Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, November 29, 2007 | Reason : Religion as Child Abuse | print version Print | Comments

Document Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

by Cherie Black P-I Reporter

Thanks to Dave Goetzinger for the link.

Reposted from:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/341458_leukemia29.html

Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons. Because of his faith, Dennis Lindberg, 14, didn't want vital transfusions; his biological parents did. A judge sided with the son, who died last night.

By CHERIE BLACK
P-I REPORTER


His life began under trying circumstances. Now, at the age of 14, his life has ended the same way.

For Dennis Lindberg, most of his childhood depended on the kindness of strangers to help him survive. A few weeks ago, he made a decision that contributed to his death Wednesday night.

The Mount Vernon teenager was diagnosed with leukemia Nov. 8 and since then had been confined to Seattle's Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center.

Doctors said he needed blood transfusions to survive potentially lifesaving cancer treatments. But as a practicing Jehovah's Witness, Lindberg refused. Despite his age, he had been declared what is known as a "mature minor," meaning he was considered mature enough to make decisions about his treatment.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe accepting a blood transfusion violates God's law.

His aunt, Dianna Mincin, became his legal guardian four years ago after his father, now a recovering addict, was jailed for drug possession.

Mincin is also a Jehovah's Witness, and supported Dennis' decision.

The boy's biological parents did not.

Dennis Lindberg Sr. -- Mincin's brother -- and Rachel Wherry flew to Seattle from their home in Boise on Tuesday to attend a 9 a.m. hearing, hoping a judge could force the transfusions.

Wednesday morning, after hearing from the parents, the aunt, social workers and the boy's doctor, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer denied the plea. About 9 p.m., Lindberg Sr. called the Seattle P-I to say his son had died in his hospital bed.

With the transfusions and other treatment, Lindberg had been given a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five years, Meyer said in court, based on what the boy's doctors told him. Without them, he was likely to die. But his decision in what the judge called a "stunning case, which brings into play issues including, but not confined to, religious freedoms," was based strictly on facts.

"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," Meyer said during Wednesday's court proceedings.

"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."

Parents and classmates of the boy, who had lived with his aunt for the past four years, cried in disbelief at the judge's decision. Wherry fled the courtroom in tears.

Mincin has repeatedly declined to speak about her nephew's ordeal. For legal privacy reasons, doctors and officials at Children's also have declined to speak about the boy's condition.

On a CaringBridge Web site that has now been deactivated, Mincin's final journal entry, dated Nov. 22, spoke to those who questioned the decision not to accept blood transfusions. She said that after her nephew made his decision, he "relaxed in a way that he has not relaxed since being admitted (to the hospital.) He is at peace."

"For those reading (about) this journey our family has been on that are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, we compassionately understand your confusion and, perhaps, even your anger at the decision that Dennis and his family have made," Mincin wrote. "We understand that this is an amazing bright young man who has before him 70, maybe 80 years to contribute to this world. While we empathize with your strong feelings, we ask that you attempt to respect Dennis' fight for what he and his family believe so strongly in."

The decision was the final chapter in what has been a lifelong family drama for Lindberg. It is a saga that began when he was a baby born to parents addicted to methamphetamine.

"I was always too scared to ask my mom if she did drugs," Lindberg wrote in a school essay two years ago about his childhood that was featured in the Skagit Valley Herald.
Dennis Lindberg and Rachel Wherry
Zoom Paul Joseph Brown / P-I
Dennis Lindberg and Rachel Wherry leave Skagit County Courthouse after Judge John Meyer ruled that their son, Dennis Lindberg Jr., 14, could not be forced to receive blood transfusions to treat leukemia.

"I saw a needle in a toilet once, but it didn't mean anything to me. I knew my mom had low blood pressure, was always pale and had extremely small pinhead pupils. For me, this was just normal."

The boy's life was spent constantly moving and he was often left with neighbors for days while his parents were getting high, he told the Herald. He didn't go to school and couldn't read. He spent his summers in Mount Vernon with Mincin, who eventually became his guardian after Lindberg Sr. was jailed for drug possession.

Both parents say they have completed drug treatment programs and are sober. They last saw their son in September when he and Mincin visited Boise.

Since his diagnosis, though, access to information about their son's condition has been restricted. Their only updates had been through the now-defunct Web site profile, which is how they learned about the blood transfusion debate. They contacted Child Protective Services, who appointed a lawyer to each of them and paid to fly the couple to Seattle Tuesday to attend the first hearing.

"My feelings have run the gamut from anger to tears not knowing who to believe and not to believe," said Lindberg Sr. "My sister has done a good job of raising him for the past four years, but her religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed on my son."

He said not having his son for the past four years weighs heavily on him. He said they gave the boy to his sister so he didn't suffer while they were getting their lives back on track.

"The decision would have been different had he been with us," he said. "He'd live through this treatment had we not made the decisions we made."

Lindberg Sr. said his son was diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia, a cancer of the bone marrow that is the most common in children. Most children with this type of leukemia are cured after treatment, which can include blood transfusions, according to The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children's and director of education at the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, said the question was whether a 14-year-old really had the maturity to make medical and religious decisions on his own.

"In my mind, if there is a role of the court it would be to test a 14-year-old and see just how intense he is about his decision," said Diekema. "My approach would be to push it a little further. If he fights you physically, then I'd respect that. But also, are you willing to tie him down every time he needs a transfusion knowing he'll need treatment for the next three years? You'll have a hard time finding a provider willing to do that."

Lindberg Sr. said Wednesday's ruling shocked him, but after visiting his son later in the day, he decided not to appeal the judge's decision.

He said doctors told him earlier Wednesday evening that the teenager, who had been unconscious since Tuesday, likely had suffered brain damage. After learning of his son's death, the father did not want to comment further.

"We'll stay in town until the funeral," he said, "then we'll go back to Boise."

P-I reporter Cherie Black can be reached at 206-448-8180 or cherieblack@seattlepi.com.

Comments 1 - 50 of 58 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #92026 by Gymnopedie on November 29, 2007 at 6:02 pm

A 14 is not an adult and can hardly make mature decisions (at least not regarding something this important), no matter how firmly he insists he believes in them. What a tragedy. All for an ambiguous verse in some mythology's holy book... sad.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

2. Comment #92038 by notsobad on November 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm

 avatarI don't understand how they can consider a 14-year old delusional poorly educated person a mature minor. Did he compare him to Bush or what (cheap shot, eh)?

Other Comments by notsobad

3. Comment #92039 by Matt7895 on November 29, 2007 at 6:23 pm

 avatarHow can somebody be so, so stupid? I just cannot understand people with a deathwish. Life is so wonderful, the universe is so mysterious, I want to live, I get huge enjoyment out of my life. Why throw it all away for faith that is unproven?

Other Comments by Matt7895

4. Comment #92042 by Freelance Cynic on November 29, 2007 at 6:27 pm

Quite a sad story, and a good illustration of the dangers of brainwashing children with religious beliefs. I know that Dawkins is very careful to say that it's only the labelling of children that he considers child abuse, but I think this case shows that raising them to believe nonsense can also clearly be abuse by itself.

That poor kid would still be alive if his aunt, that sad excuse for a human being, didn't convince him that he was following God's will by, basically, committing suicide.

Other Comments by Freelance Cynic

5. Comment #92046 by Arcturus on November 29, 2007 at 6:37 pm

 avatarAssisted suicide, knowing that the chance of survival is 70%? I wonder whether this story will come up in the news ... first page stuff, the folies of believing in God?

Other Comments by Arcturus

6. Comment #92048 by MelM on November 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Faith is a vice, and, like a lot of vices, it can be lethal.

Other Comments by MelM

7. Comment #92052 by Cartomancer on November 29, 2007 at 7:14 pm

 avatarIn any kind of sensible world they would have been able to tell that the boy was quite clearly incapable of making rational decisions for his own good.

Refusing a life-saving treatment because you believe an imaginary sky-tyrant doesn't want you to have it is a textbook case. Anyone who comes out with that sort of rubbish should be categorically labelled as unable to make rational decisions for their own good.

If he had just said Pastafarian or Jedi instead of Jehovah's Witness the surgeons would have laughed and carried on anyway. That's the real travesty here...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #92057 by Dax on November 29, 2007 at 7:47 pm

If it is someone's own free choice not to undergo treatment, and thus end his or her own life by choice, religious folk will throw a fit, but if the decision is based upon some religious verse, it is by law allowed? That is the real problem here.

Other Comments by Dax

9. Comment #92062 by CruciFiction on November 29, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Interesting how with the great force of Xtian demands, a State Governor, and even the US Congress will convene from recess just to intervene [in the Schiavo case] to pass laws that act against other laws in order to force the saving of the life of an already brain dead woman.

But to save the life of a young male teen with 70% chance of survival using a procedure that goes against some wacko belief of a religion? Nobody's there for him. What a totally fucked up nation we have here! Disgusting.

Other Comments by CruciFiction

10. Comment #92069 by Celandine on November 29, 2007 at 8:23 pm

One might cynically say that natural selection will come into play here, as the boy will now have no progeny to indoctrinate into similarly foolish and self-destructive behavior.

Other Comments by Celandine

11. Comment #92070 by liberalartist on November 29, 2007 at 8:25 pm

 avatar"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide."

That is exactly what it was. If he had attempted to shoot himself he would have been placed into custody in a mental facility. The law doesn't consider a 14 year old an adult, the law forbids euthenasia, but put religion in front of it and suddenly the laws change.

Other Comments by liberalartist

12. Comment #92071 by Will in Aus on November 29, 2007 at 8:27 pm

 avatarWhat an incredibly sad story. Sounds like the judge needed to man-up and rustle a few religious feathers. Then again, I reluctantly agree with Celandine......it's a harsh thing to say, but at least he won't have the chance to pass on his stupid beliefs to another poor child at risk of dying because of them.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

13. Comment #92076 by monkey2 on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 pm

 avatarWhat do you do in a situation like this?

Give all the information to a Judge and let him or her decide how the law relates to that particular case.

You can't say for certain that you would have come to a different decision if you were the Judge.

Did the Judge think that he was hamstrung by the law and that it should be changed?

Other Comments by monkey2

14. Comment #92077 by ChrisMcL on November 29, 2007 at 8:48 pm

 avatarThis article made me sad an afraid. Today I am an anti-theist because I don't ever want to hear another story about a child's (or anyone's) religious belief carrying so much weight that it can justify the loss of life. I am ashamed that the legal system of my country is complicit in this deranged practice.

Some days I think, "I live in the U.S. in the 21st century, there's not much reason to be anti-theistic; not like in the Middle-East." Then I read this article and I realize what a thin line there is between religious freedom and insanity.

I encourage anyone with the stomach for it to go to the original website where this story was posted and read the responses supporting the judges decision.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

15. Comment #92079 by JJ2014 on November 29, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Misinterpreting the Old Testament prohibition against eating animal blood as a routine food item, the WatchTower Society began teaching in 1945 that receiving a blood transfusion was "eating human blood". Jehovah's Witnesses believe that receiving an infusion of human blood into their body's circulatory system is scientifically the exact same thing as eating or ingesting blood into their body's digestive system. Paul Gilles recent comments during this tragedy in which he compared injecting alcohol into one's veins (give me a break) to drinking alcohol proves that JWs still believe what the WatchTower Society published back in 1951:

"A patient in the hospital maybe fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating through his veins." -- The WATCHTOWER magazine, July 1, 1951.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.

The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible treats exactly the same as eating animal blood itself. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with Murderers.

This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.


The following website summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

Other Comments by JJ2014

16. Comment #92083 by mandrellian on November 29, 2007 at 9:08 pm

I am physically ill. I don't know what to say or how to say it. One thing I'm sure of though: I'm through being civil to these fucking people when they come to my door.

Other Comments by mandrellian

17. Comment #92146 by Vaal on November 30, 2007 at 12:47 am

 avatarUtter nonsense. Any guardian, and I believe in this case, the church, should be prosecuted for manslaughter in any such case.

As for the judge, he should be removed. It is the states duty to protect the lives of minors, regardless of the brainwashing by the parents. In fact, this should also be mandatory in adults.

Other Comments by Vaal

18. Comment #92148 by action bastard on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 am

So using modern medical treatment for leukemia is against the teachings of the bible? I wasn't aware they had cancer treatment back in biblical times. It's too bad there's not a passage about not knocking on someone's door at 8am on Saturday mornings. Anyway, this judge has blood on his hands too. There's no excuse for letting a 14 year old die because of some twisted religious indoctrination.

Other Comments by action bastard

19. Comment #92153 by Quetzalcoatl on November 30, 2007 at 1:28 am

 avatarJehovah's Witnesses AGAIN. And just a few weeks after the incident in England.

How the HELL can a child of 14 possibly be considered a MATURE MINOR? He's 14! Absolutely absurd. Once again religious insanity wins out over reason, common sense and basic human decency.

And where did this kid get his religion from? From the Aunt, who's now asking everyone to respect "his" wishes. Disgusting.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

20. Comment #92166 by atheist_peace on November 30, 2007 at 2:07 am

 avatarThis kid deserves a Darwin award; and shame on the Government of Washington for allowing this to happen.

Fuck the cult of jehovah.

Other Comments by atheist_peace

21. Comment #92182 by Tyler Durden on November 30, 2007 at 2:46 am

 avatar
"I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy." Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer.
Oh dear! The fact that any 14-year old would see themselves as "unclean and unworthy" is a sure sign of child abuse. Poor kid, never stood a chance.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

22. Comment #92183 by Nails on November 30, 2007 at 2:50 am

 avatarThe issue of consent is fraught with difficulty.
If a child is old enough and mature enough to want surgery

My son signed his own consent forms for surgery earlier this year, aged 13. He understood the risks (although not completely - a 13 year old has a very limited concept of death) and ultimately it was his choice. If we had chosen for him, it would have been done five years ago.
But we waited until he wanted it as this op was not life-saving, but has improved his quality.
Although not cosmetic, it removes the last signs of the disabilty he was born with. He is now effectively 'cured'.

Luckily, we have no such qualms about him receiving blood or modern treatments, otherwise he would almost certainly have died as a baby.

I have to be honest and say that if my religion put my childs life at risk, i would have turned my back on religion first. Life is just too precious.

Other Comments by Nails

23. Comment #92190 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 3:00 am

The Lord was calling young Dennis to be with Him, and who are we to disobey our Father?

Other Comments by Rtambree

24. Comment #92238 by mrjonno on November 30, 2007 at 5:50 am

This really is quite a complicated ethical issue.

If the kid wanted to live but the parents wouldn't let him have a blood transfusion it would be a legal no brainer, no parent can stop a child receiving life saving treatment.

However this isn't the situtation, the child is considered to be legally sane and the parents want him to have the operation. So you would basically be allowing parents to force people who have operations against their will which would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

Problem is the law allows a person to be considered sane and believe in religion. As much as i despise religion I wouldnt want everyone who believes in a sky fairy to be lose all rights (someone might turn around and say if you dont believe in a sky fairy you are nuts!)

Other Comments by mrjonno

25. Comment #92240 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 5:58 am

 avatara sad story. the boy chose to die apparently because he believed some lies, a great shame he was told them in the first place.

seems a bit odd though that a 14 year old (and as an individual he seemed to be in a highly compromised situation)is deemed old enough to decide to die but not old enough to choose to purchase alcohol or cigarettes.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

26. Comment #92242 by nancy2001 on November 30, 2007 at 6:00 am

The state should have returned the boy to his real parents. It would have been better for the boy to be alive and living with recovering drug addicts than dead because he'd been brainwashed by religious crazies.

Other Comments by nancy2001

27. Comment #92253 by Alter_GX on November 30, 2007 at 6:24 am

 avatar[quote]
Doctors said he needed blood transfusions to survive potentially lifesaving cancer treatments. But as a practicing Jehovah's Witness, Lindberg refused
[/quote]

[quote]
His aunt, Dianna Mincin, became his legal guardian four years ago -snip-
[/quote]

[quote]
Mincin is also a Jehovah's Witness, and supported Dennis' decision.
[/quote]

Other Comments by Alter_GX

28. Comment #92256 by Rodney on November 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

The real tragedy here is that this boy was lied to by the Watchtower Society. An organisation which demands unquestioning obedience of its members. I should imagaine the threat of social ostracisation (disfellowship) would be compelling to a boy who had a troubled childhood such as this boy.

I disagree with some of the above posters. We can not say the fact that he chose not to have a transfusion means he was not of sound mind to make the decision. This would effectively take away a persons right to chose medial treatment and to chose to die. You cant support a person right to chose to die only if you agree with their reasons, this is the kind of hyocrosy atheist should be against.

We might not have agreed with his deicision and his decision but we could not deny him the right to make this decision.

The real hypocracy of the situation is the fact that religion would deny people the right to end their life for humanist reasons rather than religious.

Other Comments by Rodney

29. Comment #92263 by beebhack on November 30, 2007 at 6:43 am

There was a similar case in the UK recently -- a young JW mother died after refusing a blood transfusion offered when she suffered serious labour complications, leaving her kids motherless. The BBC's Breakfast programme had a JW spokesman on to explain it. It was a fantastic example of overt respect given to irrationality. You would have thought that the most blisteringly obvious question was 'a life has been wasted; give us evidence that there is any truth whatsoever in the belief that lead to the rejection of evidence-based therapy'. If the BBC was interviewing a politician, say, on a life-and-death decision that's the first question that would be asked. But, no -- the highly-paid journalists fronting the show simply accepted the 'we did it because that's what Jehova tells us in the Bible' line, uncritically. The JW also claimed that the transfusion would not necessarily have saved the woman's life. Well, the clear rejoinder would have been that the faith-driven decision was to rob the doctors of their best chance of saving her life -- but that doddle of an argument wasn't put. I just hate the media, sometimes.

Other Comments by beebhack

30. Comment #92269 by Cartomancer on November 30, 2007 at 7:12 am

 avatarOf course he wasn't of sound mind. That's my point. Just because his delusion was contracted through childhood indoctrination at a vulnerable time of his life does not make it any less irrational. If he was ranting about harmful alien brain radiation and wearing a home-made tinfoil helmet would the doctors have accepted that as a good reason not to administer the treatment? Where is the difference?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

31. Comment #92276 by Rodney on November 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

I would say he was of sound mind, he came to a decision based on the information presented to him. If you believed in a paradise afterlife, then sacrificing this life for the next is rational. In a way, he acted quite nobley.

The information was wrong, his belief was wrong and his decision was wrong. That is where the tragedy lies. But this does not give us the right to force treatment upon him against his will.

Personal liberty is a humanist value is it not?

You cant have different rights for Atheists just because you happen to think they are right.

I am an ahtiest and I think this boys death was a needless waste. I hate the watchtower society for the lies they peddle. I am just thinking as a libertarian.

Other Comments by Rodney

32. Comment #92293 by gr8hands on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

Unless the boy had gone through the rigorous process to be baptized, (which involves intense verbal questioning of the witness teachings by the elders, to see if the candidate can provide the accurate answers with specific scripture references), he would not be subject to the threat of disfellowship. Only baptized witnesses are. The article did not mention whether or not he was baptized.

He was not old enough to legally drive a car, choose not to attend school, enlist in the military, enter into any legal contracts (even if he were earning millions as an actor or inventor), have his own credit card, legally drink alcohol, legally smoke cigarettes, or vote. Yet somehow he was deemed old enough to choose suicide based on religious beliefs that he had not even had for 4 years.

The judge should be removed from office, the guardians prosecuted for assisted suicide, and the witnesses as the cult they are prosecuted for conspiracy and coercion to commit manslaughter.

Oh, and for those thinking the kid believed he was going to paradise in an afterlife -- WRONG! Witnesses only have the hope of resurrection, no guarantees. No hell as punishment, only resurrection or nothing, but no guarantees.

Other Comments by gr8hands

33. Comment #92297 by al-rawandi on November 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

 avatarI hate to be that guy... But that is one less moron (not mormon) knocking on my door with a copy of 'Watchtower'.

He was obviously mentally incompetent... He was a JW. That is a solid prima facie case for insanity right there.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

34. Comment #92305 by Vendetta on November 30, 2007 at 9:02 am

 avatar
Comment #92190 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 3:00 am

The Lord was calling young Dennis to be with Him, and who are we to disobey our Father?


I hope you were being facetious.

But if you were actually being serious, then please spare us from your proselytizing. This story is pure tragedy, even worse than the recent UK case, in my opinion. Exhibit A in what's wrong with religion.

Other Comments by Vendetta

35. Comment #92317 by black wolf on November 30, 2007 at 9:21 am

 avatarI find the question of the social cost involved interesting. I don't want to denigrate a tragedy to a cost-effect ratio problem, but I can't help thinking about it nevertheless. I know the system is more focused on self-responsibility in the US, but in Germany for instance as in most European countries, the whole society mandatorily pays for every person's health care. Everybody pays for the personnel and materials required to treat a JW, only to observe the whole effort going to the garbage bin when religion tells them to throw it away. If it wouldn't violate the humanist principle of solidarity, I'd tell them to pay for their own doctors, hospitals and medical research as long as they're so keen on metaphorically spitting in society's face.

Other Comments by black wolf

36. Comment #92330 by arogop on November 30, 2007 at 9:56 am

 avatarAppalling incident.

However, in my opinion, when a judge makes the determination that he is an adult then the decision is up to him. I do not think suicide should be illegal. Rare, and we should reach out to these people, but still legal.

I hope then when I am old and unable to go on I have sound minded family at my side to help guide my decision. I also hope that I am allowed to do whatever I decide is right with the advice of my family and doctor.

Andrew

Other Comments by arogop

37. Comment #92382 by BNCbright on November 30, 2007 at 11:47 am

 avatarOne of my philosophy tutors recently mentioned that he has not let his son have the Rubella vaccine because the safest available strain was developed through using aborted fetuses (which weren't aborted for the purpose).

I was quite taken aback that he would potentially risk his son's health (and other peoples') because of some bizzare religious hangup about the use of aborted fetuses which would have been of no use whatsoever otherwise.

Other Comments by BNCbright

38. Comment #92416 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 1:02 pm

35. Comment #92305 by Vendetta

>I hope you were being facetious

Just speculating on how the theists would rationalize it.

Other Comments by Rtambree

39. Comment #92436 by Vendetta on November 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm

 avatar
39. Comment #92416 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Just speculating on how the theists would rationalize it.


It can be hard to tell when people are being serious sometimes :)

Other Comments by Vendetta

40. Comment #92503 by stephenray on November 30, 2007 at 4:18 pm

This sort of thing is going to keep on happening until religion is stripped of its free ride - "you cannot call this into question because *it is my faith*."

Other Comments by stephenray

41. Comment #92505 by stephenray on November 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Re BNCBright - I'm more worried that somebody with bizarre religious beliefs is teaching philosophy. Maths, French, Physics, etc., maybe; but philosophy? If you have a faith all the questions of philosophy have the same answer, surely?

Other Comments by stephenray

42. Comment #92513 by brightLee on November 30, 2007 at 4:49 pm

In college (long ago!) I had an English Prof who was a former editor at the Christian Science Monitor, until he developed an acute case of appendicitis. His family insisted that he not go to a doctor - they were certain that prayer would cure him. He tried this for a while, but when his appendix burst he was just able to call an ambulance before passing out. The doctors were just barely able to save him. After recovering, he promptly changed his job and his religious beliefs. His family never forgave him for getting medical treatment...

Other Comments by brightLee

43. Comment #92515 by NMcC on November 30, 2007 at 4:55 pm

What is with all this talk about whether this boy was 'of sound mind'?

This boy was obviously way too young to be allowed to make such a serious decision for himself. The judge should have done whatever was necessary to enforce the tranfusions. Of course, in other circumstances, the judge wouldn't have had any problem deciding that the boy was too young to decide for himself whether to drink alcohol, have sex, to vote, to get married, live on his own, decide to forgo education, join the military, take drugs and so on, but, apparently, he was old enough to kill himself in accordance with a load of religious shit that his cunt of an aunt had brainwashed him with.

To anyone here who talks about this boy's 'rights', I would ask them to remember what it's like being 14. How many of us were not religious ourselves at this age? How many of us were able to overcome the indoctrination at this age? Very few I'd bet. Any of us could have been in this boy's position. I look at my own 9 year old boy and think, 'Jesus Christ, that wee lad was only 5 years older than my son'.

This is one of the most depressing things I've heard in a long time.

The aunt and the judge are a couple of fuckwits who should be charged themselves with child abuse and negligence.

As for this crowd of religious freaks, the next time they appear on my doorstep, I'll be replacing my customary good humoured response of "I didn't even know there'd been an accident" with "Why don't you fuck off you despicable crowd of bastards!"

Other Comments by NMcC

44. Comment #92667 by Garnok on December 1, 2007 at 5:53 am

"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision," Meyer said during Wednesday's court proceedings.


So, the boy beleived that if he received the blood transfusions that he would be "unclean and unworthy" and, as a result, he most likely believed that he would not be allowed into heaven when he died. Despite this, however, the judge believes there to have been a lack of coercion?

Other Comments by Garnok

45. Comment #92921 by Russell Blackford on December 1, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Actually, I think this was the right legal outcome. You can't have the state, via its courts, ordering that people be strapped down against their will, and be physically forced to have medical treatment that they don't want and which they may even struggle against. Well, you can but we normally should not let the state do that once we're convinced that we're dealing with somebody who really does know his own mind - and the judge was in a better position to assess that than anyone here.

It is not analogous to drivers' licences; just think about the two situations in detail for a moment. A driver's licence is a privilege that you apply for. It is not something that is physically forced on you against your will like a blood transfusion that you don't want.

The law worked "badly" in this instance, but there are many other cases where it works "well" and we'd not want it changed. The problem here was not the law or the judge. One thing the judge should definitely not have done (and I hope no one here is suggesting this) was inquire into the truth or otherwise of the boy's religious beliefs. That would be an unacceptable violation of the separation of church and state.

I know people are upset by this sort of thing, but it happens because of harmful religious beliefs, not because the law should be changed or because a particular judge was incompetent in applying it. For as long as people have these sorts of religious beliefs and socialise their young relatives into them, we will get such outcomes from time to time. Today a 14 year old teenage boy, tomorrow maybe a 41 year old woman.

It's not the age that matters. Once you have someone who really does know his own mind, and really doesn't want medical treatment, and refuses it for his own reasons, however misguided, there's not much the law can or should do about it. You need to address the root of the problem.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

46. Comment #92943 by russkid on December 1, 2007 at 7:48 pm

I would have view death as somthing awful for this to disturb me, and I dont. As such, I could
care less about his reasons for refusing treatment
or maybe even wanting to die outright. His life, his choice ... doesnt directly harm anyone else.

Other Comments by russkid

47. Comment #93041 by NMcC on December 2, 2007 at 3:44 am

Russell Blackford

What on earth are you on about?

According to you this boy was old enough to take such a decision for himself. Was he? So, 14 year old kids should be considered old enough to make life or death decisions about themselves and, presumably, old enough to decide to drink alcohol, get married, join the army, have sex (with 50, 60, 65 year olds etc!), vote, serve on jurys and so on.

If this is not what you are saying, I'd like to know how you can support the right of a 14 year old to decide to end his own life without at the same time supporting the right of other 14 year olds to make decisions for themselves in regard to doing any of the above mentioned activities - or anything else for that matter.

Why have legal age requirements at all?

Other Comments by NMcC

48. Comment #93049 by Sean on December 2, 2007 at 3:57 am

Russell, I agree medical treatment shouldn't be forced on people who are demonstrably thinking rationally. However, this kid was not. The only reason the judge allowed this, is because the kid's delusion is a fairly popular one.

I suspect that the verdict would have been different if the kid had claimed that the goblins at the bottom of his garden warned him against blood transfusions.

Other Comments by Sean

49. Comment #93053 by irate_atheist on December 2, 2007 at 4:22 am

 avatarChild abuse of the most vile kind. Plain and simple.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

50. Comment #93065 by Russell Blackford on December 2, 2007 at 5:27 am

Sigh. I thought I'd get disagreements, though I also hoped some people would get a better understanding of what is at stake here.

Look, the law on this is pretty clear, so don't shoot the messenger on that. If I had been the judge I probably would have had to do the same thing, based on the evidence, and so would anyone else if they applied the law properly. It's no use criticising the judge.

So, the question is really should the law be changed in some way. Well, I don't think so - there are good reasons for letting teenagers make decisions about whether or not they will accept medical treatment.

Yes, as Sean says, there would probably have been a different result if the guy had been deluded in some more idiosyncratic way. But no court anywhere in the Western world is going to rule that someone who holds to a religion is thereby incompetent to make such decisions.

This case is nothing like situations where, as a matter of practicality society says you can't have a drivers' licence until you're 17 or whatever. Many teenagers may be mature enough at some earlier age, but it wouldn't be practical to send each one off individually to a judge to take evidence and assess their maturity. They just have to wait a bit. We make a lot of arbitrary cut-offs like that in the law because it would be impractical to do otherwise.

But when it comes to strapping down someone who may feel deeply violated, may wish to resist, etc., presumably forcing sedation on the person ... yes, it's quite different. It would be wrong to say that we (the state) are entitled to use what amounts to violence on you for your own good as seen by us (until you reach some arbitrary age).

We are not just asking that the person wait for awhile to apply for a drivers' licence. We, as the state, are using force against the person to invade his body against his will.

As I said, don't complain about the law. Go to the root of the particular problem, which is the religious beliefs themselves. The only way forward is continuing to cast doubt on religion, not attacking laws that we'd approve of in other situations, or judges who are merely applying them.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
cherieblack@seattlepi.com