Now, you wrote:

I disagree with you about whether a person who idolizes their parent has any business dedicating themselves to God. I see nothing wrong with such a dedication. This dedication can potentially motivate a child to strive to adhere to a certain standard that could be beneficial. What I see as problematic is when adults drill it into a child that they have a religious duty to act on that dedication by becoming a full-fledged member of the congregation even if they are a little kid.

Well, I hate to turn this into “it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is,” but the word “dedication” has a very strong meaning for Witnesses. It’s not just some lighthearted New Year’s Resolution kind of thing, to try to do something “that could be beneficial.” It IS a very serious obligation and promise to act in certain ways and believe certain things (though obviously, only the former can actually be ensured), so what I was trying to say was that children, who still see the world through rose-tinted glasses and most probably have been sheltered from the craziness of the world no matter what their religious background, should not be making such a serious decision.

About friends – more semantics, and sorry about the ambiguity (yes, Witnesses are expected to avoid contact with disfellowshipped people).

Every Witness, adult and child, has to decide the degree of closeness they develop with any non-Witnesses. I doubt that, if you asked a Witness who their best friend is, they would answer you a non-Witness. At the same time, depending on any number of circumstances, maybe the Witness has more “friends” outside the congregation than inside the congregation, but is closer with their friends that are inside the congregation. You see what I mean? Gradation. Even the YPA book says “close” friends, too.

You wrote:

The thing is, for every example that you can name where someone didn’t die despite not listening to their doctor, we could all name someone who DID die just like the doctor told them they would if they continued on a particular course of action.

I know that. I was just trying to point out that both instances do occur.

You wrote:

What you were calling bullying is really no different from what JWs do when they knock on people’s doors early in the morning […] I’m glad that my doctors seriously discussed all of the possibilities with me so that I could make an informed decision. Anything less would have been unethical.

I’m really going to have to beg to differ on that one. Huge difference. There are awkward, regrettable anomalies, but 95% of the time, Witnesses leave when people say they’re not interested. If I weren’t a Witness, I would view door-knocking Witnesses just like any other habitual stranger trying to talk to me – “Damn, those people are annoying. I’m going back to bed …” Nothing near bullying. (But believe me, I dislike the good-intentioned-but-really-obnoxious Witnesses who talk your ear off against your will just as much as you do.)

And let me tell you, “serious discussion” to facilitate “an informed decision” is a far cry from verbal and emotional abuse by a professional.

Faith and devotion are gray-area terms in a polytheistic world, so I’m not going to get into that right now. But about ectopic pregnancies: (since you seem to be familiar with Witness literature: 3/15/75 WT p. 191-2)

A possible or potential danger, even a grave one, does not justify taking matters into one’s own hands and deliberately cutting off the life of the child in the womb. [However, ....]

A tubal ectopic pregnancy cannot develop fully in this small tube [the Fallopian tube]; in time it will terminate with the rupture of the tube and the death of the embryo. If this condition is detected in advance, doctors usually treat it by removing the affected fallopian tube before it ruptures. A Christian woman with a tubal pregnancy can decide whether to accept this operation. Normally she undoubtedly would be willing to face any risks of pregnancy so that her child could live. But with a tubal pregnancy she faces a grave risk while there is no possibility that the embryo can continue to live and a child be born. [Italics added]

No way am I saying that simply believing in God makes consequent actions honorable. You’re absolutely right that abhorrent actions are performed in the name of holy things. But as the comments for this thread suggest, the integration of legal and religious is a sticky situation, and given your familiarity with Witnesses, you’d know that I’m not trying to position on the political side of things. I was just trying to straighten out misrepresentations of Witnesses, as well as give some personal experience like you did. And yeah, I guess I do think that there are some ideas that can be thought of as an adolescent and that can last you through your adult years. Or maybe I was just a mature 14-year-old.

Dying for a cause? Really, I just took a break from laughing so hard; ‘conformist’ is the absolute last adjective any person (Witness or no) would use to describe me. ‘Teaching kids to be martyrs’ is repulsive, and given what I’ve just said about decision-making in the views of Witnesses, I think it’s untrue to say that that’s something Witnesses do.

It contains direct quotes from the Watchtower Society’s publications.

My problem is with the door we’re opening. I’d be uncomfortable with the idea of the state telling a 14 year old that she couldn’t (or had to) have an abortion. I think that would be a violation of the 14 year old’s rights, especially their right to bodily autonomy. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of that same 14 year old who grew up in a bullying culture deciding not to take a blood transfusion because of social consequences. The thing is I can’t really think of an internally consistent value that would allow this hypothetical 14 year old to make their own choice about an abortion but not about a blood transfusion.

Well, that’s sort of my problem with this too. This gets to the heart of what I struggle with here–is there a consistent value that could allow for one but not the other? This is a big issue for PWD (people with disabilities) because society has already decided that it’s acceptable for other people (e.g. doctors, family members, court appointed guardians) to make the decision to “pull the plug” on people who have no expressed any desire for that to be done to them. In fact, it occasionally pulls the plug on people even though the person has expressly stated that they wanted to be allowed to continue receiving treatment.

If you had a father who openly believed that it was his duty to rape his daughter on her 13th birthday, would you wait until she was 12 and a half to take her out of the house? If you honestly believe that bringing children up as Jehova’s Witnesses is inherently abusive then you should take the children out of those homes from day one,

This isn’t about whether bringing up a child as a JW is inherently abusive. There are so many ways of being a JW that it really comes down to is whether the person is refusing medical treatment for their child because of their religious beliefs that the child might or might not share.

But, I’m guessing you don’t quite see the peculiar beliefs of Jehovas Witnesses as the same as a multigenerational pattern of rape. Theres a difference. One is uncomfortable and terribly sad, the other is monstrous.

Maybe I haven’t really been very clear then. I do see refusing medical treatment for your child with no regard to whether it may kill them as quite monstrous. As a parent, it sickens me to my heart that someone would sacrifice their child for their religion. I keep thinking about those stories in the Bible where it was said that worshippers of Molech were putting their infants into the temple fire. One could say that doing this was an uncomfortable and terribly sad situation and I think there are plenty of folks who would see it that way, but then there are those who would see this as a horrendous practice and I’m not sure I could say they were wrong for feeling that way. Ironically, the God of the Bible seems to take the latter position as expressed in Leviticus

The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [a] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. 4 If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, 5 I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.

I’m not comfortable with the idea of this kind of power in the hands of the Bush administration. However, that’s the same reaons why I’m not comfortable with this kind of power being in the hands of a group of men anonymously making these decisions for people they will never meet nor am I comfortable with the fact that society already has a tendency to want to dispose of all it’s “defective” members and that all these decisions are being made within that context.

My evidence is the same as yours. I’m judging from what people who have been baptized young and later left the faith have said along with what I’ve witnessed with my own eyes. Are you using anything different from that? We could both hope that baptizing adolescents is a very rare thing but does the governing body up there in Brooklyn actually release the data so we could get some real numbers to look at here? I’ve looked and I haven’t found it. If you could point it out to me where they have, I’d greatly appreciate it.

I disagree with you about whether a person who idolizes their parent has any business dedicating themselves to God. I see nothing wrong with such a dedication. This dedication can potentially motivate a child to strive to adhere to a certain standard that could be beneficial. What I see as problematic is when adults drill it into a child that they have a religious duty to act on that dedication by becoming a full-fledged member of the congregation even if they are a little kid.

With regards to whether JWs are allowed to have “friends in the faith and out”, I’m afraid the organization’s own literature just doesn’t back up your claim. One of my relatives recently gave my daughter a copy of the latest “Questions Young People Ask” book. In it, in the second paragraph on page 144,

“After all, to remain close friends with someone, you need to share that one’s interests and values. If you forge close friendships with people who don’t adhere to your Scriptural beliefs and standards, such association is bound to affect your conduct. For good reason, the apostle Paul wrote: ‘Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers.’”

on page 146:

“Similarly, at school you’re surrounded by people who lack the protection that comes from being one of Jehovah’s friends. If you were to abandon Jehovah’s standards just to be close to your classmates, you would only endanger your own spiritual health and happiness. How much better it would be if you tried to help your classmates join you in the lifeboat, so to speak, by showing them how to serve Jehovah.”

If you want to check out what their website says, How Can I Avoid Getting Involved With the Wrong People? might be a good start. I have no doubt that some JW teens may have non-JW friends but the religion definitely teaches that this is not right. Your statement seemed a little ambiguous in a way, too. Were you saying “false” to the part that I wrote about JW teens not being allowed to communicate with disfellowshipped JWs? If so, I’d appreciate it if you could point me to any info to back that up.

This isn’t about whether miracles are possible. I think I can make a pretty strong case for the existence of miracles by simply relating my own experience with chest surgeries and disabilities. The thing is, for every example that you can name where someone didn’t die despite not listening to their doctor, we could all name someone who DID die just like the doctor told them they would if they continued on a particular course of action. What you were calling bullying is really no different from what JWs do when they knock on people’s doors early in the morning. I can’t even count how many times my family has tried to tell me about the “life-saving message” that they are convinced is the only thing that will save me from the Armageddon where God is going to smite all the non-believers. They think they are telling me what I need to consider in order to have a shot at saving my life. Okay, I understand that. That’s why it’s also understandable to me for a doctor to ask those kinds of questions to someone like your grandmother. When I was going through my surgeries, I was a single mom. I’m glad that my doctors seriously discussed all of the possibilities with me so that I could make an informed decision. Anything less would have been unethical.

You wrote

“But what I’m referring to is that a teen who’s one of Jehovah’s Witnesses understands that having an abortion is a serious act of presumptuousness in thinking that an imperfect human, rather than God (the creator and giver of life), can decide the fate of a life.”

That’s a mighty big assumption that just doesn’t match up with the facts. In reality, people who are JWs disagree about this stuff too. If they all felt the same way, the guys up there in the grand authoritative council wouldn’t be constantly having to deal with disfellowshipping JWs who didn’t abide by this doctrine. It’s the same for JW women as it is for other women. They are just as capable of independent thought as anyone else. It’s not about whether you have a strong belief in God. Contrary to what the JW organization teaches, one can have a faith in God that is equal to or even above that of your average JW and still not agree with your religion’s doctrines. Of course, if you’re taught that the world is just full of bad people who don’t actually read the Bible for themselves, then it’s easy to think that JWs are different from the rest of the world because they/you are more devout. If you really want to see just how much JW ideas about abortion vary from what you’ve stated, just ask around about what’s the correct thing to do in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. If what you’re stating is true, then the JW organization would be against women having abortions in those cases. But guess what? It’s considered an exception to the rule. The ruling is that it’s not really an abortion because you’re just getting the tube removed and as a result the fetus gets aborted but since there’s an excuse that they find valid, it’s not considered an offense.

God is real to you. Okay, congratulations. You officially have something in common with almost everyone else on this planet. The vast majority of the Earth’s population would say that they truly believe that there is a God. However, that doesn’t mean that what you’re believing in is really of value. If you think that simply believing that you’re doing God’s will is something honorable, then do you have any idea what sort of behavior you’re condoning? How many horrendous actions have people made because they were convinced that there was a paradise awaiting them if they just followed orders? And, you know, I have no problem if you’re willing to die for a cause. The issue is should a parent be able to decide that it’s better for their child to die than to do everything possible to give the child a chance at life. When I was 14, I was convinced that I knew what I wanted out of life and what direction I was going to go in. If a person never changes his mind about life between when they are 14 and when they are a decade or two older, then there’s something seriously wrong.

The thing about societal or religious pressure is that it’s often so ingrained that we can’t see just how much it may or may not be affecting our decision to do something that (coincidentally?) coincides exactly with what that society or religion is telling you that you’d better do or face ostracism. If I told my daughter that I wouldn’t hug or kiss her anymore if she pierced her bellybutton, she might decide not to get it pierced but can anyone prove that her decision isn’t largely influenced by the fact that she doesn’t want to ever be deprived of my affection?

Lastly, about this: “what have you seen that makes you say that girls who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are less able to “survive on their own” (what is this, the jungle?) than boys are?”

I’m going to be provocative too. No, it’s not the jungle. It’s the patriarchal cult that thinks teaching kids to be martyrs is noble.

Another question would be to wonder if bodily autonomy should be divided according to the specific issue. Meaning, should the age for a teen being able to decide whether or not to get an abortion be the same as the age for a Jehovah’s Witness deciding to risk it all and save their own life with a blood tranfusion?

I do agree that there are magnitudes of difference between getting an abortion and refusing life saving treatment. I guess for me the question really boils down to: at what age do we respect someone’s decision to end their own life? Thats a tough enough question without adding the really difficult religious/social coercion dimension.

The Jehova’s Witness thing becomes really sticky for because of the end results: regardless of what happens. On the one side you have someone who is stating their intent, but as a society we worry about the finality of their decision and whether they really made it of their own free will or if they’re deciding to die because they fear the social consequences of accepting life saving treatment. The fear there, as I see it, is that the child is having their freedom of choice removed by coercive social ecpectation (the Jehova’s Witnesses). The problem is that, baring some kind of direct signal from the child that they’re being coerced, the only solution is to violate the stated intent of the child based upon our own social expectations. In both cases you have people doing something “for the child’s own good” and in both cases that something is essentially taking away any agency the child might have. Thats a just plain shitty situation, but I don’t really see any alternatives.

Actually, I agree with you in general, but not for an otherwise healthy child, especially under the circumstances we’ve been discussing.

My question would be: why? Why should being otherwise healthy negate the right to decide the course of your life?

I suspect, and I could very well be wrong, that the discomfort here has less to do with health than to do with the circumstances surrounding the choice, the suspicion that the choice has not been made of the person’s own free will but is instead the result of coercion. Thats a real concern, and it does make this a very difficult hypothetical, but I worry about the idea of giving doctors or the state the power to veto what would otherwise be a personal decision based on the suspicion that coercion might be taking place. In this specific case the end result might be good (thats probably even the likely outcome) but I shudder to think how this power will be used in the hands of many doctors and politicians.

I’d say the court and the child’s doctors get to decide. Courts are especially skilled in making decisions about autonomy. They do it all day and I think we’ve reached the conclusion that they are the absolute worst decisionmakers except for everyone else.

I’d argue that courts aren’t good arbiters of autonomy. They’re certainly good arbiters of the previous generation’s social mores, but beyond that…

And I really don’t like the idea of doctors having special power to overrule individuals. I’ve run into too many doctors who’ve decided that because I’m disabled or because I’m not an M.D. they don’t really need to explain whats going on. I’ve even been threatened with sedation for refusing to comply with treatment until it was explained exactly whats going on. I have a chronically mentally ill patient right now who’s language abilities have been permanently damaged because of repeated uses of powerful sedatives to ensure they’re compliance.

What you’re proposing is substituting one coercive set of completely subjective social values for another set of completely subjective coercive values. I just think that kind of approach needs to be discussed, analyzed, and used in only the most dire of circumstances.

As for second-guessing a medical decision of the child, I suspect (though only suspect) you’d be willing to do so in other circumstances. If the child, for example, announced that the Easter Bunny forbade him from taking antibiotics, would you respect the child’s judgment and let him die?

That would have a lot to do with the age (just like any case). If we’re talking about someone in their teens, probably. I’d talk, urge, argue, plead, but at the end of the day I just couldn’t justify strapping someone down and forcing them to undergo a procedure they don’t want.

The hypothetical you’re suggesting seems to conflate sincerely held religious belief with mental illness (or, at the very least, foolishness) and, as a result, disregard personal decisions stemming from it. Further, you’re implicitly advocating the use of force to ensure compliance with what you deem appropriate because of your view of the world. “Your beliefs are silly, do what I say or I’ll make you do it.” That seems a dangerous path to go down. Thats the same logic (with a marginally different starting point) that was (and still is) used to justify imperialism, racism, sexism, and plenty of other garbage.

The value is “protect children from nonsense that might kill them, because they won’t get a second chance.”

Who defines “nonesense,” and what is the standard used to determine if it “might” kill them? Thats the core of my concern here. That categorical imperative has been used to justify as many horrors as it has wonders. It also has built into it the culturally specific value that life has some inherant value. I’m not saying it doesn’t (I tend to believe it does, in most cases). I’m saying that I’m always concerned when we, as a society, decide to inflict our beliefs on someone else. It is doubtlessly necessary in some cases, but the tendency a lot of people have to constantly expand the power of government to enforce compliance to social norms disturbs me.

Age of consent. Juvenile justice. Contract law. Labor law. Driving privileges. Smoking. Drinking. Compulsory education. Vaccination.

Would you argue that the right call has been made on most of those? That it takes more maturity to buy a beer than a gun? That you can be sentenced to life for a crime committed before you were old enough to have a work permit? Is smoking a more dangerous activity than operating a motor vehicle? Even these “standards” are fluid and changing. The age of consent varies from state to state, as does the age of majority. Vaccination requirements are routinely waved not only for those with religious concerns, but for those who fear the possible negative effects of vaccination. The age at which someone can drop out of school is not the same everywhere. These are not set standards, they are subjective (and generally arbitrary) decisions made by various officials based on a great number of concerns (child welfare often being towards the bottom of the list).

A child or an adult? For a child, certainly at 100% probability of death. The lower you go, the less certain I am and the less likely to take action. I don’t see this as affecting the underlying value, though. The decreasing probability decreases the likelihood that the principle applies, as well.

But the idea you’re proposing would likely extend far beyond 100% probability of death. The law is not designed to deal with those kinds of nuances. I simply don’t believe that legislators, courts, and doctors are suddenly going to show restraint when granted this new power. They haven’t in the past, I don’t see why they will now. Too many doctors already view their patient’s bodies as their own personal playgrounds. Too many doctors see themselves as medical patriarchs, not as well-paid mechanics.

If I understand the principles you have in mind, you would refrain from giving life-saving treatment to an otherwise healthy infant who objected to the treatment.

An infant cannot form consent, they are essentially reflexive creatures, effectively unaware of their world, and they are certainly unable to consider the consequences of their actions in any way.

If so, what about a four-year-old – and if the result is different, why?

For me it comes down to development. A four year old, while certainly more aware than an infant, isn’t really capable of thinking about the future or understanding the consequences of their actions in anything more than an immediate way. I wouldn’t argue that a 4 year old (or even a 7 year old) is unable to make decisions. I’d even go an extra step and say that the state should sometimes step in and override parents of very young children in extreme cases. For me the tipping point starts to come somewhere between 10 and 12, although individual differences in maturation means all 12 year olds aren’t likely to be equal.

Its a complicated issue and I’m not convinced there is a right answer (if there is, I surely don’t have it). I’d think using similar situations could be helpful. At what age can you be tried as an adult for murder? At what age can you have sex with someone of a similar age and not have it be statutory rape? At what age would you be allowed to make medical decisions in opposition to your parent’s opinion? At what age can you become an emancipated minor? All of these things get to the core question: how old does someone have to be to understand the consequences of serious actions. I think I’d be comfortable with something like 13 or 14 being the age at which medical autonomy is established, and I think 16 would be a bit old. But, thats me. I’m sure others will have a different opinion. I think the discussion alone, regardless of whether anyone agrees at the end, is valuable.