I just read a story about a 14-year-old Jehovah’s Witness who refused a blood transfusion and died. The boy refused the transfusion on religious grounds. The boy’s legal guardian is also a Jehovah’s Witness.
I have heard some people call it child abuse to allow a kid to refuse needed medical treatment that would save his life. Generally, I feel a 14-year-old boy can make his own decisions. But what about a younger kid? What if an 8 year old refused treatment? Would letting an 8-year-old kid refuse life-saving treatment be considered child abuse?
At what age and in what circumstances do we leave the decision up to the child’s parents or legal guardian? What if the parents disallow a child from getting treatment due to their religious beliefs even when the child wants it? What if the child does not want treatment but his legal guardian does want him to get it?
I do not know the answers. But I think we do need to come up with consistent principles for deciding what qualifies as child abuse and what does not.
Of course, we may want to take care not to spend so much effort worrying about actions that may or may not be child abuse when we could focus on acts that are clear-cut child abuse, such as battery and sexual molestation.
What do you think?
Friday, March 28th 2008 at 12:59 pm
My definition of child abuse is:
Any action which seeks to indoctrinate, control or hurt a child (i.e. any human being below 12 years old), or to restrain a human being of 12 years old or more without his consent.