Jett Travolta

[Trip]

Originally Posted by 2up

But we don't know if that is what happened in this scenario. But even if it were, I don't know that I would consider it neglect. Do you know of any medication that has no side-effects? Would the side-effects outweigh the benefits?

And this is all really about the medical choices allegedly made due to their religion, so, I have another family story to throw in the ring for consideration. I have two aunts on my mother's side. One is a Jehovah's Witness, the other Catholic. Both equally faithful, some would say fanatical about their beliefs.

My uncle who was a Jehovah's Witness got Leukemia. After some treatments (I was a kid and don't remember what the treatments were) the Dr's said he needed a blood transfusion. This is against their beliefs, they declined, he passed away within a very short time of being diagnosed.

My other uncle got another form of cancer (don't recall where it started) which metastisised and spread everywhere. When it got to his stomach he underwent massive chemo, radiation, transfusions, on top of his original treatments for wherever the cancer started. He spent a year and a half in the hospital, bed-ridden, in pain, ultimately throwing up the remains of his burned stomach. (Burned from radiation/chemo.) My aunt sat day and night by his bedside for the entire time, literally, to the point she almost died of blood clots she was getting in her legs. After all of that, my uncle died.

Was my Jehovah's Witness aunt neglectful for refussing the transfussion or was my Catholic aunt a heartless sadist for allowing her husband to be put through what he went through? Or were they both just doing their best to deal with horrible situations based on what their beliefs are?

Both of those stories I would not consider normal conditions, but extraordinary measures. Especially in the case of the cancer metastisised. Both are also the individuals making the choice, not a parent making the choice for the child.