Senate Supreme Court orders JW girl to receive blood transfusion

Hmm, just googling a little and it looks like the JW have made exceptions.

"Senator SCHACHT - I see. I just want to turn now to the well-documented case from your point of view about children and the complaint that we have laws in Australia in all states giving medical practitioners the right to overrule the parents.
Mr Toole - We are not saying in our recommendation that the law should not exist. What we have said is that there may well be circumstances arise where it does become an absolute life and death issue. We have said that in those circumstances that is the way the law should be framed. In its present form, the law is not framed that way and it allows an invasion of the family and an overruling of the principles of that family in circumstances that really do not call for that at all." (COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, Official Committee Hansard, JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE, Reference: Australia's efforts to promote and protect freedom of religion and belief FRIDAY, 15 OCTOBER 1999 as shown at www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/j2444.pdf as at 27th May 2006)


Reading through this now...
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

It's okay, our feeling is mutual.

Freedom of religion is fine, but when the issue concerns a minor, I think that's where the line has to be drawn I don't think it's okay to sacrifice children in the name of religion. When the child is of age, sure, he/she is completely free to decide whether they want a life-saving procedure, but not until then.

Or if you're going to sacrifice your kid, at least do it the RIGHT way.

PELE DEMANDS SACRIFICE!

As several others seem to have covered, the exact same thing would have happened in the US. The parents wishes may be overridden to provide life-saving treatment to a minor.

I remember a case from about 25 years ago in which a child died of pneumonia because her mother was a Christian Scientist and refused to take her to the doctor. The mother was arrested.

I agree with the ruling.

Actually, I was mistaken -- there has been case law supporting that position (even beyond 1979 for Perham) reaffirming the original Prince decision, most recently (I believe) In re McCauley (MA, 1992).

The Bible gives very clear instruction about child/human sacrifice. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son as proof of his faith, but God stopped him from actually killing the child and substituted a goat in the child's place. Neither Jewish nor Christian religious beliefs allow for human sacrifice. It is and was, what distinguished them from pagan religions that did allow human sacrifice.

And sometimes it's the minor him/herself that doesn't want the treatment. There was a case here of a teen and his family who went on the run for awhile because he didn't want the chemotherapy to treat his cancer and instead an alternative treatment he and his family researched. There was a big legal battle over it that included at one point the family being found and his parents stripped of all parental rights for a time and the teen forced into the treatment. He did eventually win his legal battle to be allowed to choose his own treatment. To be fair though, he was 16 at the time he refused traditional treatments in favor for the alternative ones.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-va-teen_x.htm