Would the JW make another seminal case?

[vinod]

In the first year of undergraduate degree in common law, every student reads about the case of the victim V who was shot by D and taken to hospital. The doctor tells V that unless a blood transfusion is done, V will not survive. V, being a Jehovah's witness refused the blood transfusion. The question is, is D guilty of causing V's death?

It thought such a case would never arise again. But guess what? It did (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1426576.ece)

The verse in question

The biblical line

‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people’ Leviticus 17:10

[Ron]

Two questions:

1. If the religion commands its adherents to chop off a leg of their babies or kill the first born, would that be legally protected?
2. Leviticus refers to "eating blood" and it is interpreted as including blood transfusion...were blood transfusions in vogue during those Biblical times?

[vinod]

1. If the religion commands its adherents to chop off a leg of their babies or kill the first born, would that be legally protected?

I would wonder how the law of a land would go if the majority of the people in the land had a religion that said this. Then a representative state of these people would probably have a judiciary that approves of these ethics. But that is just a mental exercise.

For all practical purposes, I cannot imagine any state in the world today that would legally protect such a "right" of the parent as you've stated.


2. Leviticus refers to "eating blood" and it is interpreted as including blood transfusion...were blood transfusions in vogue during those Biblical times?

Blood transfusions were an 19th century development, I think. I actually contended the blood transfusion regulation with 2 JW missionaries that came to me. I left them with the advise that they should not leave the interpretation of their scriptures to their priests.

Was-salam

[Ron]

Salam Vinod,

For all practical purposes, I cannot imagine any state in the world today that would legally protect such a "right" of the parent as you've stated.
Would you say that this applies to the story you linked? By not giving blood to their babies are they killing them?

Blood transfusions were an 19th century development,
So were the Jehovah's Witness.

Regards

[vinod]

Would you say that this applies to the story you linked? By not giving blood to their babies are they killing them?

I would agree. It is a case of defining the ambit of the Convention rights. And this case merely adds one more detail to it. I would never be a counsel for the Jehovah's witness. :)

Was-salam

[muhtadiyah]

Perhaps it could be argued that the Levitical injunction against consumption of blood was meant to prevent the spread of disease, and therefore save lives? Including blood transfusions (what with modern technologies that screen blood for pathogens) would be against the spirit of holding life sacred.

[Dave]

In the first year of undergraduate degree in common law, every student reads about the case of the victim V who was shot by D and taken to hospital. The doctor tells V that unless a blood transfusion is done, V will not survive. V, being a Jehovah's witness refused the blood transfusion. The question is, is D guilty of causing V's death?

In this case I would vote "NO." D should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon but not murder. I guess this is probably a "no brainer" though eh?

[vinod]

Ok. Then let's cloud up the matter a bit for some fun.
If D were to slap V in the face, who unbeknownst to D had a glass-like cheek bone, which simply crushed by the slap, then has D caused grevious bodily harm to V? What sayest thou?

Regards

[Ashmath1024]

Ok. Then let's cloud up the matter a bit for some fun.
If D were to slap V in the face, who unbeknownst to D had a glass-like cheek bone, which simply crushed by the slap, then has D caused grevious bodily harm to V? What sayest thou?

Regards


According to my understanding of U.S. law, D cannot be held liable for a greater crime if V has an unforeseeable condition such as you describe - the glass-like cheek. D can only be held liable for his act of striking V - battery if I recall my definitions correctly.


Uh... was this question only for Canadians? Sorry.

[vinod]

Try answering these questions intuitively - what reaction does such a defendant create in you? Does it disturb you? If so, why? - articulate that. I am NOT trying to understand the law in different jurisdictions. I am trying to understand YOU, as a person; not the law.

[DocW]

In my opinion regarding the case quoted of triplets with JW parents.

1. The parents can make informed choices and refuse treatment for themselves. This is subject to confirmation that they possess insight in their decision making and are fully aware of the consequences. The so called mental capacity act.

2. However the parents cannot decide for their children, particularly if they have a life threatening situation. How can they prove that their children , when they grow up will also be JW.

3. The biblical quote is about "eating blood" as I understand it applies to eating non kosher meat. What we eat goes into our stomach and then gets absorbed into the blood stream. Blood transfusion bypasses the digestive system and directly goes into blood, thus technically it is not eating blood.

[DocW]

In the first year of undergraduate degree in common law, every student reads about the case of the victim V who was shot by D and taken to hospital. The doctor tells V that unless a blood transfusion is done, V will not survive. V, being a Jehovah's witness refused the blood transfusion. The question is, is D guilty of causing V's death?

The question is did D shoot V with the intention of killing him? If so he is guilty of attempted murder. He is not guilty of causing death.

[DocW]

Ok. Then let's cloud up the matter a bit for some fun.
If D were to slap V in the face, who unbeknownst to D had a glass-like cheek bone, which simply crushed by the slap, then has D caused grevious bodily harm to V? What sayest thou?

If the intent was to gently slap someone and not cause GBH then D is not guilty of GBH. he will still be responsible for bodily assault.

[Ashmath1024]

The matter of the Jehovah's Witnesses who denied treatment to their children:

1. It outrages me that these children died senselessly.
2. It provokes in me conflicting emotions regarding the ability of the government to prevent parents from living in accordance with their religious beliefs and to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs. What happens if the government decides that circumcision is 'barbaric,' as so many people are saying it is today, and the government prohibits Muslims and Jews from having their sons circumcised, going so far as to take circumcised boys away from their families as victims of 'abuse'?
Another example of this is the fact that minor girls in some states of the U.S. can get elective abortions without their parents needing to be informed of it. This is unconscionable.
3. I am glad that the family didn't go along with the doctor's desire to "selectively abort" some of the children while still in utero.

I believe that the family's JW beliefs killed the children.
I also believe that we cannot trust the government to determine for us which of our religious beliefs are acceptable and which are not. Perhaps a hard and fast line can be drawn where our beliefs impact and harm the lives of others. For example, we cannot allow believers of one faith to kill unbelievers or members of an opposing faith. But, with children, rules can be different. Parents are responsible for their children's well-being until they reach the age of majority. I don't spank my kids, but I don't want kids taken away from parents who do spank their kids, unless it turns into physical abuse. But, of course, there are a lot of people in America who say that spanking kids at all is inherently physical abuse. And though your beliefs may oppose elective abortion unequivocally, the government will allow people to take your 12-year-old daughter to get an elective abortion with no requirement to let you, as her parent, know. This is horrific!

It is another difficult issue that needs strong checks and balances to protect the public good while also allowing people the greatest religious freedom. No easy answers.

[junaid]

From the article Vinod posted I wanted to highlight the following.

The mother, on being told that she was carrying multiple foetuses, had been offered “selective reduction”, a procedure to remove several foetuses to help to ensure the survival of the others. She refused.

COMMENT: This raises the issue of abortion. Several people won't allow it even when a girl has been raped. I think they'd resort to the God has a plan argument there. Though I cannot back this assertion.

their fervent opposition to blood transfusions. In their faith, it is nothing less than akin to rape.

What the medical profession did by inflicting a blood transfusion on those babies was no more than rape in my opinion.
debbie, nottinghamshire, england

COMMENT: Any practice not liked by adherents of a faith is equated to disgusting acts. I remember people claiming eating with left hands is the work of the devil or urinating while standing are akin to what dogs do.

As opposed to simply claiming these are not proper ettiquettes, people have to go to extreme acts of depravity.

Following are comments

so i think i will choose to obey God than to save my child.
Ruth, Munich, Germany

One of their main teachings is Jesus ransom sacrifice, which would be a bit strange if they didn't believe in him.
Dianne, Newcastle, England

COMMENT: Rings the whole trial, test argument bell. i.e., God has a plan et al.

If Blood is so safe, why is the University of Southern California Medical center in Los Angeles, California Trying to do all their Transplant surgeries without Blood Transfusions.
Jon M Ralston, Cottage Grove, ORegon

Research has shown that blood transfusions are not safe.
Denise, Atlanta, GA, USA

COMMENT: Ah yes, the use of science that goes against mainstream consensus. Sounds very familiar to me ;)

[DocW]

I would like to ask the views of my learned participants on two issues

1. Brother Junaid raised the issue about abortion after rape. What would be your views as a human being and according to Christian and Islamic law.

2. In the issue of the sextruplets, the obstetrician felt that there was a situation where let us say for argument sake, three were doing fine and three were unlikely to survive. The issue of selective abortion rises . abort three to save three. What would be your views. Or else all 6 may die.

3.As I understand the Islamic law allows abortion if the contination of pregnancy poses a direct risk to the mother's health or the unborn child is diagnosed to have a serious congenital abnormality. However neither of these cover the issue mentioned in scenario 1.

[vinod]

DocW and Ashmath, thanks for your inputs. Gives me an insight into US law. Guess what? In English law, there is a principle called the egg-shell skull rule. According to this, the victim is to be taken as he is found. The defendant should not be allowed to get away with the excuse - "But I only slapped him. I did not know he had a think cheek bone. That's his problem". That's bloody audacious and cheeky, you see. In such cases, the law simply sees no break in causation between the defendant's action and the victim's injury. This is not without criticism. For eg in the case of R v Dear, D intending to cause V serious harm, only managed to scratch him on the skin with a knife. V, being a pscho, refused medical treatment and began digging up the wound with a pen knife. He died soon. D got charged with muder, the court arguing that V must be taken as he is found - with his psychotic illness and all!!!

[Ashmath1024]

I would like to ask the views of my learned participants on two issues

1. Brother Junaid raised the issue about abortion after rape. What would be your views as a human being and according to Christian and Islamic law.

I oppose elective abortion because I believe that each child in utero is a human being.

1. A child who is the product of rape is still a human being. The circumstances surrounding his or her conception do not determine whether he or she is a person or not.
2. In the event of a rape which results in pregnancy, the woman's need to carry the child to term in order to put it up for adoption is emotional suffering and anguish (as well as financial responsibility) which should be factored into the perpetrator's punishment.
3. Allowing the child to be aborted simply adds to the woman's problems by making her the willful cause of the child's death.
4. By ending the life of the child whose conception was the result of rape, we are literallly punishing it for the sins of its father.

* Even advocates of elective abortion (http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/whatis2.shtml) acknowledge that the "product of conception" becomes a child sometime between the egg being fertilized and the child being born.
When, in your opinion, does the "product of conception" become a human being?

- Catholic theology considers the fertilized egg to be a human being or at least a potential human being.
- Advocates of late-term (or partial birth) abortion believe that the fetus does not become a human being until his or her head is delivered from the mother's birth canal. This allows them to abort the child even if its entire body has been delivered alive, but they have kept his or her head within the mother's birth canal.

People's beliefs/opinions likely fall somewhere between these two positions. The point is to figure out when you believe the "product of conception" becomes a human being.

Our opinion may be wrong here, and am are we willing to be wrong in a matter of life and death for over 1.4 million children a year in America alone? Or do we err on the side of caution?

That's the question we all must decide:
Watch a live ultrasound. I have watched, in live ultrasound, three of my children stretching and rolling around in their mother's womb. Each time I saw each of my children, was at a time that it would have been legal to abort them. We counted my daughter's fingers as she opened and closed her hands while in the womb.

Whether a child is wanted or not does not determine whether that child is a person or not.

Pax. Salaam.

[Ashmath1024]

vinod, you are probably aware that U.S. law is very heavily based on British law at the time of the Revolutionary War, so I am not surprised by similarities.
I have just done some research and see that I was incorrect in my conclusion about the egg-shell skull rule in an earlier post. Thanks for correcting me - it helps me learn! :)

[DocW]

the current medical opinion on abortion in UK is that abortion is defined as deliberate termination of pregnancy before the fetus is able to survive independantly. I think the current limit stands at 24 weeks.

I agree with brother Ashmath views on pregnancy caused by rape. His reasons are sound.

When the fetus is 6 weeks old fetal heart movement can be seen on ultrasound.by 12 weeks all major organs are formed. Thus the age at which abortion is allowed by government needs to be reviewed.