Teen Witness must have a transfusion, rules judge
Unusual case: The NSW Supreme Court is ordering a 17-year-old boy to undergo a blood transfusion. Photo: Domino Postiglione
But the NSW Supreme Court has overruled the wishes of the patient, known only as ''X'', and his parents, ordering him to undergo the potentially lifesaving procedure.
The case is unusual because at the time of the court's ruling on March 28, X was just 10 months away from turning 18 - by which time he would be considered an adult and entitled to refuse blood products.
Usually, such court cases involve much younger children whose parents have refused to allow lifesaving treatment.
In his judgment, Supreme Court Justice Ian Gzell said X had been ''cocooned in faith''.
Professor Glenn Marshall, who is treating X for Hodgkin's lymphoma at Sydney Children's Hospital, was told by the patient being sedated for a blood transfusion would be akin to being raped.
On a whiteboard in his hospital room, X's father wrote a scripture reference to abstaining from blood, which is forbidden for Jehovah's Witnesses.
X was admitted to the hospital in January last year, and he and his parents consented to chemotherapy which continued for seven months. The treatment resulted in remission, but in November Professor Marshall found cancer in the patient's lungs, spleen and lymph nodes. He recommended X receive more intense chemotherapy but, because that treatment was likely to lead to a blood transfusion, X and his parents refused.
Instead X had two cycles of chemotherapy at the lower dose, but scans in February showed only a 25 per cent to 50 per cent reduction in his tumours.
''Professor Marshall was disappointed with these results,'' Justice Gzell's said in his judgment.
''Based on his experience treating patients of similar age with similar disease type, he would normally expect no tumour to be present after treatment with higher doses of different cytotoxic chemotherapy agents.''
By March, X developed severe anaemia and chemotherapy had to be stopped. Professor Marshall feared that once it was restarted X would again become severely anaemic. He told X and his parents if he suffered severe bleeding or his blood pressure dropped to dangerous levels, blood would immediately be brought to the ward and administered. In response, X said he would ''rip the IV out''.
Professor Marshall, who has 20 years' experience treating children with cancer, told the Court X had an 80 per cent chance of dying from anaemia without a blood transfusion.
If he was allowed to administer his preferred treatment, he said X would have up to a 50 per cent chance of survival.
Apart from ripping out the IV if he could, X and his father would otherwise obey the court order, Judge Gzell found.
''The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual,'' Justice Gzell said in his ruling. ''X is still a child, although a mature child of high intelligence.''
(18.4.2013 Sydney Morning Herald)
什麼情況下才可公民抗命呢？從上述聖經事例可見，當政府（1）敵擋神並且行惡的事情（例如危害個人性命，繼絕王室血脈，甚至威脅民族命運）；（2）或強制地禁止信徒行神吩咐的善行（例如違背自己的信仰，不去宣講福音，不能禱告）；（3）或強迫信徒助紂為虐和為虎作倀地去行不義的事情（例如要去敬拜假神和偶像，或斷絕救恩歷史之賡續）。此時，信徒便須要順從神而不順從人（例如美國已有基督教和天主教領袖，鼓吹信徒在墮胎及同性婚姻這類傷害胎嬰生命及違反信仰原則的法律上，實行公民抗命）。更具體地說，公民抗命的底線便是：當人的「信仰權利」（而非政治體制選擇之權利）和「生存權利」（「保人頭」而非「數人頭」之權利）受到威脅時，公民抗命才是聖經所容許的偶發性事例。
這兩則新聞風馬牛不相及，為何可以拉雜而談？共通之處就是都用聖經釋義，前者耶和華見證人教會不容輸血，所以寧死不屈。如果該病童已達18歲，就不會有這段法庭新聞。我不禁要問，乾脆一開始發病就交托給上帝，干嗎要入院接受治療？我多次勸說山中 不要批評宗教，原因是他可能涉足政壇，絕對不能得罪這票倉，否則在倒自己米。一方面因父之名，齊來佔領中環，交托給神，由祂帶領。港福堂牧師吳宗文卻說公民抗命式的佔中，為聖經所不容。后羿射日，因為有九個太陽，那麼究竟有幾多個上帝呢？不如搞個上帝dotcom，讓網民google一下，看看上帝會不會參與佔領中環，心中可以踏實一點。有時神甫和神棍，跟情色及色情同樣難分。
山中不要指責我批評宗教，我無意涉足政壇，所以我駡誰都可以，如果你不服氣，想學阿Q，覺得和尚可以摸尼姑的頭，你也要摸，請隨便。反正你在論寫作 的留言講窮酸秀才遇著化緣和尚，真巧，我做了摸尼姑的頭的和尚，你也隨便摸幾下。
先此聲明，虔誠基督徒要留言駡我的話，請勿猶豫，敬請不要曉以大義跟我說教。
所以宗教其實是跟審議式民主有衝突。任何一神宗教，首要要求信眾是神的人而非社會的人，這樣他們才可以上天堂。所以當信徒參與社會，他們可以置社會大衆不顧而一味的傳道。戴耀廷充其量就是傳教士。
回覆刪除「乾脆一開始發病就交托給上帝，干嗎要入院接受治療？」早前電視播放沙士特輯，多有醫生是信徒，說神怎樣幫助他們渡過難關。我第一個疑問就是，既然神讓你去醫治沙士，爲什麽它又要製造沙士？看來當神也是挺無聊的。