Blood Blank
I work in the legal department of a child welfare agency and yesterday we were confronted with the problem of a family who would not allow a blood transfusion for their baby because it went against their religion.
My problem with the whole thing is our government tells us that we have the right to practice our religion but then they put into place a system that allows someone to intervene in the event they don't agree with a tenet of that religion.
But then The Perfect Man pointed out that there is no problem with anyone practicing their religion and living by their beliefs so long as those beliefs do not impact the life or well-being of anyone else.
I guess.
An innocent baby is not able to make an informed decision.
The decision being made for that baby by the parents would condemn that baby to death, but his or her immortal soul would have a chance on the "other side".
The decision being made for that baby by "us" would condemn the immortal soul of that baby, but would allow the baby to live this life.
I don't believe in god, heaven or religion of any sort. But I do believe in allowing others to believe in what they believe in.
But then, I also cannot sit idly by and see a child die needlessly.
Grrrrr! I hate seeing both sides.
Labels: Recovering Catholics
posted by Bernie @ 8:21 a.m.
5 Comments:
And because there are always two sides, and because these things are always so complicated, anybody who says with righteous fury that this is the only way to do things is somebody I look at with skepticism and with a little fear.
I tend to take the 'informed consent' route myself, so, I tend to favour intervention for children, but am against intervention for responsible adults. *shrug* Maybe you're hurting that baby's immortal soul -- but, as long as there's life, there's hope; and I believe in a just and caring God who understands these sorts of things. (Besides, if you believe in the wrathful, vengeful God, then we're all doomed anyway, so, we might as well live out our lives the best we can before we all go to Hell.)
JGH
Personally I don't believe that children should be allowed to suffer and die in the name of fairy tales so that the grown ups in the fairy tale club (congregation) can look more pious than the other grown ups.
As for seeing both sides of it here is my story.
Two boys had severe burns and would certainly die without the intervention of blood products. The state took control of the boys lives and transfused them many times. The parents cried, yelled complained, sued, and protested with their fairy tale teller (pastor).
The same time that the parents protested for the mortal souls of their kids, they also chastized the medical staff for not repossessing their children sooner. For they knew blood products were needed, but had to save face to their fairy tale club at the same time.
That is not only seeing, but working, both sides.
Jerry and Hugh,
After taking the day to brood and stew about it, I've decided that everyone absolutely has the right to practice their religion and do or not do what they wish in the name of that religion so long as (as The Perfect Man says) no one else gets hurt.
A parent shouldn't have any more right than I do to take the life of a child.
So my answer to myself is it would be right to save the child. It's why I do the job I do. It's what I fight for every day. Religion shouldn't change that. And for me, it doesn't.
Thanks for the input.
Ah dude, you give great blog...
{{{blush}}} Thank you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home