"Mature minors"
November 5, 2015 12:35 PM   Subscribe

When A 14-Year-Old Chooses To Die Because Of Religion, Can Anyone Stop Him? Dennis Lindberg was 14 when he was diagnosed with leukemia. As a Jehovah's Witness, he declined the blood transfusions that could have saved his life.
posted by Charity Garfein (91 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
 
Yes. Plenty of people. No child should be consigned to death because of organized religion. When you grow up you can do all the fucking stupid stuff you want in the name of religion.
posted by Talez at 12:46 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


Horrifying. I'm not sure why we don't treat that level of indoctrination as a psych consult.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:46 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


Mod note: One comment deleted, let's not literally start the thread off with hurf durf where's your prophet now.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:48 PM on November 5, 2015 [18 favorites]


Wasn't there also an almost 18 yo with cancer, but one with pretty good odds of survival in CT, but in her case she was forced to undergo cancer treatments. Something about the parents getting charged with child endangerment.
posted by KernalM at 12:49 PM on November 5, 2015


I think his beliefs are ridiculous but I don't think turning 18 makes anyone more rational about their medical decisions. Might as well say that anyone under the age of 25 or 30 or 60 is too emotional to make long-term medical choices.

The fact that a senior ethicist is saying it's OK to manipulate a child into consenting to treatment is confusing to me. Is it really more ethical to do so vs. tying him down to administer treatment? Why?

So it's not okay to choose to end your own life at a Swiss clinic as an atheist with an incurable, debilitating disease

It is almost always legal for adults to refuse medical treatment, including force feeding and IV hydration, even if that will lead to death.
posted by muddgirl at 12:53 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Another deleted; to get this started on a workable foot, go ahead and express your negative view of this without lol skywizard stuff?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:53 PM on November 5, 2015 [15 favorites]


My heart goes out to this kid. It's amazing when you're young to find something that seems to offer so much refuge and certainty, and it's also really hard to know what you don't know yet. Reading the article, he had a really rough childhood and had found a way to function despite that, so it's not my place to judge his choice.
posted by selfnoise at 12:56 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]


In my naive brain the goal appears to be human sacrifice, but it seems like there could be an emancipation-type process by which the child's decision is given legal and societal heft.
posted by rhizome at 12:57 PM on November 5, 2015


See also Ian McEwan's recent novel, The Children Act, which I found very compelling though rather uncharitable to the religious side of the argument.
posted by Bromius at 12:58 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


I think his beliefs are ridiculous but I don't think turning 18 makes anyone more rational about their medical decisions. Might as well say that anyone under the age of 25 or 30 or 60 is too emotional to make long-term medical choices.

The reason we have an age of majority isn't because we think you're automatically mature. If that was the case you'd be able to rent a car before age 25. It's because we've hopefully given you enough knowledge and enough time to assimilate that knowledge to give you a fighting chance to make good decisions and now you have to take responsibility for them. This is no different. It wasn't his place to take responsibility for that great a decision.
posted by Talez at 12:59 PM on November 5, 2015 [16 favorites]


I think that there are situations where there isn't a good answer, and all you can do is try to abide by bigger principles and recognize that it's going to suck. You can't say "we respect your teenage wishes on principle as long as they go along with what we want and as long as we feel that the people around you are reasonable". If you're going to respect teens' wishes in general, you have to take the risk that a kid is making a serious decision for the wrong reasons or without full information.

Medical coercion is horrible to contemplate. The one doctor said that even if they could do the first transfusion when the boy was too weak to refuse it then they'd have to do all the rest with him fighting them. How would we feel about restraining him?

The thing is "but your brain isn't done forming" doesn't strike me as a strong enough argument, because it means that anyone younger than their late twenties basically can't be allowed to make decisions that go against popular wisdom - they're too impulsive, etc. You could even say that anyone who is inexperienced at anything shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about it, since they haven't developed the neural pathways that result from the thing.

It's horrible and I think that Jehovah's Witnesses are dreadfully wrong in these situations, but I also think that if you're saying that teens are moral agents, you have to say that they have the rights over their own lives, even if it's tragic and you don't like the outcome.

Honestly, I wish there were some kind of heaven so that kid would at least get something out of it.
posted by Frowner at 1:00 PM on November 5, 2015 [34 favorites]


Let's face it. If this was Scientology saying to a kid they needed to forsake modern medicine and audit themselves past cancer we'd be calling for the organization's dismemberment. But because it invokes almighty god we leave it the hell alone.
posted by Talez at 1:01 PM on November 5, 2015 [32 favorites]


But because it invokes almighty god we leave it the hell alone.

I think most of us are calling for Jehovah's Witnesses dismemberment as a religion.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:03 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm sure it's been noted in other contexts, but there's a glaring contradiction between this and teens being tried as adults in the judicial system.
posted by rhizome at 1:03 PM on November 5, 2015 [9 favorites]


Teenagers basically always get the worst of our legal system.
posted by selfnoise at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


The context kind of implied society as a whole, r317.
posted by Talez at 1:05 PM on November 5, 2015


Correspondence Guidelines used by Jehovah’s Witnesses as its secret doctrine leaked (Deleted Previously)
“Correspondence Guidelines” is a 118-page document issued to key staff at bethels around the world, giving cookie-cutter responses to a long list of scenarios involving various doctrines. Previously only available to a privileged few, a 2011 edition of the document is now freely available, effectively meaning that anyone who has the document knows how Watchtower will reply to almost any letter they write before they even put pen to paper. While ostensibly only a guide to answering questions, the Correspondence Guidelines effectively forms a secret and comprehensive catechism, guiding doctrine for Jehovah’s Witnesses globally that has now been leaked. It can be accessed here.

This link gives a lot of additional context from a source intimately familiar with the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, though does get kinda weird about the Talmud in a way that is pretty not ok.

Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses on /r/exjw pull out additional notable sections and give context.
posted by Blasdelb at 1:08 PM on November 5, 2015 [9 favorites]


Let's face it. If this was Scientology saying to a kid they needed to forsake modern medicine and audit themselves past cancer we'd be calling for the organization's dismemberment. But because it invokes almighty god we leave it the hell alone.

No, we leave it the hell alone because the autonomy of the individual is important and precious, and the autonomy of the spirit should be respected wherever possible, even as we recognize that people do things wrongly and in ignorance.

For me personally, I think we live in an age where it's popularly accepted that individual consciousness is so malleable as to be virtually unimportant - we all have different selves in different settings, we all change to the point of unrecognizability over our lifetimes, power forces us all to code switch - basically that there's nothing to the individual, nothing that stands up to any theoretical investigation.

But to me there's something important and deeply moving in a person's attempt to be a person, in what there is which persists across time. People believe some terrible things, and some of the things that people believe place them in hard material conflict with society - that's appropriate, particularly when what people believe hurts others. And if we are going to say "as a society, we believe that teens should not be able to make big moral choices about their bodies and futures, and we are okay with physically coercing them" then fine, coerce away; but to me it does huge spiritual damage to pretend that we don't coerce while really we coerce as soon as "wishes" go against what we want.
posted by Frowner at 1:08 PM on November 5, 2015 [31 favorites]


It wasn't his place to take responsibility for that great a decision.

According to WA state law, it was his place, just as a 14 year old could decide to get an abortion without parental or judicial consent. Or the 14 year old child of a Jehovah's witness could decide to get a blood transfusion that their parents object to without suing them in court. The flip side of this law is state laws that compel teens to get court approval for health care that their parents have religious objections to.
posted by muddgirl at 1:12 PM on November 5, 2015 [31 favorites]


I think his beliefs are ridiculous but I don't think turning 18 makes anyone more rational about their medical decisions. Might as well say that anyone under the age of 25 or 30 or 60 is too emotional to make long-term medical choices.
I agree… but until we have a reliable objective individual measurement of "ability to make life-threatening rational choices with awareness of consequences", we're forced to use somewhat arbitrary cut-off dates. In most cases, that's 18.
The fact that a senior ethicist is saying it's OK to manipulate a child into consenting to treatment is confusing to me. Is it really more ethical to do so vs. tying him down to administer treatment? Why?
This is tricky. It's been shown over and over again that facts don't convince most people, especially those who hold positions based on emotion. In most cases, emotional arguments (for example, showing anti-vaxxers photos of children suffering diseases easily prevented by vaccination) work. I dislike using emotional arguments, even in the service of the greater good - I'd love it if people were convinced by logic and the preponderance of evidence - but it's simply not effective for most people.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2015 [5 favorites]


Heart-shaped balloons were tied to Dennis’s bed, drooping for want of helium. Mincin had bought them, believing they might inspire Dennis to produce red blood cells.

Fuck you, lady. This whole story pisses me off, but for some reason this really tweaks me. You did this to him, you led him to this decision with your shitty superstitions.
posted by uncleozzy at 1:13 PM on November 5, 2015 [32 favorites]


.

(and . x 100s for the other "mature minors" who have made and will continue to make this "choice"*)

I still remember the name "Lenae Martinez". She was 12 when I was 12, and died for similar reasons. She at least made the cover of the Awake! magazine as an example to follow. I so would have followed her example if anything had happened to me between age 13 (when I was baptized) to 17 (when I left). And I would have been furious if someone had forced me to go against my sincerely held beliefs, which really were my own and not just to please my relatives. And it makes me shudder to realize how sure I was then, knowing what I know now, what I knew even four years later.

From this vantage, knowing how my life turned out, my gut response is that teenagers should not be legally permitted to make such decisions, and our courts should not allow them...

... but if you had asked me at the time, I would have agreed with Dennis.

*It is hard to explain how coercive it is to grow up in this environment, but suffice it to say that "it's up to your conscience" always has an implied "but we know you will make the correct decision"
posted by puffyn at 1:14 PM on November 5, 2015 [42 favorites]


It's because we've hopefully given you enough knowledge and enough time to assimilate that knowledge to give you a fighting chance to make good decisions and now you have to take responsibility for them. This is no different

And turret there are plenty of people who make improper and bad deviations right up into their sixties and seventies. Therefore the distinction is arbitrary and useless- if we can make decisions for a teenager, there's no reason we can't make decisions for adults.

The key of course, is whether they make decisions I agree with. If they do, then they deserve autonomy; otherwise, obviously they aren't wise enough to make their own decisions, and I must take that responsibility away from them
posted by happyroach at 1:19 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


The tragedy of this is that JWs of themselves don't really have core religious convictions. Their fervent beliefs are incorporated whole from their church leaders with no allowance for divergence, skepticism or conscientious disagreement. Blood transfusions are bad, not because of Genesis, or Leviticus, or Acts, or God's will, or whatever, but because the Brooklyn Elders say so. If the leaders changed their minds tomorrow and said, "Oh wait, actually only blood consumed from animal or human sacrifice is forbidden, not transfusions," immediately every JW would accept the new reality without question. In fact being able to keep up and stay current with their ever-changing doctrine is one thing that distinguishes the true believers from the dilettantes and the spiritual slackers.

So basically, Dennis died due to the mercurial whim of a bunch of faraway old men he never met.
posted by xigxag at 1:19 PM on November 5, 2015 [12 favorites]


This seems to be the example that describes the difference between a moral issue and a legal one. Either way, the line will be drawn at an arbitrary place in the sand.

I don't respect most religious underpinnings on the grounds of bullshit and wishful thinking. But I have to notice that religious and cultural precepts are held by caring, decent people (as well as crackpots--but we non-believers have crackpots among us, so they who live on the fringes ought not to be our sample group).

At some point tolerance of cultural aspects becomes impossible for most of us. In that respect, female circumcision comes to mind. In real life I don't distinguish between Scientology and any other so-called religion. This is why I believe it's proper to describe religions in schools, but not to enforce prayers in the classroom. That's my ethical brain at work. I accept that I have shortcomings, even if I am unable to identify them.

This is the bathroom window approach to show me wringing my hands over this issue. A legal line will be arbitrary. It will betray some sort of ethical premise regarding the authority I wish the state to have over me. If not me personally, then someone else who may be offended by the arbitrary line in the sand: What age ought the legal majority, legally, be appropriate?

Age 25 (car rentals) is a bean-counter's number. 18 is when you get to vote for president in most states. You are old enough to select your president, but you can't rent a car? I remember the lowering of the age from 21 to 18: you are old enough to kill, but not for voting.

Noted above--why is 14 old enough for some agency but not for others? The rationalizations always come down to the arbitrary line. The notion that the young mind is not yet completely formed seems compelling until you cast a wider net to notice the stupidity of the more mature minds in the nation. That's to say some kids are smarter, wiser, than some adult.

Intervention is a harsh tactic. It's brainwashing by any definition. Letting a child die because a religion forbids medical treatment is also harsh. It's also stupid in the most heartbreaking way that stupid can manifest itself. You will not find a way both to respect religious (or cultural)beliefs and compel medical treatment.
posted by mule98J at 1:23 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


The tenor of his guardian's comments almost make it sound like she let him kill himself so he would better serve as an object lesson for her other children: "I had two daughters who were looking at me and how I was handling the situation. Their spiritual lives were at stake." "I knew I was helping him to actually die. It was awful. But the other option was more horrifying. To abandon Dennis in his strong conviction to uphold Bible principles as we understand them and allow transfusions to be forced upon him, would have killed him in so many other ways."

So the entire reason she let this happen was because the occasion of his death would correlate to a victory for the strength and persistence of her own belief system. I can't possibly pretend to understand what it's like to belong to a religion that teaches its followers that failing to "uphold Bible principles as we understand them" is a fate more horrifying than death, but on a purely human level, those admissions sound almost criminally delusional to me.

I've long believed that suffering people (children and adults) must be given the right to end their own lives, and I don't doubt that Dennis was a thoughtful, intelligent kid capable of deep, nuanced, and consistent convictions, but the details of this case -- particularly the fact that he was indoctrinated into this belief system by his legal guardian at a time when he was in desperate need of safety, acceptance, and refuge -- made me incredibly uneasy.
posted by divined by radio at 1:23 PM on November 5, 2015 [24 favorites]


If Dennis wanted to refuse treatment, that was his decision. Even if he did so for religious reasons, and not just the desire to avoid painful and drawn-out chemotherapy. At 14 he wasn't a legal adult, so I might see the rationale behind letting his parents force him to undergo treatment, but if the whole family was on the same side, the hospital had no moral authority to say otherwise.
posted by Rangi at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2015 [5 favorites]


Don't hard cases make bad law? This is a hard case. There's probably no way to make a good law that addresses it correctly.

For a position of pure vengefulness, I wouldn't mind putting his parents in jail for manslaughter after he was dead, for teaching him that his choice was noble and good. Personally speaking. I don't know how these parents who sacrifice their kids' lives on the altar of their own beliefs get any sleep at night.
posted by emjaybee at 1:25 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


I was involved with the JWs as a teenager, and while I firmly believe they are a cult, I don't think it's accurate to say that they don't "have any core convictions," however convenient and feel-good it may be to say so because those convictions don't always align with mainline Christian doctrine. They have many core convictions, all of which are firmly based in their interpretation of scripture.

Whether those convictions are right, or horrifying, or illegal, or whatever, is the subject of another conversation, and indeed in some cases the subject of Supreme Court decisions.
posted by blucevalo at 1:28 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


The flip side of this law is state laws that compel teens to get court approval for health care that their parents have religious objections to.

Perhaps it is more appropriate to compare this situation with someone who is mentally ill, who is threatening his or her own life, and is committed to a mental health facility for observation, with or without their consent. Abortion or access to it has little overlap with cancer or its treatment, and I'd be wary of conflating the two, even though they both tangentially involve access to healthcare resources, mainly because there is a long-standing societal interest in preventing someone from harming themselves, and I'd be wary of analogies with the abortion rights discussion that even allow the false notion that someone seeking an abortion is doing self-harm. In the end, I'm suspicious that any "flip side" of any law that takes away abortion rights would really just be an excuse to take away those rights, by whatever abuse of legalese or the convenient exploitation of an unrelated situation such as this.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:32 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


There's no 'good age' to make this decision but 14 is most certainly too young. It's just sadder that this boy's background meant he was so eager to please his aunt and uncle even though it was a death sentence.
posted by genuinely curious at 1:40 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


The flip side of this law is state laws that compel teens to get court approval for health care that their parents have religious objections to.

Do no harm. Do no harm. I know that's the bedrock of medical thinking, but it's my personal bedrock of societal thinking.

If a person gets an abortion they can try again for a child later. If they don't get an abortion they may be fucked up for life, or they might die, to say nothing for the health of the child.

This young person was taught and coerced from birth to think that their spirit will die, their spirit will burn eternally, if they get a medical procedure far more routine than an abortion. In this young person's mind there was no choice. They didn't choose between getting a blood transfusion and not getting a blood transfusion. They chose between eternal torment and not eternal torment, because they were taught that way. He chose death because he didn't know there was any other valid choice.

That's not a choice. And now he's dead. He can't try again later. And that's pretty fucking shitty as a society.
posted by Evilspork at 1:45 PM on November 5, 2015 [19 favorites]


Perhaps it is more appropriate to compare this situation with someone who is mentally ill, who is threatening his or her own life, and is committed to a mental health facility for observation, with or without their consent.

This strays dangerously close to "religion is a mental illness." I am a pretty militant atheist but I can't agree with that. Dennis was not suicidal. He tried treatments for his illness that did not violate his beliefs. He wanted to live.

I'd be wary of analogies with the abortion rights discussion that even allow the false notion that someone seeking an abortion is doing self-harm.

The issue to me is not self-harm. The issue is body autonomy.
posted by muddgirl at 1:45 PM on November 5, 2015 [21 favorites]


Perhaps it is more appropriate to compare this situation with someone who is mentally ill, who is threatening his or her own life, and is committed to a mental health facility for observation, with or without their consent.

I just really do not like the implication that someone who meets standard criteria for being mentally stable must be mentally ill because they are willing to die for a belief that I don't share. There's no suggestion anywhere in this that the boy didn't recognize people, was having what we popularly understand as hallucinations or delusions, wasn't able to use language in conventional ways [when he normally could do so], etc. In every respect except a religious belief which harmed no one but himself, he was like others in terms of sanity checks. If we're saying "you believe something that is not provably factually true and which causes you harm, therefore you should be committed and forcibly treated", we're opening up some pretty big cans of worms.
posted by Frowner at 1:46 PM on November 5, 2015 [15 favorites]


OK, in retrospect using the abortion example from the article was inflammatory.
posted by muddgirl at 1:46 PM on November 5, 2015


Let's face it. If this was Scientology saying to a kid they needed to forsake modern medicine and audit themselves past cancer we'd be calling for the organization's dismemberment. But because it invokes almighty god we leave it the hell alone.

and

The flip side of this law is state laws that compel teens to get court approval for health care that their parents have religious objections to.

are very different but equally insightful comments.

Personally this case is a lot easier since the guy was 14; much harder to me if it's a kid of 5 or 6.

To me, the "let's face it" takeaway is this: Most of us don't apply a principle consistently in these cases beyond whether we agree with the choice being made, regardless of who's doing the choosing (i.e., our reaction depends whether the controversy crops up as a potentially life-saving medical procedure, an abortion, hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery, etc.).
posted by resurrexit at 1:48 PM on November 5, 2015


This young person was taught and coerced from birth to think that their spirit will die, their spirit will burn eternally, if they get a medical procedure far more routine than an abortion.

If he was taught that, he was almost 100% certainly in no way taught that from birth by any JW, because JWs don't believe in a hell in which one burns for eternity, or for that matter in which one burns at all.
posted by blucevalo at 1:51 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]


I've been in the position of supporting people who went down fighting. And I've been in the position of supporting people who went direct to hospice. I'm not willing to make categorical claims as to whose rights were violated in what ways from the safe remove of a keyboard and monitor just because JWs have a bad theology.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 1:57 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


If he was taught that, he was almost 100% certainly in no way taught that from birth by any JW, because JWs don't believe in a hell in which one burns for eternity, or for that matter in which one burns at all.

I do not know the ins and outs of every religion, so I misspoke there. Regardless, he was taught this way. I doubt he was shown every religion and its beliefs past and present and given the choice to believe what he wanted to believe. He died because of his religious beliefs given to him by his family, because he knew no better option. And now we can't do anything to help him.
posted by Evilspork at 1:58 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


See also Ian McEwan's recent novel, The Children Act, which I found very compelling though rather uncharitable to the religious side of the argument.

Previously.
posted by Fizz at 2:01 PM on November 5, 2015


As an Autobiography of Bertrand Russell thumping 14 year old militant atheist, I know I would have started out refusing treatment just as Dennis did, though not for the same reasons, and I can't guess how I would have reacted as the illness progressed.

However, if I had a 14 year old son in a similar predicament, I would tighten down the restraining straps on the gurney before they rolled him into the treatment room myself if I had to -- in fact I would want to, just to let him know as clearly as possible that I was overruling his will and exercising my state-given power as parent and legal guardian to make him do what I thought was best in this circumstance.
posted by jamjam at 2:02 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


These cases are almost always awful. I have no problem removing pre-pubescent children from their parents custody and giving them treatment as needed, but at some point you have to allow teenagers the right to bodily autonomy, no matter how stupid their beliefs objectively are. I wouldn't force an abortion on a 14 year old no matter how irrational I thought her religion had programmed her to be, so I can't really justify forcing blood transfusions on one either. I would definitely try to convince them and particularly I would require that they demonstrate that it was their own sincere belief and not just fear of rejection or abuse by their guardians, but... as someone said above, allowing choice sometimes means allowing people to make bad choices.
posted by tavella at 2:02 PM on November 5, 2015 [5 favorites]


I don't think turning 18 makes anyone more rational about their medical decisions.

This is true on many levels, but it leads to the next question: what is the appropriate age then, and how do we decide where to draw that line?

I honestly don't know the answer, I think it's very hard.
posted by smoke at 2:09 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


It seems to me that one unfortunate aspect of the culture war around abortion (and the way that anti-choice movements have framed it) is that many have lost sight of the fact that the good argument for abortion choice is not that it does no harm, but that we must respect bodily autonomy whether doing so causes harm or not.

I only know one Witness well, and she has undoubtedly been manipulated and harmed by the emotionally coercive tactics the group exerts. It's a horrible organisation that takes advantage of and abuses a great many kind and vulnerable people. I wish this child had never been exposed to it. But I'd feel the same if he were 24 or 54. My revulsion is not a justification for denial of an individual's bodily autonomy. He understood his choice and the consequences. I wish he'd never been exposed to the bullshit that let him to make that choice, but his age doesn't provide a justification for interfering with it.
posted by howfar at 2:24 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


I doubt he was shown every religion and its beliefs past and present and given the choice to believe what he wanted to believe. He died because of his religious beliefs given to him by his family, because he knew no better option.

I would agree with you that whatever beliefs he was given by his family or by the church, he very likely had little to no choice in the matter of making up his own mind.
posted by blucevalo at 2:25 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


I don't know. I don't know that a hard-and-fast one-size-fits-all rule exists.

I'm not even remotely sympathetic to the JW views, and particularly because it's not like a blood transfusion is physically painful (spiritually is a different matter). If he'd refused a painful course of chemo that had a slight chance of working then it would be a different matter. But it's a blood transfusion. If he were older I'd sigh and say "Okay". If he were younger (say, six) then it would be a no-brainer (for me).

OTOH, it's not like his decision comes from his immaturity and a more mature him would take a different position. His views are straight up, vanilla JW's views. So, we discount the opinion of a 14 year old even though it's entirely possible that the 18 year old version of him would make exactly the same decision? Why does that make sense. Well, he might leave the church, I suppose. Then the 18 year old him would say "Can you believe how dumb I was at 14? Kids, amirite?".

IDK. I'm glad I don't have to make these choices and I feel sorry for the doctors and nurses involved who desperately wanted to help.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 2:30 PM on November 5, 2015 [2 favorites]


I doubt he was shown every religion and its beliefs past and present and given the choice to believe what he wanted to believe. He died because of his religious beliefs given to him by his family, because he knew no better option.

But again, while it's important to give people as many options as possible, "I feel that you didn't have enough options therefore your choice is invalid" isn't acceptable. I mean, I myself have never been exposed to the human/daily side of evangelical Christianity! Maybe I'd be a happy evangelical if I spent a couple of years going to those big box churches every week - I'm sure lots of people from conservative religious backgrounds would say that this was true. Maybe it would even be true - we can all learn to love Big Brother given the chance. It's because of this very fragility of the self that I think it's important to take people's espoused beliefs seriously. I bet that if I spent a lot of my time in [extremely different social situation] I would become a different person. I might even feel that I was better off as that different person. Does that justify disregarding the wishes of the me that exists now? That is, since I know that I could be changed if I were forced to change, does that mean that my wishes now are just ephemeral? I feel like "you wouldn't do this if you really understood" is basically the logic of the reeducation camp.
posted by Frowner at 2:34 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


While one size fits all rules are difficult to justify and apply, I don't think its wrong to say that 14 is too young to be allowed to die due to their religious beliefs.

If he'd been 18 I'd have regretted his suicide but agreed that it was entirely his right to kill himself that way.

The problem here, for me anyway, is that our society **DOES** have certain bright lines that are quite arbitrarily drawn but are nevertheless agreed on because the alternative is worse. If this child was deemed too young to drink, too young to vote, too young to join the military, too young to consent to sex, how can we possibly argue that he was old enough to be permitted to commit suicide for the sake of his religion?

Obviously a person doesn't magically turn into a mature and responsible adult the instant they turn 18. But the difference between a conviction for producing child pornography and producing a legal porn is that sharp, arbitrary, line. One day changes sex between a 17 years and 364 days old person and a 60 year old person from statutory rape to creepy and almost certainly morally wrong and ethically wrong but perfectly legal sex.

If that's how we deal with age, and legally it is, then allowing a 14 year old to become a child sacrifice for his religion is not acceptable.

Yes, forced medical procedures are squicky. Yes, we've also got a system of criminal "justice" that semi-routinely tries children as adults because our society has a massively unhealthy bloodthirst and obsession with vengeful mean spirited punitive behavior towards crime.

But 14 is too young to be permitted to martyr themselves for their religion. I regret all the deaths the JW's have caused their members to undertake, but for adults I'm willing to say that it is their life and therefore their decision of when to end it, whether that end comes by suicide via medical refusal or suicide via deliberate chemical means.

If we, as a society, want to argue that 14 is old enough to chose religiously motivated suicide than I think we also need to say that therefore 14 is old enough to drink, smoke, vote, join the military, have sex, and in all other ways be considered legally adult. If 14 is too young for those other things, than its too young to chose death, religiously motivated or not. I'd be interested in hearing why people think 14 is old enough to die for their religion, but not old enough for any of the many other things we forbid 14 year olds from doing because we, as a society, deem them to be too immature as a class.
posted by sotonohito at 2:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [22 favorites]


Just want wanted second puffyn’s comment. This is not a case of immaturity as much as it is growing up in a limited environment where everyone you know is telling you things which they believe but are not actually true.

I'm tempted to say the best answer here is not tackling these thorny issues directly but reining in the ability to raise kids in an ideologically-blinded bubble. I was able to escape due to a decent public school education and the Internet, but many don't get than and e.g. the homeschooling movement seems to have a sizable contingent pushing for legal ways to make that isolation even more complete.
posted by adamsc at 2:52 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


He was not raised Jehovah's Witness since birth. The article said that he converted under his Aunt's care at age 13.

I'm probably biased, but I couldn't help read this and not think his Aunt was coaching him. He lived a terrible and unstable life, his aunt was his only start of stability. She claims she didn't want him to join just yet, but took him at his word when he said he was ready. I feel like the author stops just short of saying all this, so I'm not sure if I was lead to this conclusion, or if it's truly my own. But it seems unconscionable. His biological parents didn't want this, his grandmother fought against it (though that has its own issues). Everyone was not on board, but the kid had strangers around him encouraging him to keep the faith.

I'm an atheist, but these days I tend to side with the religious more than with the God Delusion-thumping atheists. Yet this particular incident read as an impressionable young mind and a guardian who had too much influence and not enough attachment.

The aunt's parting thoughts about wishing Dennis's case had a bigger impact can be read in an unflattering light.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 2:55 PM on November 5, 2015 [14 favorites]


This sounds like an epidemic that could spread into every corner of our society if we let it. We must pass laws to deal with this case definitively, lest we face a tsunami of children denying medical care.
posted by benzenedream at 3:18 PM on November 5, 2015


sotonohito: “If we, as a society want to argue that 14 is old enough to chose religiously motivated suicide than I think we also need to say that therefore 14 is old enough to drink, smoke, vote, join the military, have sex, and in all other ways be considered legally adult. If 14 is too young for those other things, than its too young to chose death, religiously motivated or not.”

Bodily autonomy, specifically in terms of the ability to refuse or accept medical procedures, is not like joining the military, drinking, smoking, voting, or having sex. It's the right to choose what specifically happens to your own body, whether its integrity is preserved or violated. That autonomy is more important than any of the other age-related benchmarks of maturity you mentioned. It's of entirely a different category.

It's of a different category in part because those other things you talk about are prohibitions, not requirements. Young people under the age of 21 aren't required to drink any particular thing; they're simply prohibited from drinking alcohol. In our society, we try not to force young people to do things, even when they aren't quite of the age of consent yet. This is not a hard-and-fast thing; we require children to go to school, we require children to stay with their parents, and socially and politically we impose certain obligations on children. But we do not force children bodily to do things; we do not hold them down in order to bend them to our wills. That's why parenting (proper parenting) is a hard thing: because caring for any human with respect means avoiding, as far as possible, physical coercion. So when we suggest physical coercion, even in life-threatening cases, we're talking about abrogating respect for human beings in a fundamental way. Forcing medical procedures on people is more of a violation even than arresting people and putting them in chains; it is a violation of their bodily integrity, and it's hard to think of a deeper or more intimate way of breaking someone's boundaries.

For all these reasons, I think, it is correct that we try to go the safe route, and only force medical procedures when we are absolutely certain that they are either too immature or not of sound mind to refuse them. Violating a person's bodily integrity is so serious a thing that we don't do it without first making sure that there's no legitimate, adult volition we're breaking.

So I think it's a fair thing, a just thing, for neutral people who nonetheless have a lot at stake to make the call as to someone's maturity. Doctors can be good or bad, but I've never met one who actually sought their patients' deaths; if they did, they wouldn't last as doctors long. It is a big step for a doctor to say that a 14-year-old is mature enough to make this decision. I am led to feel some respect for that decision in this case.
posted by koeselitz at 3:24 PM on November 5, 2015 [15 favorites]


I'd be interested in hearing why people think 14 is old enough to die for their religion, but not old enough for any of the many other things we forbid 14 year olds from doing because we, as a society, deem them to be too immature as a class.

I would argue that the right to bodily autonomy, to freedom from physical interference, is profoundly important, and that we should only abridge it in circumstances where there is a compelling justification for doing so. I do not see age, in itself, as being compelling, although it is likely to be a factor in some cases where I believe a compelling case could be made. The distinction, to me, is that all of the other freedoms you describe are, in my view, less fundamental than the right to decide what physical interference is imposed upon one's own body.

In the specific case of consent to sex, and the example you use in particular, it is my view that good laws act to protect the bodily autonomy of minors, rather than restrict it. This is why it is common for jurisdictions to distinguish between those cases where both participants are of a similar age and those where one partner is (to use your example) 60 and the other 17.
posted by howfar at 3:33 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


I mean, I myself have never been exposed to the human/daily side of evangelical Christianity! Maybe I'd be a happy evangelical if I spent a couple of years going to those big box churches every week - I'm sure lots of people from conservative religious backgrounds would say that this was true. Maybe it would even be true - we can all learn to love Big Brother given the chance.

This is dangerously close to undermining everyone who has ever grown up in these sick systems and made the very difficult and dangerous choice to get out. Not to mention the even more dangerous choice to talk about it and shine a light for anyone else hoping to get out, but too scared to say so openly. You're a long-time MeFite so you know well that there are several of us who did grow up in these systems and did in fact recognize how sick they are. Empathy is great and all, but boundaries are also good. I for one am perfectly happy to not empathize with people who let children die when a lifesaving alternative exists.
posted by fraula at 4:00 PM on November 5, 2015 [10 favorites]


Perhaps it is more appropriate to compare this situation with someone who is mentally ill, who is threatening his or her own life, and is committed to a mental health facility for observation, with or without their consent.
What about someone who is "mentally ill" and is threatening their soul is with eternal damnation? As an atheist and fan of science-based policy, it's clear to me that basing laws on religious conviction is a terrible idea. But, most Americans probably disagree. Categorizing those who don't accept majority religious views as mentally ill seems like a real problem. If a hospital or government decided to force me to accept communion on my death bed, I'd be furious. I'd have been even more furious at the age of 14. It's not obvious to me that this is different. If anything the stakes are far lower for us secular commenters than for this kid. Our losing outcome is humiliation and death. His is eternal damnation.

Why should our belief that religiously motivated suicide is stupid trump our neighbors' belief that secular life is stupid? If refusing a blood transfusion is the key to the doors of heaven, this kid would be crazy to do anything else. That his belief is factually wrong is obviously important. Convincing people of that fact is a great idea. But it's hard to make the argument for ignoring his wishes without accepting that most people on earth also claim to believe in batshit crazy things, and we don't lock them up and force medical procedures on them. (Perhaps they believe in crazy things with less sincerity, given their secularly-motivated behavior, but that's a different discussion.) It's hard to embrace democracy and not support radical religious freedom, even when the specific outcome is horrible.

Complete autonomy at any age may be a shitty answer to legal questions, and one that leads to a number of pointless innocent deaths. But I can't think of an answer that causes less harm.
posted by eotvos at 4:20 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


If we're pointing fingers at anyone we should be pointing them at ourselves. The article says that that Dennis was a neglected child who blossomed in his aunt's home. We were fine with him roaming motel corridors and setting fires; we would have done nothing as he grew older except perhaps condemn him to the notoriously-precarious life of foster care or children's homes. His aunt has bad beliefs that endanger children - well, we didn't care about that until now. Not until there was something newsworthy about it.

It's easy to sit up and waggle a finger when something outrageous happens; it's infinitely harder to do something to help. Right now there are many, many children whose lives are at least as bad as Dennis' was before his aunt took him. Their lives are in danger too - not from refusing blood products, but from drugs and violence and general lack of care. (children in other countries are starving to death for want of literal pennies per day but let's not think about that) I wish there were more JWs to take children like Dennis; on average, many lives would be saved. Better yet, I wish that we as a society had the courage to treat kids with the love, care and compassion that they deserve. Dennis' aunt did; if not for the cancer we would have called her a hero. Now we're berating her for her care, but without her intervention Dennis might have died a long time ago.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:30 PM on November 5, 2015 [9 favorites]


This is dangerously close to undermining everyone who has ever grown up in these sick systems and made the very difficult and dangerous choice to get out. Not to mention the even more dangerous choice to talk about it and shine a light for anyone else hoping to get out, but too scared to say so openly. You're a long-time MeFite so you know well that there are several of us who did grow up in these systems and did in fact recognize how sick they are.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that very well. But the thing is, many people are happy in sick systems, many people voluntarily join sick systems, many people are persuaded by sick systems, many people do terrible things as actors within sick systems. That's a reason that I'm not going to engage with systems I know from the outside to be sick - because I know that individual wills and norms are really fragile. I don't trust myself. I'd like to think that if I were dropped into a community with really gross and terrible norms I would stay strong and be true and so on, but I know that historically many people don't. I have definitely seen people I like absorbed into systems that I think are sick and coercive, and I've seen them change.

I've also spent a lot of time around a handful of people who don't change, who would rather fight than switch - the type of people who could be dropped into any society and who would be true to their own values unto death. They're perpetually in conflict with the society around them, and their lives are often very hard. I admire them like crazy and try to take some inspiration from them, but the people who can look around at this world and refuse its sickness categorically are very, very unusual.

I think that people who are strong enough to identify and leave sick systems are fairly unusual, probably the more so the sicker the system.

The reason I'm pretty big on believing what people articulate about themselves and avoiding coercion is precisely because I think individuality is fragile. It's something we strive toward. We strive to be people, to have some coherent sense of self, set of beliefs, personal history; we strive to be continuous instead of just a thing buffeted into beliefs by circumstance and force. Capital and the state and various other sick systems want us just to be these contingent things - believing that our current employer is the best ever, our state is the best ever, whatever, and wants us to forget that things were ever any different. We've always been at war with Oceania the Taliban, etc.

For me part of that is accepting that if someone really, strongly endorses a bad belief, I have to treat their endorsement as serious. Depending on their belief, maybe I treat their endorsement as serious and we fight, or I advocate for kicking them out of an organization, but basically, I treat their endorsement of a belief as a real thing. And I can't see that there's good, compelling social interest in forcing someone to do something deeply against his beliefs when the only loser is him.

I don't know if you've ever come across the Ursula Le Guin short story Solitude - and I'm not trying to claim that Le Guin is more profound than she is - but that story gets at what I think a bit.
posted by Frowner at 4:31 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]


fraula: “I for one am perfectly happy to not empathize with people who let children die when a lifesaving alternative exists.”

I don't think anyone really has to empathize with anybody else.

However: there are worse things than death – even the death of young people. One of those things is the violation of the most intimate and personal forms of volition. And the volition that governs our own bodily integrity, the choice we have as far as what happens inside our own skins, is (as far as I can tell) the most intimate and most personal form of volition.
posted by koeselitz at 4:31 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


    Wasn't there also an almost 18 yo with cancer, but one with pretty good odds of survival in CT, but in her case she was forced to undergo cancer treatments. Something about the parents getting charged with child endangerment.
KernalM: You're thinking of the Cassandra C. case in Conneticut, and yes, she was forced to undergo chemotherapy by child services after running away because she didn't want "toxins" in her body.

She went home in April after five months in the hospital.

Last news items I found was an interview on a cancer site that claims it can cure you with "natural, non-toxic methods", and has her denouncing the hospital treatment. Also, she's apparently bought a Vitamix! So she can drink lots of fruits and veggies and help her body "detox" "naturally".

I'm all about consent, but holy crow I just want to find this girl's mom and Have Words With Her.
posted by offalark at 4:34 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


frowner: I wish there were some kind of heaven so that kid would at least get something out of it.

Now, that entirely depends upon whether or not they make the cut.

Assuming the 8.2 million figure is accurate and not counting those of unknown piety who died prior, odds are against being in that 144,000.
posted by dr_dank at 4:34 PM on November 5, 2015


In 1974, a 14- year old friend realized he was sick and skipped school to see a physician. He had pneumonia and was prescribed antibiotics. The parents, who were Christian Scientists, found out and took them away. He died. I consider it murder. This kid's death bothers me less than my friend's, since the latter was not allowed to exercise his beliefs and paid for his parents' ability to do so.

About 12 years later, my boss and his wife discovered that his Christian Science faith meant that they rated poorly as prospective adoptive parents. He agreed to stipulate that his wife, who practiced some other faith, would be in charge of all medical decisions. I thought that was correct.
posted by carmicha at 4:48 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


Betteridge says no.
posted by telstar at 5:31 PM on November 5, 2015


I wish there were more JWs to take children like Dennis; on average, many lives would be saved. Better yet, I wish that we as a society had the courage to treat kids with the love, care and compassion that they deserve. Dennis' aunt did; if not for the cancer we would have called her a hero. Now we're berating her for her care, but without her intervention Dennis might have died a long time ago.

I have a friend who was denied any contact with her parents because she stopped conforming to Jehovah's Witness doctrine. This is not unusual. Look up "shunning".

No-one is berating Dennis's aunt for her care, but many of us take exception to the cruelty and manipulation that her religion uses to control its adherents and to punish those who lapse. Were the movement more compassionate, more caring, more loving, then Dennis might still be alive. As it is, we will never know whether it was faith or fear that led him to his choice.

Some of the very best and kindest people I know are Witnesses. That doesn't make the doctrines or practices of the faith any less abhorrent.

Of course we should each be better, of course we should each do more. It is possible to recognise that and still think that what happened to Dennis was a sickening and avoidable tragedy.
posted by howfar at 5:40 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


It's hard to embrace democracy and not support radical religious freedom, even when the specific outcome is horrible.

In Vancouver, BC, the fire department is putting its foot down and saying no to developers that are putting up high-rise buildings where floors are renumbered in such a way as to avoid numbers 4, 13, and other numbers with 4 in them, done to placate superstitious buyers. I'm not kidding. When emergency personnel have to get people out of burning buildings, they have to communicate with each other the correct information about their location and where people may need rescue, which is immensely difficult when the floor numbering scheme has been taken over by spiritual guidelines. Superstition kills, literally. It is quite impossible for democracy, let alone a humane, modern society to be compatible with religious or spiritual extremism that directly puts lives in harm's way.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 6:40 PM on November 5, 2015 [10 favorites]


howfar: "I wish there were more JWs to take children like Dennis; on average, many lives would be saved. Better yet, I wish that we as a society had the courage to treat kids with the love, care and compassion that they deserve. Dennis' aunt did; if not for the cancer we would have called her a hero. Now we're berating her for her care, but without her intervention Dennis might have died a long time ago.

I have a friend who was denied any contact with her parents because she stopped conforming to Jehovah's Witness doctrine. This is not unusual. Look up "shunning".

No-one is berating Dennis's aunt for her care, but many of us take exception to the cruelty and manipulation that her religion uses to control its adherents and to punish those who lapse. Were the movement more compassionate, more caring, more loving, then Dennis might still be alive. As it is, we will never know whether it was faith or fear that led him to his choice.

Some of the very best and kindest people I know are Witnesses. That doesn't make the doctrines or practices of the faith any less abhorrent.

Of course we should each be better, of course we should each do more. It is possible to recognise that and still think that what happened to Dennis was a sickening and avoidable tragedy.
"

I'm sorry, but I do sort of have a dog in this race. Far back, in my youth, I was seeing a woman whose best friend had an alcoholic, drug abusing (and potentially pedophilic) husband. The JW's swept down on her at her weakest and convinced her that no one was at fault. His behavior was due to demons in him and therefore no one was at fault and it would all be settled post-mortally. So, instead of telling him to get stuffed and leaving him and taking the children, she was taught that she had to continue dealing with it and do her marital duties, as it was NOT his fault and sooner or later she could deal with the demons.

So, ummm, yeah, that was wrong. I don't think all JW's are bad, but those initial recruiters were and the local community that kept pressuring her in staying (and keeping the children) in an unhealthy relationship were, and that's been the extent of my exposure so, while YMMV, I can't see them as anything but terminally misguided.
posted by Samizdata at 7:08 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


I don't disagree with the idea of bodily autonomy, but at what point do we draw a line? I think it would actually be easier to accept if their weren't these extenuating circumstances of being a neglected child and having someone who is not his mother providing him spiritual guidance.

I guess in short, the story left me with the question of "How much is this really his decision, and how much is this an impressionable child from a neglected life trying to appease the person he thinks cares for him?"

The point the ethicist makes about children refusing treatment over fear of hair loss is especially poignant.

I'm struggling to articulate the how and why I feel it's wrong. I guess the question that makes me feel squished out is how do we know that the aunt wasn't poisoning his mind? If the same story came out and the aunt admitted to coaching him, or the daughters said the aunt manipulated him, no one would say that's okay. (I don't think?) the story reads to me like that is a strong possibility. It may be my own messed up childhood that colors my perception. But I passages like:
"Another elder told her to prepare for Dennis to be transfused. Visualize Dennis receiving blood, he said, the bag of blood hanging by his bed, the line going into his arm.

The thought made her nauseous.


“(Elders) told me to comfort Dennis and that there was nothing the hospital could do because he was a minor,” Mincin told me by email. “I had to prove to them, because Dennis wanted me to, that he was a mature minor.”

She said she decided to read Dennis a Bible passage on fierce resistance."
Make me believe that this was her choice, not his. We have age of consent laws because we don't believe minors can give consent and because we know, fundamentally, that children are easily manipulated by adults.

I can't see this as anything but manipulating someone that can't understand what is really being asked of them. I may be dead wrong but I'm surprised that anyone would say this is okay with that question looming over this boy.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 7:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


I can't see them as anything but terminally misguided.

"Terminally misguided" is, I think, a particularly, and depressingly, apposite choice of phrase. There are a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses (and other millennialist groups) in the area where I grew up, and I've known a number of members over the years. Almost without exception, these individuals have seemed to be the victims of exploitation by power structures that serve a few selfish and ego-driven men. I feel comfortable in judging the organisations as malign, despite (and in some ways because of) having had typically positive experiences with members on a personal level.
posted by howfar at 7:52 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


In reading this discussion, I find myself torn, and I've been thinking about this issue for decades, so thanks, Mefites! Frowner's points about the sanctity of the individual and the right to make our own terrible decisions in life are very powerful. (Hey, the right to think for myself is why I left the witnesses...)

I do think it matters to have a bright-but-arbitrary line, though, at which point you are legally responsible for yourself. Should it be 16 rather than 14? (But 12 year old me would have just as adamant.) There are always going to be people on the wrong side of that line, and I guess you could have a judge review everything on a case by case basis. But how can a judge possibly peer into your soul and determine what belief is truly yours for life and what is just something you are holding for a time because a parent gave it to you? Better to take people at their word, then, once they are of age. (Whatever that is.) Though there is something to be said for the burden of belief being greater the greater the consequences.

So how do we, as an enlightened society at large, mitigate the harm of people choosing terrible lifestyles for their kids?

We could do nothing. (Freedom trumps all.) But then kids die.

We could ban it. (Some things are too terrible to tolerate.) But we had better be prepared for backlash and entrenchment and defiance, because man does nothing really bring a fringe group together like the sense of being persecuted*.

*The biggest mental adjustment on leaving was realizing that, no, actually, the rest of the world doesn't give two figs for any of the daring and provacative things we stood for, and in fact, has never heard of us, or thought we were a kind of Mormon or something.

Or we can build a robust safety net to catch anyone who wants out. (Mitigate the harm, the compromise that leaves no one fully satisfied.) Good public schools (that allow you to practice your weirdo beliefs while showing you that others do it differently, and by the way here is some knowledge about the world). Job training programs and places to stay for people who would otherwise lose their entire community in an instant. The internet saved my life. So did access to affordable live-in college. These are things that would of course benefit lots of regular people, and would maybe have caught Dennis before he ended up with his aunt in the first place.

But then we are still left with kids like 14 year old me. Yeah, [insert clever name here], I also got the vibe of kid not fully, totally being the driving force here. I think the judge made a bad call; the kid's ideas about maybe being one of the 144,000 struck me as bizarre. But who knows, maybe he just let his aunt be the spokesperson for what he also believed. I know that I would have made this choice out of a 100% authentic sense of self determination. I most definitely understood and agreed with this doctrine very clearly. What I lacked, what all teenagers lack, and many adults, was context, and perspective, and a few key facts (thanks, early internet!).

So is it better to let my 14-year-old past self die authentically, or to compel me live (angry and violated and rededicated to the cause, or perhaps secretly relieved) so that I could, if I wanted, change my mind another day?

Death is so final. I am okay with drawing the line of martyrdom at 18.
posted by puffyn at 8:18 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]


One of those things is the violation of the most intimate and personal forms of volition. And the volition that governs our own bodily integrity, the choice we have as far as what happens inside our own skins, is (as far as I can tell) the most intimate and most personal form of volition.

You mean like vaccinations?

This whole "respect bodily integrity" argument is a load of nonsense in this context. His body did not have "integrity" insofar as it was enfeebled by leukemia. To maintain his bodily integrity, he SHOULD have been forced to undergo treatment and he SHOULD have been removed by CPS from his guardian's care.

Joe in Australia: He went to his aunt 1 year before being diagnosed with and dying of leukemia. In my eyes, that's a wash. We can and SHOULD argue against the succor his guardian provided him because, you know what, it was a death sentence in this context.

Frowner, your comments have been thoughtful and eloquent but they're just plain wrong. There is no way to defend or even make conscionable this young boy's "decision" to end his life before he had the full understanding to make that decision.

People have already backed off the comparison of life-saving medical procedures (blood transfusion) to life-terminating procedures (abortion), but there was one recurrence, so I'd like to reiterate that the two kinds of procedures are not comparable. At all. Especially given this specific context.
posted by mistersquid at 8:21 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]


When I was a seventh-grader my church youth group (Methodist) visited several different churches of other religions: Greek Orthodox, Catholic, an AME church in Dallas. Personally I'd have a hard time adhering to any specific... anything... without researching or experiencing it myself. To this day I feel lucky to have had a variety of perspectives and exposure to multiple religions. The trouble with following a religion because everyone you know does it or because it's all you know is ridiculously limiting. This boy hadn't explored any other beliefs - it sounds like he joined his aunt's religion and never considered any other options. To me, making a decision based on only one option seems destructive. This boy had no idea of his choices or options and I wish he had been able to consider other perspectives.
posted by bendy at 9:15 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]


I think individuality is fragile. It's something we strive toward. We strive to be people, to have some coherent sense of self, set of beliefs, personal history; we strive to be continuous instead of just a thing buffeted into beliefs by circumstance and force.

This, honestly, sounds just as romantic and fetishistic as anything religious on the subject.

It's all well and good, except - in my opinion - when striving to "be a person" leads to no longer actually being one, especially when the literal person is in a developmentally distinct moment. Fourteen.

Insisting that a person's value be defined by one or three ephemeral moments in which it might be said they were willing (but not free, in any way that's not just poetic - impossible to be unhooked from causality, position, indoctrination, memory) is just as transcendental an idea as whatever story this kid told himself (because he was told it, and because he was young).
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]


I mean, seriously. Look at it for what it is. A fourteen year old offs himself because he was trained to.

That's the argument to use to support the idea of precious autonomy, freedom, whatever? His dead body is an argument? I can't with this, gross.
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:52 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]


It's madness, isn't it.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:06 AM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I do think it matters to have a bright-but-arbitrary line, though, at which point you are legally responsible for yourself

Ideally this line would coincide with when you are practically responsible for yourself. In other words, if other people are still your caretakers, then you do not really have the experience and real world engagement of an adult. I think having 18 as the age of adulthood is meant to reflect the notion that that is also when you are expected to "go out into the world" in one way or another.

This is still complicated obviously - some young people have learned more on the street, some 20-somethings are still coddled by their parents - but wherever we put that line, it works both ways. Once you can start making big life decisions for yourself, you should also be able to start paying the electric bill.

And individual autonomy doesn't have to be seen as so desirable. It is also difficult. Getting help from people who care about your future is a benefit of childhood, not a downside. A 14 year old is not just seeking a right when asking for this, but also shouldering a responsibility.
posted by mdn at 3:06 AM on November 6, 2015


To maintain his bodily integrity, he SHOULD have been forced to undergo treatment

Why does this argument apply at age 14 and not 18 or 24? It is, I would argue, a peculiar idea of autonomy which can be undermined by illness, and I don't see why age would be significant in the model you propose.

People have already backed off the comparison of life-saving medical procedures (blood transfusion) to life-terminating procedures (abortion), but there was one recurrence, so I'd like to reiterate that the two kinds of procedures are not comparable. At all. Especially given this specific context

Assertion is not argument. In my view, the only way one can argue that abortion is ethically irrelevant here is if by arguing that the right to abortion is not derived from bodily autonomy but rather from the "foetuses aren't people" line of argument. For all kinds of technical ethical and politically pragmatic reasons, I think that line of argument is a bad one.

Insisting that a person's value be defined by one or three ephemeral moments in which it might be said they were willing (but not free, in any way that's not just poetic - impossible to be unhooked from causality, position, indoctrination, memory) is just as transcendental an idea as whatever story this kid told himself (because he was told it, and because he was young).

Your argument seems to be dependent on the idea that the fact of causality renders all defences of freedom "transcendental" and irrelevant. That being the case, I have to ask why the age of 14 is significant. Free will is just as illusory once we're past the legal age of majority. So why not force all Jehovah's Witnesses to receive blood transfusions to save their lives?

I mean, seriously. Look at it for what it is. A fourteen year old offs himself because he was trained to.

That's the argument to use to support the idea of precious autonomy, freedom, whatever? His dead body is an argument? I can't with this, gross.


I don't see that argument being made anywhere here. Freedom is necessary despite its appalling consequence, not because of them.

Respect for personal bodily autonomy has negative consequences. Sometimes profoundly negative consequences. Defending the freedom only to do those things we think are right is no defence of freedom at all. That's a fundamental aspect of liberalism: seeing some ghastly fucking tragedy caused by human stupidity and failure and not necessarily thinking that the law should intervene. It's not a belief that engenders any great sense of righteousness. It's just a shitty consequence of trying to organise a society in a somewhat less fucked up and authoritarian way.
posted by howfar at 3:51 AM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]


For anyone interested in this subject, I would recommend Lori Beaman's book Defining Harm, about the Bethany Hughes case, in which Hughes refused transfusions; was forced to receive transfusions; and died of leukemia. Hughes' case is especially complex as her father was attempting to get her blood transfusions. It goes into the intersection of law, religion, and science about how to define what would be most harmful to the child (and how the court's understanding of "mature" might also be biased by factors such as gender). Beaman specializes on the intersection of religion and law. The publisher has a free chapter on their website.
posted by flibbertigibbet at 4:00 AM on November 6, 2015 [7 favorites]


I took several years worth of training to do with medical billing and coding, and one interesting concept was that socially we are minors until some age decided by law, but for medical purposes, including consent to or refusal of procedures, 14 is old enough to make decisions. Actually some of this functions to allow young people to go ahead with obtaining birth control or an abortion.
One is medically an adult. It is not an absolute line in the sand. I think this young person was emotionally too fragile. I feel distressed reading about him. He could have been any number of my school - mates.
I have favorited comments in defense of his aunt, and even in defense of his decision, and even in defense of the JWs, not because I like any of those things, but because, the social consequences of the other side of the coin are also bad.
14 is too young in our society to consent to sex, but 14 year olds one way or the other have sex all the time and they get pregnant or cause pregnancies all the time. It's really a type of harm reduction to allow them to quietly obtain birth control or safe abortions whether their parents like the idea or not.
I really dislike the Jehovah's Witnesses, like others I have a real problem with their doctrines and their social set - up.
The fact remains that he'd have the same right to refuse treatment if he were not a member of this group and the same right to consent to treatment. Mostly the age at which he chose to refuse treatment distresses people, and the results also distress people. No one likes to see a young person die.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 5:03 AM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I don't see that argument being made anywhere here. Freedom is necessary despite its appalling consequence, not because of them.

This 14 y/o's "volition" / "personal autonomy" is a key point of interest here, the thing that justifies this, right? Except from a developmental POV, and from the POV of any framework for understanding human behaviour (that is coherent and known to me, a limitation there true), it is hard to see how or when he's actually used volition in making this "choice". The only thing "autonomous" here is his literal, material body. Which is the very thing some are ok with seeing let go. It strikes me as heavily ironic.

Freedom is necessary despite its appalling consequence, not because of them

There are always limits to freedom, in (functional) societies. We give some kinds of freedom up so we can live within a society, and have the freedom to not worry about dying alone in the wild or starving (in a functional society) or being murdered by roving gangs.
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:46 AM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


Most of this discussion seems to be treating the idea of bodily autonomy as a black and white issue: either you have it or you do not. But we make all kinds of distinctions. 16-year-olds in many states can get an abortion without parental consent, but not a nose job.
posted by Nothing at 6:57 AM on November 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


And I'm not sure 100% freedom's a 100% unalloyed good.
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:57 AM on November 6, 2015


KernalM: You're thinking of the Cassandra C. case in Conneticut, and yes, she was forced to undergo chemotherapy by child services after running away because she didn't want "toxins" in her body.

She went home in April after five months in the hospital.

Last news items I found was an interview on a cancer site that claims it can cure you with "natural, non-toxic methods", and has her denouncing the hospital treatment.


The only response I could give would be, "Did you say something? Oh, you did. Because you're still fucking alive."
posted by dances with hamsters at 7:15 AM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


Except from a developmental POV, and from the POV of any framework for understanding human behaviour (that is coherent and known to me, a limitation there true), it is hard to see how or when he's actually used volition in making this "choice". The only thing "autonomous" here is his literal, material body

I think you need to be clear whether you are making (1) a broad argument from the illusory nature of free will, (2) an argument that 14-year-olds don't have have meaningful autonomy about life and death decisions, or (3) a more specific argument about the specific limitations placed on this individual's free will.

I think the first argument has a lot of consequences no-one wants, and is highly problematic; I think it is fundamentally authoritarian in bent. I don't think the second argument would be much better, because it tends to devolve to the first argument (causality of all kinds applying to adults us much as to teenagers), and has the additional complication of potentially making room for discrimination against people with mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities. The third argument seems respectable enough to me: it is quite possible that, in this particular case, the court made the wrong decision. But I get the sense that you want to argue that any court which ever allows a 14-year-old to refuse lifesaving treatment is necessarily wrong, and I don't think argument (3) would support that position.

And I'm not sure 100% freedom's a 100% unalloyed good.

No-one is arguing this, as far as I can see. No-one has, for example, said that the court had no business hearing the state's case, or that anyone should be able to refuse treatment for any reason. I myself certainly was very clear above in saying "I would argue that the right to bodily autonomy, to freedom from physical interference, is profoundly important, and that we should only abridge it in circumstances where there is a compelling justification for doing so. I do not see age, in itself, as being compelling, although it is likely to be a factor in some cases where I believe a compelling case could be made". That's not an argument for 100% freedom. Are there specific points that others have raised which you feel are simplistically demanding liberty without consideration of its consequences?
posted by howfar at 7:36 AM on November 6, 2015


I think you need to be clear whether you are making (1) a broad argument from the illusory nature of free will, (2) an argument that 14-year-olds don't have have meaningful autonomy about life and death decisions, or (3) a more specific argument about the specific limitations placed on this individual's free will.

Well, frankly, for the purposes of our casual discussion here and in the service of my horror, I collapsed them all together.

It's been many years since I considered the arguments around free will with any care. The last time I did, I concluded that even though the idea that free will is illusory may be undesirable, it's the only logical conclusion, unless you define "free will" in some way that has little to do with what we ordinarily mean by it. (Things being entirely undetermined - random or chaotic at the point of action - isn't better for human agency, afaic.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:03 AM on November 6, 2015


Obviously, there may be some persuasive arguments I haven't seen. What empirical stuff in psychology I have seen (although, fair dos on crits re replication etc) only supports what I thought before.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:05 AM on November 6, 2015


Reluctance to take a strong side in this matter comes from the fact that we're dealing with the same problem space as DNRs, living wills, medical powers of attorney, choices to pursue palliative care over low-efficacy/high-pain treatment, and medical suicide.

Personally, my family is looking at the one-year anniversary of the call when we were told that his care team had given up, and it was time for hospice to move in. Every single decision after that involved hours of discussion, with the underlying debate, are we doing the right thing?

I strongly suspect Mr. Lindberg might be wrong. But it's not a decision I feel comfortable from a safe distance.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:25 AM on November 6, 2015


The last time I did, I concluded that even though the idea that free will is illusory may be undesirable, it's the only logical conclusion, unless you define "free will" in some way that has little to do with what we ordinarily mean by it.

I think this is only the case if you adopt an essentialist or existentialist view of the self and free will. I'm comfortable with saying that free will in that sense does not exist, but that free will exists in the more prosaic sense that the course of a person's life is determined by a series of small and localised causal processes that are not clearly predetermined by any single overarching trend, which is I think closer to how people tend to mean it on a personal and ethical level. That, given what it is possible to know about a person, it is not possible to know how they will respond in any given situation. That might not be a very satisfying definition, but I think it's sufficient for the purposes we actually need it for in most non-religious contexts. I think it's enough to allow us to have respect for personal autonomy, certainly.
posted by howfar at 11:02 AM on November 6, 2015


cotton dress sock: “Obviously, there may be some persuasive arguments I haven't seen. What empirical stuff in psychology I have seen (although, fair dos on crits re replication etc) only supports what I thought before.”

This only illustrates the very real limits of empirical psychology. Nobody can point to a physical object and say, "there is free will right there." This is obvious. The same is true of love, justice, pain, hatred, sorrow, death, life, etc. The fundamental facts of human experience aren't empirical. They're made up of empirical things, yes, but they are not the empirical things themselves; they're in the relations between the empirical things. This may seem like a cop-out, but it's true of the empirical things themselves: they do not exist, at least not in the ways we'd really like them to exist, in easily and entirely provable and demonstrable ways. All is in flux, and all we can say is that we experience X or Y. That is how science works.

So when we have an experience that we've made a choice, it makes no sense to say, "oh, I'm not sure I actually made a choice about anything until I get to see the neuron firing freely, without seeing any cause prior to it" - unfortunately that doesn't make much sense. The choice we made is the fundamental part of our experience. It can't be ignored, and there's no simple explanation for it. The same is true of love, justice, truth, etc. You can't just point to the mass of chemicals that is the brain and say, "well, it's probably somewhere in there, among the chemicals." That's true – the brain is what it is, the seat of our thoughts and feelings – but it doesn't actually explain the multifarious complex of ideas that make up the human experiences. It's just a deflection, not an explanation.

I say this not because I believe in absolute "free will," which seems like a dramatic abstraction even to an empiricism skeptic like me, but because it's a hugely problematic dodging of responsibility when people bring this lack of free will disputation into a discussion of whether people should be constrained against their will and forced to undergo medical procedures. We are confronted daily with situations in which we have to decide whether to treat other humans with dignity. We absolutely cannot duck out of those situations by airily shrugging that nobody really has any free will anyway.

As a scholar of philosophy, I appreciate the apparent futility with which we come away from thinking about freedom of the will and the soul; and I appreciate that examination shows that we are influenced imperceptibly by all sorts of things beyond our ken or control. But as a scholar of political philosophy, I have to insist that to dwell in that futility – or worse, to allow it to dictate our actions – is a calamitous mistake which we absolutely must avoid.

Socrates spoke of making a "turn" away from his days spent with his head in the clouds contemplating his existence, a turn toward the human things. These are the human things: the experiences of love and friendship, our attempts to make the world just and fair, our desire for happiness. Pretending that all of these things are ephemeral is silly, because as humans we know that, in fact, these are the things we actually aim at in everything we do anyway. We have this experience: we make choices every day about whether to give people freedom or take it away; we make choices every day about whether to hurt or to harm those around us. We have the experience of making those choices. We could theorize that it wasn't really "us" making those choices – that there is not really any "us" to make the decisions – but by doing so, we are relinquishing our place in the human world, and stepping away from it. That's a mistake.
posted by koeselitz at 1:51 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm comfortable with saying that free will in that sense does not exist, but that free will exists in the more prosaic sense that the course of a person's life is determined by a series of small and localised causal processes that are not clearly predetermined by any single overarching trend, which is I think closer to how people tend to mean it on a personal and ethical level.

I guess I don't understand how recognizing multifactorial causation (that may involve unknown and latent but still causally connected factors) counts as freedom.

That, given what it is possible to know about a person, it is not possible to know how they will respond in any given situation.

This to me points only to the unpredictability of outcomes from the point of view of a particular observer who has necessarily limited knowledge of relevant factors, and the huge range of probabilities. But the lack of (human) predictability of one outcome or another doesn't make it less necessary or causally bound.

(Is the implication is that we might call an action "free" post hoc, after it was taken, because it was taken?)

Nobody can point to a physical object and say, "there is free will right there." This is obvious. The same is true of love, justice, pain, hatred, sorrow, death, life, etc. The fundamental facts of human experience aren't empirical. They're made up of empirical things, yes, but they are not the empirical things themselves; they're in the relations between the empirical things.

There is subjective experience, which is irreducible to the material and laws that give rise to it and shape it, but one can try to look at that material and those laws.

There are (partly, contingently, imperfectly) observable phenomena that we use different languages and perspectives to describe.

(On love, it is, maybe [crudely] at once
- pheronomes etc., oxytocin, giving rise to a (subjective) feeling, informing a consciousness
- an idiosyncratically organized agglomeration of historically conscribed cultural narratives and metaphors that lives in the mind of an individual, and is imperfectly shared by that person with one or more other individuals, in a continually changing co-construction
- a series of practices and habits, shaped & defined by larger narratives)

At least some of those are facty enough to bother with, imo.
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:45 PM on November 6, 2015


cotton dress sock: “At least some of those are facty enough to bother with, imo.”

Indeed, and I don't think they shouldn't be bothered with. I don't think they shouldn't be contemplated. I only say that such contemplation must not be allowed to distract us from our duty to the present possibility that our apparent choices might have some very real impact in the world.
posted by koeselitz at 3:48 PM on November 6, 2015


I think the hospital made the right call here. The ethicist who said he'd go in and start doing it and only stop if the child said so, well, that reminds me of an attitude I've seen elsewhere.

The kid clearly knew the consequences of his refusing care. Yes, his decision was informed by a religious group whose values starkly diverge from mainstream values. So be it. And if there were the slightest hint he was under duress, then the doctors should have separated him.

But there wasn't. This was a very sick person choosing, for closely held and clearly articulated reasons, to refuse life-saving care. His right to do that is, in my view, more fundamental than anyone's right to get that care. If we have no other rights, it is the right to have our own bodies left alone.
posted by andrewpcone at 4:32 PM on November 6, 2015


They're facty enough to be arguably real influences and to arguably have some level of inpact on our choices, but that level of impact is not enough to bother with. The bar to "having free will" and hence being held accountable for our deeds is remarkably low. You are rightly considered free if you have reached legal age and are not constrained by some obvious physical law (e.g. a millwheel must continue to revolve in situ around its kingpin in the mill and is not at liberty to go rolling freely about the countryside) or obvious coercion ("Sure I drove the getaway car, Judge, but I had no choice, one of the robbers was holding a gun to my head.") If those three conditions obtain, that's plenty enough for the rest of us to consider you a person having free will and to rightly hold you personally accountable if you do bad shit. As I say, it's a low bar.

In this case the kid had not reached the (highly arbitrary) age for consent to or refusal of medical treatment and so he fails society's test for having free will. Barring other considerations, qualified adult caregivers who inflicted unwanted treatment on him (or denied him treatment) might be within their legal powers (I will not say "rights".) But they would not be good people, they would be shits. The same goes for any responsible adult parents or anyone standing in loco parentis for the kid, who had the enforceable power to say yea or nay on his behalf, and did so. They also would not be good people no matter what they decided; they would be shits.

There is no good and right answer to this conundrum. Many ethical problems have so many internal contradictions that they have no correct solution. Here's one that doesnt.
posted by jfuller at 5:06 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Reform Judaism Now the U.S.A's Most...   |   Building Bones: rearticulating animal skeletons... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments