Jain Girl (Age 13) Dies After Fasting for 68 Days

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

Child sacrifice to religious beings, or in fact for any reason, is never a good thing and I would say this was especially true when the parents were the catalyst.

As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?

Absolutely not; children depending on age and country, do not have the same rights of refusal of medical care as adults. There are numourous academic and research articles about medical ethics available online if one needs an intellectual boost in this notion.

The other situation is where the child is not particularly religious but the parents choose not permit medical care (blood) anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/08/judge-rules-jehovahs-witness-boy-blood-transfusion

The whole thing is a pitiful, sordid bastardisation of religious devotion. I've posted on it many times in here but the JW protagonists will defend their religion's practices with the usual blind commitment of the deluded and morally compromised.

Originally posted by divegeester
[b]Should parents have the right to put their religion's demands ahead of their child's life?

Child sacrifice to religious beings, or in fact for any reason, is never a good thing and I would say this was especially true when the parents were the catalyst.

As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the ...[text shortened]... eir religion's practices with the usual blind commitment of the deluded and morally compromised.

The parents are still at fault, this is a primative rite and should have no part in 21st century life and the same with JW's refusing medical help that would save a child's life.

God's will my ass. It is modern medicine that heals not pithy words from a priest.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The parents are still at fault, this is a primative rite and should have no part in 21st century life and the same with JW's refusing medical help that would save a child's life.

God's will my ass. It is modern medicine that heals not pithy words from a priest.

"In the absence of a miracle the latest from medical science will be fine"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

As a possible (though not exact) analogy, should a Jehovah's Witness *child* have the right to refuse a blood transfusion after being informed that it's needed to save one's life?

This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.

The Jain case is a poor comparison for while I note that you correctly state its not an exact analogy its in my opinion so far removed that no logical comparison can be drawn because it was the direct consequence of the adherents will, not a reaction to a situation over which the minor has no jurisdiction as in the case of haemophilia or some other life threatening ailment which would normally warrant an intravenouses blood transfusion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.

While they are in a hospital bed unconscious?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This has been tested in court. It depends whether or not the minor can demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions.

Suppose the minor cannot "demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions" - I guess they die huh?

Originally posted by divegeester
Suppose the minor cannot "demonstrate to the court that they have a valid grasp of the principles and fully understand the consequences of their actions" - I guess they die huh?

I refuse to believe you are so bereft of substance and reason. In such a case the court overrules the child and issues a court order to administer an intravenous blood transfusion.

Originally posted by divegeester
While they are in a hospital bed unconscious?

how can someone? anyone demonstrate to a court that they are fully cognizant of religious principles when they are unconscious? man I often think at times you must be semi-conscious that amount of drivel that you post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I refuse to believe you are so bereft of substance and reason. In such a case the court overrules the child and issues a court order to administer an intravenous blood transfusion.

Oh I see what you are saying - sorry, I thought you were implying that the default position was the parents had the final say.

So under what circumstances would a child ever be denied a blood transfusion?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

What has this topic got to do with the point of your OP with is about religious fasting of juveniles?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The law is entirely different in the case of minors and its to be expected. Gender is not the issue.