Liberal Japan

This entry has my comment on this, some recent news links, and links to the topic in general.

Comment:

200/06/24 — Recently a woman in Japan died after giving birth by Caesarean section. This was because she refused to have a blood transfusion. Today’s Yomiuri notes that a committee of medical experts has decided that parents cannot refuse blood transfusions for their children if their children are younger than 15.

Fifteen is a fairly arbitrary age, and I think children are often short shrifted when it comes to issues like this. Children are certainly capable of a lot more than adults will recognize. Nevertheless this is pretty troubling case. Parents claim freedom of religion and then ask that life saving blood transfusions be withheld from their children. Is that acceptable?

So long as people are doing no harm, I think they should be left alone. Is teaching a bogus religion harmful? Or if not that, is withholding life-saving medical treatment to supposedly save the immortal soul of their children doing harm?

I don’t think doctor’s should ever have to withhold treatment including blood transfusions. It should be made clear that doctors can use whatever treatment is available to save patients. Period. Doctor’s should never be punished for saving a life.

Okay. But if we were to recognize that, then what? A Jehovah’s Witness could then either seek some type of doctor whose speciality is performing procedures without blood transfusions or they could avoid doctors altogether. The question would then be, if a child is ill, and the parents are refusing to take the child to a doctor (because he or she might get a blood transfusion) should the state literally use the police to take the child away by coercion so that he or she can get the necessary medical care?

I guess most people would say, yes. That could certainly be the right answer, but I’ve always found this issue quite disturbing.

Recent News:

• 2007/06/24 ‘Under 15s must be given transfusions despite beliefs’, The Yomiuri Shimbun; “A committee comprised of the country’s five medical societies has compiled a draft guideline that stipulates doctors should perform a blood transfusion during surgery on patients under 15 years of age even if their parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses and refuse it because of a Biblical injunction, it was learned Saturday. … The committee judged that refusing a blood donation for children under 15 who are considered to be immature in terms of their self-determination capabilities constitutes an abuse of parental rights.”
• 2007/06/21 Jehovah’s Witness shuns blood, dies, The Japan Times; “A member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses died last month after giving birth by Caesarean section and refusing a blood transfusion, officials at Osaka Medical College reported. The hospital said it had agreed with the woman before the surgery that it would not administer a transfusion.Although she bled a great deal after delivering the child, doctors only took steps to arrest the hemorrhaging. She died several days later, the hospital said … Jehovah’s Witnesses’ officials said the hospital acted appropriately in treating the woman in accordance with her wishes.”

Links:

• Wikipedia: Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions
• Wikipedia: Controversies regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Wikipedia: Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses
• Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood: New Light on Blood
• Jehovas-Witness.com Discussion forum: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses have free choice on blood transfusions?
• Divorce, blood transfusions, and other legal issues affecting children of Jehovah’s Witnesses