Dying for God and other uplifting developments

It's rare that I come across a story that stumps my strict libertarian moral code so successfully that I'm unable to take a position or, better yet, berate the antagonists mercilessly. But I was introduced to this disconcerting feeling once again today when I stumbled across this story, shortly after scanning what I affectionately call the "Spoiled Whores Wire" (otherwise known as the Features section of the AP feed, where I get my Paris Hilton fix):

At 14, Dennis Lindberg is old enough to know that refusing blood transfusions may amount to a "death sentence," but he has that right, a Skagit County judge ruled today.

A Jehovah's Witness from Mount Vernon, Lindberg has religious objections to receiving blood. Doctors say he needs transfusions to survive treatment for leukemia.

Doctors at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle diagnosed him Nov. 6 and began giving him chemotherapy. Because such treatment destroys the body's ability to make red blood cells, transfusions are necessary, doctors said.

Lindberg's relatives disagree about whether the eighth-grader, who remains hospitalized, should be forced to get the transfusions. His aunt, who is his legal guardian and also a Jehovah's Witness, supports his decision to refuse. But his parents, who live in Idaho, disagree.

First, it should be said that this boy died in the hospital just hours after the judge issued his ruling, so out of respect for the dead I won't go into how stupid I think it is to base a life-altering medical decision on religion. Although that much is clear in my mind, the debate is less about the rationality of religion and more about freedom in this society. Surely in a free society, everybody should retain the basic right to decide the fate of their own lives, and making that decision based on a religion is certainly included in that freedom.

Then again, this is a 14-year-old kid we're talking about. Perhaps a kid who, arguably, couldn't quite grasp the implications of such a decision, and may I be so bold to say may not have been given the opportunity to question the soundness of his own beliefs. I'll put it another way: Maybe his fucking "legal guardian" was an insane religious zealot who convinced him he would burn in the eternal depths of hell fire (or whatever Jehovah's Witnesses believe) if he received a blood transfusion that would ultimately spare his life. If that's the case, then I would say: Congratulations, "guardian," you killed him. You fail.

Given my fanatical distrust of any authority figure telling me what I can and can't do in regard to my life, it's really hard for me to disagree with the judge's ruling. This kid may well have been old enough -- and of sound enough mind -- to make that kind of decision for himself. And I'm not about to suggest people be denied the right to use faith as a factor in such a decision. But it sounds fishy to me. It doesn't sit right. I find it hard to believe that a 14-year-old would take religion seriously enough to end his life over it without some kind of outside authoritative influence. And I'm a bit disgusted that a religion would preach such a belief in the first place. I can't imagine a God that wouldn't understand the basic human urge to survive, and the scientific breakthroughs that have allowed us as a race to extend our time on this world.

So I'm left at square one on this issue. If this kid truly and independently came to the conclusion that a blood transfusion would harm his soul, well I can't really argue with him, and I have to respect that he has the absolute right to believe it. But if he was influenced to deny the treatment even for an instant by some crackpot religious leader, I think somebody is guilty of negligent homicide.

On a side note, I find it interesting that when it comes to refusing medical care that will ultimately result in death, religious leaders insist on absolute immunity, but when it comes to the right to end your own life to stop the suffering of a catastrophic terminal illness, these same religious leaders cry foul. In terms of euthanasia, I really don't see the distinction between refusing life-saving care or pushing a button to pump yourself full of toxic chemicals.

Either way, it's a death sentence.