical procedure is unacceptable to the patient. (1) Anesthesiologists are particularly affected because they are responsible for intraoperative transfusion management. This paper will provide a brief history of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their religious justifications for refusing transfusions, will discuss some of the ethical principles in conflict between physicians and Jehovah's Witnesses patients, will mention pertinent and significant legal rulings and definitions, and will present methods or techniques utilized by anesthesiologists to overcome the challenges presented by the elimination of transfusion as a surgical option. <a href="http://anestit.unipa.it/anestit/gta/JehovahsWitness.html" target=_top>http://anestit.unipa.it/anestit/gta/JehovahsWitnes s.html</a> <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

don · 07-28-09 8:52 am

Religious school cleared in federal labor case 07/21/2009 Author: Ryan Harris Source: The Herald-News<blockquote>A Seventh-day Adventist school on Dayton Mountain accused of illegally working students has been cleared of all wrongdoing in federal court. Chief Judge Curtis L. Collier ruled that Laurelbrook Sanitarium and School did not violate federal labor laws by having students work in its nursing home and perform other tasks like building wooden pallets. "Although there is benefit to the school and sanitarium from the students' activities, the totality of the circumstances shows that the primary benefit is to the students, who learn practical skills about work, responsibility, and the dignity of manual labor in a way consistent with the religious mission of their school," Judge Collier wrote in his opinion. "That the school earns some revenue from the sale of wood pallets made by students — just like students at nearby public schools perform activities for which the schools earn money — does not transform the vocational program into a commercial enterprise." The U.S. Department of Labor filed suit in 2007 after a two-year investigation, claiming Laurelbrook violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by "employing oppressive child labor." A spokesman in the U.S. Department of Labor's public affairs division did not respond to a request for comment from The Herald-News on Tuesday. Chuck Hess, the former Laurelbrook president and principal, said the court victory ends a tumultuous period that has strained the school's financial coffers and jeopardized its enrollment. He said the school has been "vindicated." "For the last two years we've had all staff, teachers and students in a holding pattern wondering if we would have an education program," said Hess, who resigned from Laurelbrook last month but is staying on to help the school find a new administrator. "We are happy to be out from under the injunction, and we will be able to more freely promote our education program the way it was established." The litigation may not be over, however. Hess said the school is considering legal action to recoup its expenses from the court battle, which he said cost Laurelbrook in excess of $200,000. He said the governments "deep pockets" pushed the case along while the small mountain school had to siphon cash from its operating budget to pay for legal fees. Laurelbrook was founded by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1950 and was chartered six years later. It is located off Ogden Road on Dayton Mountain. The campus includes a high school, boarding school for students, an elementary school for children of staff members and a 50-bed nursing home. Laurelbrook has been an approved school by Tennessee standards since the 1970s. About 30 students worked at Laurelbrook last year from the seventh grade to twelfth grades. There had been 70 students working, but the numbers dwindled after the labor suit was filed. Laurelbrook employs 30 teachers and has accepted 22 students for the next school year so far. <a href="http://rheaheraldnews.com/story/15142" target="_blank">http://rheaheraldnews.com/story/15142</a></blockquote> <a href="http://www.laurelbrook.org/article.php?id=6" target="_blank">JUDGE RULES IN LAURELBROOK'S FAVOR</a> (Message edited by Don on July 28, 2009)

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 06-26-09 5:16 pm

Religious Liberty

#2 06-26-09 7:09 pm

Re: Religious Liberty

#3 06-26-09 9:26 pm

Re: Religious Liberty

#4 06-27-09 7:21 am

Re: Religious Liberty

#5 07-28-09 8:52 am

Re: Religious Liberty

Board footer