Religious Beliefs And Religious Dilemmas

Article 14- Children have a right to freedom of religion although they should also be free to examine their beliefs.

However, the first amendment makes it difficult to pass anti-cult legislation in America. Legislation to allow parents to hospitalize their adult children, as well as other laws of the sort were proposed and subsequently shot down. Though anti-cult legislation was and still is needed, it is hard to pass laws of this type that do not interfere with the American Public’s freedoms or constitutional rights 5.

For many people Christianity is the religion of choice and a way of life. Jehovah?s Witnesses are one subgroup of the Christian faith. The JW religion was founded in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell. They comprise 1.2 million of the U.S. population (Campbell, Y., Machan M., & Fisher, M., 2016). They present a unique challenge to the medical community because of their stance on blood transfusions. Part I will provide a

If a Jehovah witness comes into the hospital in need of a blood transfusion the doctors and nurses must respect the patient’s wishes not to have a blood transfusion.

Allowing someone to die: Some religious affiliations (Jehovah’s witness) will not receive a blood transfusion. They have decided not to take advantage of medical technology to preserve life. If such person is in a life & death situation and required a blood transfusion in order to survive the choose to die vs. receiving a blood transfusion.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the characteristics, values and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witness group. It will discuss their reasoning for refusal to accept blood transfusions. The paper will elaborate on the best approach to offer appropriate care, advice and education while treating patients with respect in regards to their religious beliefs. British Journal of Nursing (2009) suggests that good, honest communication, without any element of coercion or scare tactics, is the key in the management of Jehovah’s Witness patients.

Being Savior siblings mean they were created for the purpose of donating to their siblings. They will have to donate to give no matter what. Younger children most likely do not comprehend what is happening. They do not understand what is being done to them or what is being taken away from them. However, older children, in the preoperative phase can usually comprehend and have the capability to participate in their care and decision making. Therefore, even when a consent cannot be given by a child, assent should be sought. "…Assent is an interactive process in which physicians reveal information and patients share their values, until the two parties reach joint decisions." (282) Because of their status as Savior Siblings, created to give and donate, they will undergo procedures even if they wouldn't want to. Just as any human beings have the right to refuse medical procedures, they should have that right to. Also, everyone has the right to have their wishes heard. Everyone has the right to participate in their health care and medical decisions. Children who have the capacity to participate in these should be encouraged to do so whether they are Savior Siblings or

freedom of an individual. This amendment protects how you can choose your own religion based

In my opinion I feel that the religious rights were taken away from Darlene Brown. In the Jehovah's Witness religion they are strictly prohibited from receiveing blood transfusions. I also believe that there is a great imbalance of justice, it is either Mrs Browns religious beliefs or the state of Illinois stepping in and saying that must get the blood transfusion against her wishes. It makes me fell like Mrs Brown was violated by her own state. And I'm sad to think that something like that could happen.

Her mother, who converted to Christian Science, had passed down the religion to her daughter, who is now a firm supporter for exemption from health care. However, an opposing view from Kristen A. Feemster, “‘Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves, but it does not follow they are free … to make martyrs of their children,’ the Supreme Court ruled in 1944.” This can be seen in Howell’s example of her mother’s miracle and her new passed on religion to her children. While it was not forced upon Howell to believe in Christian Science, her mother passed down her mindset of miracles being able to happen if she prayed for God’s help. These parents are able to believe in various aspects in religion; however, this does not mean they should strongly enforce that their children to be well versed in their parents’ beliefs when they have so little knowledge about their parent’s religious beliefs and the rest of the world’s beliefs.

Several religions oppose vaccines and mandatory vaccinations. The First Amendment of the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the ruling for Cantwell v. Connecticut, the US Supreme Court held that state and local governments’ infringement upon religious freedom is also unconstitutional. Some Christian Scientists consider vaccinations against their religion because founder Mary Baker Eddy stated that the "calm, Christian state of mind is a better preventative of contagion than a drug, or than any other possible sanative method… the ‘perfect Love’ that ‘casteth out fear’ is a sure defense." Amish communities do not view all vaccinations as "necessary" and some believe that vaccinations weaken the immune system. The Church of Illumination states that "the teachings of the Church unequivocally affirm that injections of vaccines and inoculations are a violation of these biblical teachings… Immunizations and vaccinations are a form of blood pollution because they have devastating effects on the regeneration of the soul that each Church member seeks to attain." The Universal Family Church believes that parents should decide whether their children should be vaccinated and that "God intends the health decisions of individuals should… be honored by all

"You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lev. 17:14). This is just one of the several scriptures found in the bible from which the Jehovah Witnesses base their beliefs. To summarize the above excerpt, Jehovah Witnesses strongly believe that contributing to the health of their bodies by way of any type of blood material is not intended by God’s will. However in dire cases, ethical questions need to be raised regarding the patient’s mental capacity and legal competence. In particular cases concerning minor patients, where mental capacity is accounted for, parents should not have the dominant opinion about how their child wants to receive surgery based on their own personal beliefs.

Religion and religious traditions both have ethical beliefs as a common set. Meaning, they have moral meanings and understandings. They don't actually measure the same set of ethics, however, many religions have some set of ethics and they believe that those particular ethics are mandated by some supernatural forces. For instance, Christianity have 10 commandments.

Jehovah's witnesses’ faith allows them to seek medical help; however, they do not accept blood transfusions. This belief arises from a biblical passage that states "Only flesh with its soul- its blood-you must not eat (Genesis 9:3-4), "You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. I will set my face against that person who eats blood...Anyone eating it will be cut off” (Leviticus 17:10, 13-14). These passages are interpreted by Jehovah's witnesses as forbidding the transfusion of any blood products. The following presentation will address legal and ethical issues that can arise from this scenario.

There are two main issues in the philosophy of religion that focus on the existence of God. First and foremost, there are four arguments that describes the philosophy of religion which are cosmological arguments, ontological arguments and teleological arguments. Cosmological idea are empirical a posteriori arguments based on experience and sense perception. Our experience of the world shows God as the cause, creator or ultimate explanation of the word. Ontological concept are rational a posteriori arguments based on the pure reason, independently of sense experience. The definition or essence of God, the sort of being God is requires its existence. The third concept is teleological argument which is empirical a posteriori arguments also