MINOR MATTERS : MINORS MATTER

Darwin would have agreed that the second part of the title is right because minors' rights are not a minor matter.

What, you are wondering, brought this on ?  Survival of the race is the name of the game, and children are its, our, future.  We are unique as animals, among other things, because of the length of time and the care we take to nurture our offspring, and even the offspring of others.  We establish laws to protect them, even, sometimes, from their own parents, whose rights over their children cannot be considered absolute.  Children are not chattels (etymologically, "cattle" as "capital"), slaves, servants, bread-winners or sexual toys.  If parents abuse their rights or neglect their duties, the State steps in, or should.  All this ought to be as self-evident as the right entitling everyone to the pursuit of happiness, or at least to the protection of Primum non nocere.

Jehovah's Witnesses, among other insane ideas, have a thing about blood and its transfusion.  Do they have a right to put their progeny's life in peril by opposing a necessary, vital, transfusion ?  Judges, like the Australian one reported in today's Sydney Morning Herald (18/04/2013), are right in denying such a "right".  The lad in question, 17 years of age, himself refused the transfusion.  By law he would have the right to refuse when he turns 18, when minors become majors.  Supreme Court Justice Ian Gzell said the boy had been "cocooned in faith".  And some people still ask me why each of my Reflections ends  with ...

                                                              DELENDA   RELIGIO  ?

Comments

[thom]

The case is indeed an interesting one. The boy was 10 months from his 18th birthday. At 17 and 2 months he could legally drive, engage legally in sexual activity of various forms and make important decisions about which of his parents he would wish to live with if they divorced. His Jehovah Witness beliefs had persuaded him that he should refuse a potentially life-saving blood transfusion - a decision which his parents agreed with.

I applaud the judge in this case for giving the lad a chance at life. But I believe the boy was perfectly aware of the decision he was making and should have had his decision respected - however misguided it was.

The case raises important questions about religion, faith, belief, rule of law, maturity, age of consent, minors, parental duties and the sanctity of life among other important issues.

There are no easy answers to the multiple questions that this case raises.

The judge commented that the boy was "cocooned in faith". He could have just as well have said that he was "cuckooned in faith".

I hope the boy survives and with his parents realises their good fortune.