"The blood won't make any difference. ... The baby is ours. ... I'm not going to hand him over to the court until I have to. The judge doesn't care what's in the Bible.

 

"It (the baby's death) was God's will. ... ... I would not have the child come back to life if it against God's will. ... ... It's better to have a dead baby without the blood than a living baby with the transfusion."

"We believe that every human being is endowed by God with the inalienable right to live. The fact that the subject is the infant child of a parent who, arbitrarily, puts his own theological belief higher than his duty to preserve the life of his child cannot prevail over the considered judgment of an entire people, in a case such as this. The other rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are of no benefit to a dead baby. ... Missouri has the power to interfere in the interests of one of its infant citizens, helpless in its own behalf, and to take such steps as may be necessary to preserve its life, over the protest of its father."

Holding that state has the power to preserve a child's life and health when medical treatment is as necessary for the child's survival as is food, the court justified the compulsory transfusion upon the minimum of danger it entailed, the efficacy of the treatment, and the lack of a suitable alternate therapy. Finally the court said society might uphold the right of an adult religious zealot to fast to death, but society should not allow that same person to refuse food to his children.

jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw

"It is my belief that the commandment given us in Genesis, Chapter 9, Verse 4, and subsequent commandment of Leviticus, Chapter 17, Verse 14, and also in the testimony after Christ's time and recorded in Acts, 15th Chapter, it is my opinion that any use of the blood is prohibited whether it be for food or whether it be for, as modern medical science puts it, for injections into the blood stream and as such I object to it. The life is in the blood and the life belongs to our father, Jehovah, and it is only his to give or take; it isn't ours, and as such I object to the using of the blood in connection with this case."

"We believe it would be breaking God's commandment to take away blood which he told us to eat of the flesh but should not take of the blood into our systems. The life is in the blood and blood should not be drained out. We feel that we would be breaking God's commandment, also destroying the baby's life for the future, not only this life, in case the baby should die and breaks the commandment, not only destroys our chances but also the baby's chances for future life. We feel it is more important than this life."

"... plaintiffs ... first argue that the court below lacked jurisdiction because the child was not a 'neglected or 'dependent' child within the meaning of the statute. The jurisdiction which was exercised in this case stems from the responsibility of government, in its character as parens patriae, to care for infants within its jurisdiction and to protect them from neglect, abuse and fraud. ...

 

"So far as here pertinent, the statute defines a dependent or neglected child as one which 'has not proper parental care.' ... Neglect, however, is the failure to exercise the care that the circumstances justly demand. It embraces wilful as well as unintentional disregard of duty. It is not a term of fixed and measured meaning. It takes its content always from specific circumstances, and its meaning varies as the context of surrounding circumstances changes. The question here is whether a child whose parents refuse to permit a blood transfusion, when lack of a transfusion means that the child will almost certainly die or at best will be mentally impaired for life, is a neglected child. ... We entertain no doubt that this child, whose parents were deliberately depriving it of life or subjecting it to permanent mental impairment, was a neglected child within the meaning of the statute. ...

"Plaintiffs ... argue that they merely exercised their right to avoid the risk of a proposed hazardous operation - the transfusion - and that such a choice does not indicate a lack of proper parental care. The short answer is that the facts here disclose no such perilous undertaking, but, on the contrary, an urgently needed transfusion - virtually certain of success if given in time - with only such attendant risk as is inescapable in all of the affairs of life. ...

 

"It is next contended that if the Juvenile Court Act is held to be applicable, it deprives the parents of freedom of religion, and of their rights as parents, ... This contention is based upon the parents' objection to the transfusion because of their belief that blood transfusions are forbidden by the Scriptures. Because the governing principles are well settled, this argument requires no extensive discussion. Concededly, freedom of religion and the right of parents to the care and training of their children are to be accorded the highest possible respect in our basic scheme.... But 'neither rights of religion or rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.' ...

 

"Indeed, the early decision in the Reynolds case, upholding a Mormon's conviction for bigamy against the defense of interference with religious freedom as guaranteed in the first amendment, leaves no doubt about the validity of the action here taken. The following language of that opinion is of particular interest:

'Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?'

"The recent Prince decision reinforces that conclusion. The court there held that a State, acting to safeguard the general interest in the well-being of its youth, could prohibit a Jehovah's Witness child from distributing religious pamphlets on the street even though the child was accompanied by her adult guardian. Obviously, the facts before us present a far stronger case for State intervention. Further, the court observed in reaching its conclusion in the Prince case:

'The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. ... Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.'

"We hold, therefore, that neither the statute nor the action of the court pursuant to the statute violated the constitutional rights of plaintiffs ...
 

"The final contention is that the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding from evidence the religious magazine, Awake. The contention is without merit. Except as it might bear upon the good faith of the parents' belief in the Scriptural prohibition against blood transfusion, it was inadmissible as hearsay. And since the sincerity of the parents' religious beliefs was not questioned, the exclusion of the magazine was not error."

jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw

IN THE MATTER OF JONATHAN SHELTON was a 1951 New York court decision. In October 1951, Jonathan Shelton, age 3, was admitted to Kings County Hospital in Brooklyn for emergency appendix surgery. Sometime after the surgery, a blood transfusion was needed due to bleeding. However, the boy's mother, Hazel Shelton, refused to consent to a transfusion based on her WatchTower Cult beliefs. The hospital contacted the Society For Prevention of Cruelty to Children, who filed neglect charges in juvenile court. The court took custody and authorized all necessary medical care.

jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw                     jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw-jw

RECOMMENDED READING:

Short BIBLE TOPIC Readings Selected For Those With Jehovah's Witnesses Backgrounds

Wifely Subjection: Mental Health Issues in Jehovah's Witness Women

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness

The Theocratic War Doctrine: Why Jehovah's Witnesses Lie In Court

Blood Transfusions: A History and Evaluation of the Religious, Biblical, and Medical Objections (Jehovah's Witnesses perspective)

Blood, Medicine, and the Jehovah's Witnesses: The Hidden History of the Watchtower's Position on the Blood Issue

2000s Cases 1990s Cases 1980s Cases 1970s Cases 1960s Cases

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

MATURE MINORS UNBORN CHILDREN PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS ADULT CHILDREN