I presume the state laws give 14 year olds the right to make such decisions. It’s a shame he made that one; I hope some people learn a lesson from it.
I feel very sorry for his parents and I wonder how his aunt became so influential with him. Don’t let your children be influenced by highly religious people if you love them and can help it.
And I wonder whether the aunt could possibly be charged with manslaughter or something such.
Does anyone doubt there are churches where he’s being described as a martyr?

He WAS a martyr—he died for his beliefs, so whether he was right or wrong, that is an objective fact. That being said, I cannot say that I like this ruling at all. A child is not mature enough to make such a decision by himself—it was an incredibly brave one, but one I don’t think he should have been allowed to make.
God bless.

“He WAS a martyr—he died for his beliefs, so whether he was right or wrong, that is an objective fact.”
Good point. So, is it always good to be a martyr. I don’t hang around in churches where they are discussed; when they are discussed is it pointed out there’s bad martyring and, I suppose, good martyring?

“I don’t hang around in churches where they are discussed; when they are discussed is it pointed out there’s bad martyring and, I suppose, good martyring?”
“Good martyring” would be dying for the right beliefs. Nearly all Christians would think that the beliefs this boy died for were NOT the right ones.

What kind of a state would allow children 14 yrs of age to decide life and death decisions? What manner of Judge would let a child decide to reject help from medical doctors? What kind of parents would allow their child to be so drastically ill and not be with them to help him? The Aunt should be held responsible, but this is a religious matter where anything goes it seems. If this senario was on a TV show the public would go ballistic!
Having gone through Leukemia with our daughter at the age of 16 to 18 yrs. of age, and another young girl of like age at the Medical Center they were affiliated with, I’m going to tell you that a 14 yr. old who is diagnosed at the beginning of Nov. and dies by the end of Nov. was so drastically sick he couldn’t have made a sensible decision on what he would have been offered to eat! Somebody should be held responsible for this abuse against this child.

I find it hard to believe that a 14 year old is legally allowed to make medical decisions on his own. He seems to have been very ill, since the disease killed him in less than a month. Wouldn’t he have had symptoms before his hospitalization? I agree with H22, he wasn’t taken to a doctor early enough. Was it because the JW’s felt his illness was “God’s will”? I have a VERY hard time with that. If he was that ill,how could his mind be clear enough to decide whether he wanted to die or live?
The judge thought the boy wasn’t under any coercion? What is the rhetoric by the JW’s that says a transfusuion is “unclean” if not coercion? Death is a better solution? And as has been mentioned, why didn’t his parents have custody of him? Apparently they aren’t JW’s.
The aunt has declined to say anything about the case? Of course she has, as I think she is partly responsible for his death. He might have died anyhow, but at least he had a chance with the transfusion.
As to his being a martyr? He was a kid who was taught to believe that dying is better than life…because “god” is waiting. No martyr here, just a kid who made a fatal (literally) decision.

I’ve talked to a few people who defend the rights of minors to make decisions about abortion without parental involvement, and then they were disgusting that something like this was allowed to happen.
Hmmm…
What do you all think?

Fair question, Nate. I’d say the question of whether to not get the transfusion and thus to surely die, versus getting it and having a good chance to live, is more important than the one about whether to abort a fetus or carry it to term, then perhaps to give it up for adoption.
In the one case you are talking about a person, in the other case the life of
a fetus, something far from being a person.
But the over-riding issue here is that the kid was committing suicide. I think suicide is illegal in most states and, I presume, in Washington. And if you bring up assisted suicide for people who’ve led their lives and have only pain to look forward to, I’d point out that doesn’t seem to be the case for the boy. And I doubt he’d be allowed to sign for his suicide in states where that’s allowed.
So, are you saying if one’s religion calls for them to commit suicide the state should stand by and let it happen? For older people I might go along with that in the hope it would raise the average IQ of the nation, but not for a person his age.

I think the guardians should decide medical care for minors, and in the case that they choose something blatantly harmful, I think the government should prevent them from making that choice and do what needs to be done.
But I’m not sure how far I could take that. There’s something about the idea of dragging a person kicking and screaming into the hospital against their will that doesn’t sit well with me.
I’m not coming down strong in any direction on this issue.

If ever there was a reason to protect each other FROM religion, this is it. On the other hand, it could open the question about euthanasia (spelling?) and right to a quality of life. There are more facets to this than all the faces on a tiffany cut blood diamond. Isolating one (abortion) or another (right to refuse treatment) is not helpful. We need to look at death and all of its implications – and try – TRY – to deal with it in a caring and careful way. Religion may be one lens through which death is examined, but it should not be the only lens. As we do this well we may learn an even greater appreciation for life. Imagine that!

“There are more facets to this than all the faces on a tiffany cut blood diamond.”
So true. This is meatier by far than the average issue here. It abuts the issue of voluntary euthanasia, though it seems to me it’s different since I think of that as involving an active act such as giving a life-terminating potion, and of being for people whose only alternatives are death or extended very severe pain. If those were this kid’s choices that was not stated in the article. I think voluntary euthanasia with careful checks would be good public policy; one I’d like to be in place in maybe 20 years.
Then there’s the more pertinent question of anyone being able to refuse treatment. I don’t know what the laws on that are but we do need to be able to refuse at least “heroic” treatment when we want to and seem to be of sound mind. This kid was refusing a very standard treatment and one can reasonable ask if he was old enough to be considered of sound mind. He couldn’t sign for a car but he could, according to this judge, sign away his life. Apparently the judge did talk to the kid and found him to be “mature”. The judge will have to live with that decision.
And what if a 14 year old kid needed a transfusion to save his life but refused it for some other reason? Would the judge allow that? Is religion a legally protected excuse to do something stupid?

Having been raised a Jehovah’s Witness and having close relatives who still are, I can relate to the difficult decision this young man and his Aunt had to make. Though I do not agree with their belief on this issue(one of the reasons why I left that organization) I,nevertheless,must respect their right to make teir own decision based on their faith and values. if it be something they truly believe to be wrong,then the right choice FOR THEM was to to not accept this treatment-regardless of the regrettable consequences for him-they believe their reward for doing so will come in the form of eternal life in Jehovah’s kingdom. Trying to force a JW to take a blood transfusion-or to try to otherwise coerce them into doing so-would be the same as trying to force a catholic to get an abortion!

nnmns, Is religion a legally protected excuse to do something stupid?
Yes, it is in America. Sad but true.
Do we have a criteria for what is considered extremism? I see it all around me on these postings, but to the posters it is normal thinking. My normal thinking is probably considered extremism to them. Children shouldn’t have to make life and death decisions for themselves or anyone else. If there isn’t a competent adult to direct them, then one should be found. Dennis Lindberg was given a chance of living 5 or more yrs. with the proper medical help, with a 70% rate of assurance. Think of it folks, five years, and with new knowledge and hope even a possible cure. My daughter in 1970 was given a 2% chance of living with all they could do for her then. She lived an almost normal life, for two and a half yrs., before her 2nd remmission ran out. In that time she finished H.S. with honors, went to a H.S. Prom with her first and only boyfriend, worked in her hobbies and future plans with art and photography, enjoyed her friends, church doings, her dogs and cats, birds, and snake. We had those years to love each other.

Henrietta, your daughter must have been a special person, like her mother.

Henrietta,
Your daughter and I are about the same age. I can remember that time very well, with all the anxiety of high school and teen years. What I cannot imagine is all that she, and you went through. You are blessed with a great and powerful memory. She was blessed with a great and powerful mother. The rest of us are blessed simply by our association with you.

Henrietta,
I can’t imagine losing my daughter, or what you (and she)had to go through. However, as has been stated above by nnmns and jestrfyl, she was lucky to have you for her mother, such a compassionate, caring woman. The additional time you two had with each other were special to both of you. I am lucky to have you and your wisdom to read and learn from, here on B’net.
Blessed Be

nnmns, jestrfyl, and Pagansister, your comments were overwhelming to me. Tear time. Thanks for your love and empathy.

nnmns, Is religion a legally protected excuse to do something stupid?
People do stupid things all the time and have nothing to do with religion. The difference is when you use religion or belief sit at least gives the impression that it is not just a wim. nnms, If I invited you to come to my church’s christmas play and you refused saying, “I’m sorry but I don’t share your beliefs and I wouldn’t be comfortable there.” I would have much more respect than if you said,” I’m sorry but I recorded ‘Desprate Housewives’ and thought I would watch it instead.” Whether I agree with the decision or not this boy convinced a judge he was mature enough and strong in his beliefs so he was given control of his life. This article doesn’t give enough information to comment on how he came to his desicion.

i agree with e.cole. ihve sevral friends who are Jehovahs witnesses,and tho many of us do not agree with some of their beliefs,it is certainly their right to hold those beliefs. there must have been some good reason the parents did not have custody of their child,and i have to wonder why no one seemed to know this young man had such a serious disease until a month before he died. at any rate,if we are going to continue to be a country practicing freedom of religion,we must realize there will be decisions made every day that the majority of us would not agree with. as long as these practices are not strictly against the law,we have no right to interfere

“…if we are going to continue to be a country practicing freedom of religion,we must realize there will be decisions made every day that the majority of us would not agree with. as long as these practices are not strictly against the law,we have no right to interfere”
This is so true.

I agree with your statement, elizabeth c., about the our country practicing freedom of religion etc. but I find it a shame that a 14 year old was so indoctrinated that he felt he had to die, and not try to live because he refused a treatment that would have prolonged his already too short life.

As long as American citizens are willing to stroke each other with the belief that any belief trumps common sense, to the degree that a religious belief causes a child to die is o.k., because it is someones religious belief, deaths will keep happening to children. One of the biggest reasons if not thee reason is because people don’t want to take a chance on losing one of their own religious beliefs, even if it means watching more children die in circumstances as this one that happened to this 14 yr. old boy.

Elizabeth, “If we are going to be a country practising freedom of religion, we must realize there will be decisions made everday that the majority would not agree with, as long as these practises are not strictly against the law, we have no right to interfere”.
You are right Elizabeth I don’t agree with letting a child die five yrs. too early because the proper medical care wasn’t allowed by JW religious beliefs. The last time I looked the practise of allowing a child to die is strictly against the law. The law fell on its face in regard to this boy. Other ridiculous religious beliefs don’t count in this argument, they aren’t killing anyone. For exp. if a child was refused proper medical care by its family, and the child died, the parents would undoubtably be prosecuted if their religious belief didn’t hold that it was forbidden. If the adult JW would rather die than have a blood transfusion, so be it, but children shouldn’t be subjected to this religious belief.

Religious freedom is a very delicate subject. It is very hard to tell where to draw the line at times. In “The God Delusion,” Dawkins compares the cloistering of Amish children to child abuse, as they are being denied a great deal of knowledge and their potential is forcibly limited. I think this would be an example of a highly debatable point -after all, who can say that modern civilization offers more fulfullment than a life of simlicity?
On the other hand, we place very powerful limits on freedom of religion when it comes to issues like human sacrifice and ritual suicide. Neither would we accept the excuse “I was stealing this TV for Jesus,” or “Buddha wanted me to molest that child.” I personally believe every person has the right to die when and how they choose (if given the option), but children simply do not have the capacity to make those kinds of decisions, just as a 4 year old can’t be allowed to make its own dietary choices (chocolate and Crayolas just isn’t healthy!). It may be arbitrary to say that 14 years old is too young to make a life altering (or ending, in this case) choice, but I remember being 14 and I think I can safely say that someone that young doesn’t know nearly enough about the world and life to elect to die for religious convictions.

Thelemite:
…..but I remember being 14 and I think I can safely say that someone that young doesn’t know nearly enough about the world and life to elect to die for religious convictions.” I totally agree!!! At 14 I knew NOTHING about the world, and I certainly didn’t feel that being dead was better than living.

I prefer to teach Confirmation Classes for 15 and 16 year olds. This is because up to that point most kids do not have to capacity to frame their questions, let alone sort out the responses and forge an answer. Most kids younger than 15 simply parrot back phrases they were taught with little meaning. Ask them to explain what they said and you get the “deer in the headlights” response we all know and love so well. You cannot conform what you do not understand or appreciate. That other sort of “confirmation” is simply pretty indoctrination – something from which no one truly benefits.
There are exceptions. I have worked with kids whose life situation is dire and getting worse. Often they can express themselves in profound and sensible ways. But they are a miniscule minority. and even then, one common theme is that they want desperatly to reach out and to knwo more and more. People who face real uncertainty are not looking for answers, they are looking for traveling companions. I hope this guy had someone with him who was less interested in telling him what to do and more in listenting about where they have been and how they are going.