born live love die

I stumbled across this story because I was wasting time looking at end-of-year pictures on the Seattle PI web site. There is so much wrong here, but it strikes me that this 14 year old boy had an individual Jonestown because he drank the kool-aid.

Here are the bones of the story:

• Dennis Lindberg was born to methamphetamine addicted parents.
• He had a very unstable homelife.
• When he was ten, his aunt became his legal guardian after his father was jailed for drug possession.
• His aunt is a Jehovah’s Witness.
• He was diagnosed on November 8 with lukemia. His prognosis was 70 per cent survival of the next 5 years if he received blood transfusions.
• Blood transfusions are necessary for cancer treatment.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in blood transfusions.
• Dennis Lindberg became a Jehovah’s Witness while in his aunt’s guardianship.
• Dennis Lindberg refused transfusive treatment.
• On November 27, Dennis slipped into unconsciousness.
• On November 28, Judge John Meyer refused to force the transfusion; Dennis Lindberg was a ‘mature minor’ and capable of making decisions about his treatment.
• On November 28, Dennis died.

Not every kid gets a good chance at life. That is unfortunate, but the truth. But it grates on me when it seems like people conspire against a kid so that he has an even poorer chance at life. And when the people involved are the ones that are supposed to be helping him, looking out for him, it pisses me off.

Here’s the aunt, the one who opened his head and poured the Jehovah’s Witness stuff in:

On a CaringBridge Web site that has now been deactivated, Mincin’s final journal entry, dated Nov. 22, spoke to those who questioned the decision not to accept blood transfusions. She said that after her nephew made his decision, he “relaxed in a way that he has not relaxed since being admitted (to the hospital.) He is at peace.”

“For those reading (about) this journey our family has been on that are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we compassionately understand your confusion and, perhaps, even your anger at the decision that Dennis and his family have made,” Mincin wrote. “We understand that this is an amazing bright young man who has before him 70, maybe 80 years to contribute to this world. While we empathize with your strong feelings, we ask that you attempt to respect Dennis’ fight for what he and his family believe so strongly in.”

No, I don’t think you understand my confusion. I’m not confused at all. You took in a boy who was thirsty for the love that he didn’t get from his drug addicted parents and filled his head with your religion and its crazy axioms. “Blood is sacred” is a belief born of fear. “He and his family”? The JW church is now his family?
The judge:

“I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision,” Meyer said during Wednesday’s court proceedings.

“I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”

I don’t envy the judge in this position. At 14, kids can make clear, well-reasoned decisions, and they can do the stupidest things imaginable, and kids will consider them both valid.

The ethicist:

Dr. Douglas Diekema, an ethicist at Children’s and director of education at the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, said the question was whether a 14-year-old really had the maturity to make medical and religious decisions on his own.

“In my mind, if there is a role of the court it would be to test a 14-year-old and see just how intense he is about his decision,” said Diekema. “My approach would be to push it a little further. If he fights you physically, then I’d respect that. But also, are you willing to tie him down every time he needs a transfusion knowing he’ll need treatment for the next three years? You’ll have a hard time finding a provider willing to do that.”

Yeah, tie the boy down and give him that transfusion. That is what may have been required. I have a hard time supporting that as the reasonable decision.

But why? Why was that the only option? This was an intractable problem for many reasons, but it was the anachronistic religious beliefs of the boy’s aunt that was the kool-aid from which the boy drank.

I would wish a separate level of hell for those who do things like this woman. Wrap yourself in your religious sanctimony and let a boy in your charge die. On the other hand, there should be a special place in heaven for those who take in children and treat them with love and respect and help them heal from whatever trauma they have experienced.

We have a tradition of ethics and law.  The former is supposed to inform the latter, but the two do not always overlap.  Ethics is about the balance of rights and responsibilities.  Neither rights nor responsibilities can exist in a vacuum.  The question facing the judge was the validity of the boy’s claim to speak for his own best interest.  The judge had a hard decision to make.

The boy’s parents failed completely in all of their responsibilities.  But the aunt is the one to whom I return.  She had a responsibility to safeguard this boy to adulthood, to the best of her ability.  Her claim of rights is secured by that responsibility.  But her fealty was to religion.  She saw her responsibility to that religion as out-weighing the responsibility to this boy.

If I really believed in heaven and hell, I would probably go pray or something.  But all I feel is sadness.  Tell me where the just God is in all of this?