This paper will discuss the issue of blood transfusions on children of Jehovah’s Witness’ during emergency procedures where the child will die without the transfusions, yet the parents refuse to allow the transfusion to occur. I will argue that it is the right of the State to judge if the child should get the transfusion and to overstep the parent’s wishes if need be. I will be using information from articles by the Committee on Bioethics, Mark Sheldon, and Ruth Macklin as evidence. Within these articles, I will be using autonomy in terms of parens patriae, omission of treatment and beneficence to conclude that the State can take temporary custody of children in these specific situations when it is a matter of life or death. First, autonomy
…show more content…
In life-or-death situations, in particular, the recognition of parens patriae becomes extremely important. Parens patriae is invoked when the patient needs representation as the patient, in this case a child, does not have legal autonomy. The welfare of the child should be promoted above the religious wishes of the parent in terms of causing long-lasting harm to the child like death. This decision is in the best interest of the child’s welfare and places the religious wishes of the parent as second behind the right to life of the child. When parens patriae is enacted, the autonomy that the parent has over their child has effectively been revoked as they misused their power of their …show more content…
In many cases, the parents have expressed their desires to prohibit the transfusions from happening and the child could pick to avoid the transfusion as a result of fear of being ostracized by the community and especially their family. In this case, coercion could be a likely explanation of the child’s decision to refuse treatment. Coercion can be evaluated through actual or threatened shunning and becoming a disassociated Witness which may affect adolescent decision-making (White 1). When this happens, the patient may be considered autonomous but in reality, the possibility of coercion must be considered by the ethics board reviewing the
In life-or-death situations, in particular, the recognition of parens patriae becomes extremely important. Parens patriae is invoked when the patient needs representation as the patient, in this case a child, does not have legal autonomy. The welfare of the child should be promoted above the religious wishes of the parent in terms of causing long-lasting harm to the child like death. This decision is in the best interest of the child’s welfare and places the religious wishes of the parent as second behind the right to life of the child. When parens patriae is enacted, the autonomy that the parent has over their child has effectively been revoked as they misused their power of their …show more content…
In many cases, the parents have expressed their desires to prohibit the transfusions from happening and the child could pick to avoid the transfusion as a result of fear of being ostracized by the community and especially their family. In this case, coercion could be a likely explanation of the child’s decision to refuse treatment. Coercion can be evaluated through actual or threatened shunning and becoming a disassociated Witness which may affect adolescent decision-making (White 1). When this happens, the patient may be considered autonomous but in reality, the possibility of coercion must be considered by the ethics board reviewing the