eh, I say let him die. One less idiot running around causing trouble. If only all the religious thought this way.

Well, that's one less moron who will be competing for scarce parking resources in the future. Can anyone tell me where in the Bible it says "Thou Shalt Not Get Transfusions of Blood"? I'm pretty sure I would have remembered that part from Sunday school, but hey, I was just a Lutheran, Catholic J.V. such as it were so perhaps I didn't get the double secret probation version of the Bible that the Jehovah's Witnesses have.

Through out the Bible the admonition is very clear that blood is only to be used for sacrifical purposes and no other (Medical Knowledge and time factors are not considered)animal sacrifice and Jesus giving his blood for your damn sins. It's religion, let it lay there. And you have to respect anyone that is willing to live and die for their beliefs whether you like them or not. No one likes a hipocrite (Haggert, Craig, et al) and there are plenty out there.

Poor kid, the teen years are so self-rightous, we all knew all the answers then, didn't we? Too bad he won't get a chance to learn nuance and critical thought due to exposure to a bad meme.

A meme is a terrible thing to waste.

Hey, remember that if it weren't for the Jehovah's Witnesses, we might not have the constitutionally-protected right to broadcast rhetoric from a loudspeaker mounted on top of a moving vehicle.

However, his birth parents, who do not have custody ... suggested he has been unduly influenced by his legal guardian, his aunt, who is also a Jehovah's Witness.

I don't know the situation, but if that is true, then this is one of those situations where I think freedom of religion can go fuck itself. Pump the kid full of blood, for Chrissake.

At least he doesn't believe in golden tablets and his own self-ruled planet where he will rule as a God after he dies ...

@3, no I don't. There is nothing remotely respectful about dieing for stupidity. Not a damn thing.

I've seen Catholics, Mormons, and Scientologists all walk away from their church and live happy lives.

I've never seen or heard of a Witness breaking free of their programming. I've talked to gay guys in their 50's who were still in therapy decades after separating.

What can be said of a religion where the kids can't ever go to college, where young boys are molested and then ex-communicated to prevent anybody talking to them, where parents believe they can't ever talk to their children once they separate?

Well, they gave us Michael Jackson-- that's something. Funny how he was in the witnesses when he was exactly the age that his boy companions are now....

Yo Will in Fremont, you need to read up on the JWs.

Will in Fremont: "At least he doesn't believe in golden tablets and his own self-ruled planet where he will rule as a God after he dies ..."

Google "Jehovah's Witness" and "144,000 will rule the Earth" and tell us all what you find.

His aunt is choosing to let him die. She doesn't have to make that choice. She's brainwashed a 14-year-old into thinking that it is the right choice. What a sickening waste of human life. To me it seems like manslaughter. Rest in Peace.

Sad situation. I worked with a family in Oregon who's (bright, friendly) elementary school aged son died from a very similar situation. My brother was good friends with him, he and his classmates were devastated.

eh, nevermind, fuck him, they didn't believe the same thing as me. Who's that American Apparel hottie on the side of the screen???

As a former JW, I can tell you they take Acts 15:29 very seriously, and quite literally.

Unfortunately for Dennis Lindberg.

@10 I am a former JW. I'm less crazy than most people I know. One can escape. My parents are real serious, too.

But for a large part, honestly, you're right. I think it's somewhat a generational thing though. They don't seem to have the same effect they used to. I know lots of gay ex-jws who are emotionally stable (and a few who aren't).

He's fourteen. Isn't the age of consent 16 in Washington?

So he's not old enough to consent to sex, but he's old enough to consent to his own death?

Why don't the parents have custody?

His legal guardian is old enough to consent. She should be charged with manslaughter.

I believed pretty stupid things when I was 14. You all are pretty jaded to wish him dead just because he's foolishly religious and listening to warped adults as a child.

@11 - it was a side-reference to the GOP liveblog tonight.

I know exactly what JW believe - I used to work with a few in my early 20s.

They're nice people for the most part, actually. Plus, they always have nuts to spare if you get hungry.

"Manslaughter" can also be read as "mans laughter" now none of you will see man slaughter the same way...sorry...

And you have to respect anyone that is willing to live and die for their beliefs whether you like them or not.

Actually, no, I don't. I'm quite free to believe that he's a twit, and to not have any more respect for him than I would for anyone else committing suicide for religious reasons.

I just think it's too bad he won't be living to grow out of what probably would have been a phase, given how remarkably treatable leukemia is now. When I was a kid, it was a death sentence.

I also would think that 14 years old is young enough for the state to be able to say "you're endangering this child's life, he's getting blood." Isn't that what CPS is for?

@22 Hallelujah and Amen, praise Jesus!

@10 Well, you clearly haven't seen or heard everything, have you now?

Gimme a freaking break... it is his own life, and jaded or not, his beliefs are his beliefs. You all on the boards hate religion on the basis that it supposedly tells other people what to do and how to live, and yet here you all are demanding he be pumped full of blood despite his own wishes. No, you don't have to believe what he believes (I am a huge fan of freedom of religion), and maybe you don't have to respect it, but bashing it on a blog does make you look like a hypocritical jaded jerk.

@25 - are you nuts? He's a kid. If an adult is crazy enough to will their own death this way, fine, so be it. When a kid's legal guardian puts pressure on an eighth grader to do the same thing, that's criminal.

@25, I don't hate religion becasue it tells people what to do, I hate religion for the same reason I hate King Arther. Its shitty and poorly written fiction.

However I say let the kid kill himself. WTF do I care.

@25 - Being a hypocritical jerk, or being a shrill, whiny, simpering ninny - also a personal choice.

You GO, sweetheart!

I'm confused, freedom of religion folks who typically are strongly religious themselves (naturally), are usually on the anti-euthanasia, keep people on life support, etc. side of the debate-- and in a case where preservation of life conflicts with someone's particular and literal interpretation of the bible-- suddenly dying is A-OK??

Next I'm sure I'll be flamed by all the fiercely agnostic and atheist freedom of religion people who are pissed that I'm making a generalization on the internet.

@26 (and everyone else who thinks the same): Stop looking at it as an adult pressuring the child to do something and try to look at it as them allowing this child to control his own fate. I bet if this story was about an adult who had a terminal illness and wanted to end his life, most of you would be on his side. None of you really actually CARE about this kid, so what the hell are you going on about?

@30 -

Stop looking at it as an adult pressuring the child to do something

If an adult actually is pressuring the child to do something, MissDotti, my decision to "stop looking at it" that way won't change that fact. That's just a cheap copout. And yes, I most certainly would endorse the right of an adult to decide to risk death for religious reasons. An eighth-grader is not an adult. You're basically endorsing the right of adults to permit their children to die of neglect in the name of religion.

Some Washington State reporters are characterizing this Judge's decision as being the "norm". Such is NOT true.

For a complete study on this issue, including the issue of "mature minors", see the following website which summarizes over 315 U.S. court cases and lawsuits affecting children of Jehovah's Witness Parents, including 200+ court cases where the JW Parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for their dying children:

DIVORCE, BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AFFECTING CHILDREN OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com

If it's just a matter of building up the kid's red blood cells, couldn't he just take epogen?

How is it hypocritical to suggest that someone who's 14 may not have the ability to make mature medical decisions? That they shouldn't be letting someone of that age decide whether he's going to live and die by his religion? I mean, it's such an accepted concept that people gain wisdom as they get older that we have laws about it - things like not being able to drive until 16, not vote until 18, not drink until 21 (ages may vary)... it's not like it's an unusual idea.

My thoughts on religious practice are that it's more like the idea of "do no harm." I support people being able to practice their religion as they see fit right up to the point where they start harming people.

Certainly, if an adult wanted to end their own life I would view that as their decision - but then again, I also wouldn't support that decision except under some pretty limited circumstances.

@30 - Since when do we let children control their own fate? I can think of almost no situation in which a kid this age has control of his own fate, but when it comes to religious beliefs that will cause him to DIE, it's suddenly his choice? He can't drive, he can't vote, he can't choose not to go to school, he can't do shit without permission, but you think he's sober and mature enough about his religious beliefs to die for them. That's reasonable. If this kid decided that he strongly felt it was his right to drink a bottle of drain opener--something many children seemingly feel it's their right to do--would that be okay? "Well, you control your own fate, kiddo. Drink up."

How utterly, utterly ludicrous.

@35, exactly. If he was trying to kill himself becasue a voice in his head told him too, or becasue he thought he nothing to live fore, we would force him into counseling. How exactly is this delusion any different just becasue its shard by a few more people.

I agree with the majority of posters that the key issue is that he is a child. It may be fine for an adult to make that decision. It is entirely different for a child to do so.

I vehemently disagree with the Judge's characterization that "he understands" that he is giving himself a death sentence. Kids don't really understand death. They especially don't understand death as it applies to them. They don't even understand life and normal life spans.

How many kids have you heard say that they expected to die before they got to 30? This is just because they have no way of picturing themselves at such an advanced age.

This child has no conception of what he is giving up. Like many children, he is good at being ideologically pure and doctrinaire. Like most children, he is sure he is right and sure he knows all the answers.

It is sad that he won't live to learn how much he doesn't know.

It is criminal that he is not being protected from himself. We treat children differently from adults for a reason.

gotta love that mental light switch that clicks on after 17 years 364 days 23 hours and 59 minutes... funny how most of you would be arguing the opposite if it was so many other choices.

yeah, it sucks and is scary that jehovah's witnesses seem to routinely deny their kids blood transfusions. but, innocent until proven guilty and all that, so let's not jump to that conclusion based on a generalization. may i remind that 1) "influence" (the word used in the article) and "coercion" are different concepts, and 2) the degrees of "pressure" or "brainwashing" that correspond to his aunt's influence over him are not deducible from the article. presumably she's not waving a gun at him and screaming "no chemo for you!" but i'd say it's safe to assume that aunt and nephew have at least discussed what is required by the religion they both hold to be true, which seems...well, reasonable.

people on this board seem to have a pretty low opinion of the intelligence of the under-18 set. yes, with age comes wisdom, and the kid is 14, not 5, so let's apply that progressive scale. he's not a drano-swigging child, he's a teenager. i personally remember coming into a pretty good idea of death meaning "not being alive again, ever, yikes" long before the age of 14. i think it's safe to say that teenagers get that one. i also think that being faced with things like leukemia and death might have forced a little extra maturity on this guy, so how about we all give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's able to understand his faith and make decisions based around it--even very serious decisions. legal adulthood no more assures intelligence and self-awareness than puberty precludes it.

cases like this usually revolve around the question of "what is best for the child." a lot of people seem to want to decide for him that life ought to be his highest good. sounds like you all just want him to live long enough to outgrow his faith, which of course he will once he gets out from under his aunt's thumb. how considerate that some would force on him a transfusion that goes against his beliefs, assuming that he'll be grateful in a few years when he knows better, and totally ignoring the possibility that he might hold on to his faith and, whether at age 18 or 80, regret and resent the interference that kept him from doing what he felt was right at 14.

if it's not the decision you'd make, then don't you make it. no one has to approve or respect his decision, but it's not the world's place to make it for him. it *is* the government's place to protect his right to freedom of religion, and i thank cthulhu that the judge ruled correctly.

and p.s., right on ABE.

Sorry, Abe @38, and Jennifer, but no. A society has to make some decisions about what age people get to do things, and it can't practically be based on individuals. No one is saying that an 18 year old is always more mature than a 14 year old, just usually. They certainly always have more experience, and at some point we decide to let them succeed or fail on their own. We draw a line. Should we not do this? I would love to hear someone propose a reasonable alternative.

And yeah, I probably would argue the other way if it were many other choices--you know, choices that didn't result in DEATH. For some reason, I see that as being a fairly important detail in this. We might quibble over the right to drive or vote or have a stupid haircut, but this really isn't even in the same universe as that. And that's the whole point.

This has nothing to do with protecting religion, it's actually the opposite. Religion is getting a free pass. If this kid's reasons for letting himself die were anything other than religious, no one would even consider letting him do it.

a damn shame to let that woman and her sick filth take the life of a kid, he evidently had been brainwashed to hell and back, off the fanatic females. all of em.

anthony,

i don't know why it must be the right of the government or society to be drawing any such lines. the decision to end one's own life seems to me to affect one person only; if maturity and reason are demonstrated, why should the right to make that decision (and such an important, meaningful decision) be taken out of the hands of the person it principally affects and be entrusted to some all-knowing "we," in total opposition to that person's beliefs and wishes?

we aren't all the same, so why should everyone be judged legally responsible at a catchall age? because it's more convenient? i would rather argue that less significant things like the driving or the drinking age (which also can be said to affect more than the person driving or drinking, hence the difference) can be trusted to a number, while something touching on personal faith (where it doesn't infringe on the rights of others) and the ability to end one's own life in the way one chooses cannot.

i would have expected a different verdict had dennis appeared less mature in court, or had his parents' account of his aunt's influence been more persuasive, or had he been of and age that was less in a gray zone. those WOULD be good reasons to force a court-ordered transfusion, as #32's website points out does in fact occur quite regularly. but the judge's ruling reflects that dennis was thought to be uncoerced, and mature enough to understand his decision. who are we to say that he isn't just because he's 14? it's a decision that should be left to him to make, and to his family and friends to give him their thoughts.

The boy was not an adult, was clearly a minor and did not have the right to refuse medical care. His guardian, his aunt, should be charged with criminal neglect and child endangerment for her role in the death of this child. Quite frankly, the state should have intervened and taken custody away from the guardian when it became clear that she was not going to get him the care he needed and that the only option was for him to die.

I am sick and tired of these people hiding behind "religious freedom" to justify child abuse and child murder. The child's right to medical care should trump his guardian's religious freedom.

it's not about his guardian's religious freedom. it's about HIS religious freedom.

So Jenifer, you would not think these people should be charged with a crime.

If not, what’s the difference. Is it simply that there are more Jehovah’s Witnesses? Why even add religion to the mix, why can't I just kill a young kid cuz it seems like a good idea, or let a teenager kill himself because his girlfriend dumped him. Hell some religions, mainstream ones, think one should beat children with sticks. How about that? Or how about this. Many child molesters, especially the ones that kidnap kids and adolescents manage to convince the kids that they love them and this is what they want. Should we just stay out lest we interfere with their belief?

Sometimes society has to step in and prevent stupidity from going too far. Now with adults we give them quite a bit of latitude so long as they confine to themselves, but with kids we don’t. This is especially true when their guardians are part of the problem. Every child abuser, killer, molester, and the like all think they have perfectly good reasons for doing what they do. That’s doesn’t mean they get to do it.

There are legitimate and reasonable reasons for denying medical care. Imaginary friends drilled into you at a young age are not one of them.

Two more: How about these people. What about in this case.

Jennifer and Abe-

As a parent, I struggle to write a compassionate response to your comments.

My grandfather caught my aunt shooting up when she was 15. He just sat down next to her and hugged her. "Awwwwwww," says the anything-goes crowd, "what a supportive and non-judgemental parent."

Except that what followed was 35 years of misery and illness, including Hep C. Way to go, Grandpa.

The role of parents (and to a lesser degree society) is protect children utterly and completely when they are infants, and then to start allowing greater and greater self-responsibility as they get older. But anyone who thinks that balance requires you to look the other way when a 14 or 15 year old is mainlining, much less killing themselves, is missing a basic understanding of parenting and societal responsibility.

I'd like to say that in a more positive way, but that's as positive as I can be.

ok, let's see if we can spot the difference between these situations:

1. an infant dies as the result of an insufficiently nutritious vegan diet chosen by his parents. another baby is starved to death by his father because of a religious vision. a child is stabbed to death in a religious ritual. in all three of these cases, death was the result of the decisions of another party, and not the result of the individuals that died. babies don't know what their own nutrition requires, and couldn't take care of themselves even if they did know. kids can't overpower crazy people with knives. the babies and the child didn't (and even couldn't) make any decisions regarding their own fate. someone else made the decision for them.

2. a fourteen-year-old makes his own decision to end his life rather than undergo a medical treatment that violates his conscience. the words of the judge on the case: "I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision." so here we have a person who is old enough to make it conceivable that he made his own decision, which affects nobody but himself, and his decision might be reasonably respected as informed and uncoerced. you equate this case with the babies and the young child, and you pretty much say that the aunt must be to blame, because the aunt was the guardian, but it's not a good parallel just because all concerned were minors. HIS AUNT DIDN'T MAKE THE DECISION. SHE DIDN'T WITHHOLD THE CARE. HE MADE HIS OWN DECISION. that's the difference.

to reiterate: helpless and dependent babies and young children who made no decisions and could not resist, but rather suffered the consequence of others' beliefs, versus a teenager perfectly capable of thought and reason, perfectly capable of saying he wanted the treatment if he didn't want to die, who made the decision himself based on his own beliefs. do you see the difference?

it's the very same reason you can't just go around killing people: your wishes (or beliefs as the case may be) would be infringing on their right to life. as to child molesters kidnapping kids and then brainwashing them: there is coercion involved there too.

the basic problem i have with "society stepping in to prevent stupidity from going too far" is that it's a classic recipe for the oppression of the minority by the majority, i.e. the minority basically has to do what the majority declares right and good and NOT do what the majority declares bad and wrong. i'd prefer to safeguard a situation where people can live their lives according to their beliefs, however crazy they may be (provided they don't harm others), even if they seriously fuck up or even end their lives. it's their business. not mine, not yours, not society's.

Re: Jennifer's:

"dennis was [...] mature enough to understand his decision. who are we to say that he isn't just because he's 14?"

At 14, the human brain is still in the developmental stage. It is essentially "under construction," and gaps in mental processing most definitely exist, specifically in the areas that determine reason and judgement. This is why teenagers tend to take stupid risks, and why they are not granted much authority over their lives. Anyone who spends time with teenagers on a regular basis knows this.

The boy's willingness to embrace such an unnecessary death should not have been taken into account.

Jennifer - you make good points about the comparability of the links referenced. But, the major issue at play here is, was the child old enough, mature enough, etc., to have his "religious beliefs" influence a decision of this magnitude.

No one would be arguing about this if the child was 9 years old (why? because at 9, a child's religous beliefs are solely the product of the parent, and not their own independent thoughts). Or, if the person was 30. So, we all must agree that there is a point where someone can choose to have their religious beliefs influence whether they live or die.

Some people might see 14 as a gray area, but I (and many on this thread) think that at that point, most kids' relgious beliefs are still at least 50% influenced by their parents. Therefore, it is not really the child that's making the choice.

julie,

i appreciate the comment, and i do agree with you, except to say that 14 really is pretty gray--it's hard to say that every 14-year-old's religious beliefs are at least 50% influenced by the parents. like you said, there must be "a point" where someone can make an informed decision, but we can't really say that point would be the same for everyone. like it or not, the only person who was REALLY in a position to justify the kid's religious beliefs was the kid himself. he did so, probably as best he could, and in his particular case the judge thought that he was mature enough. the judge might have ruled that a different 14-year-old kid was not as mature and therefore not as capable of understanding his situation, or something similar, and i'm ok with that.

Why hasn't the Aunt's name been released in the press? Why does the Seattle Times consistently keep the names of people who are guilty of serious crimes like murder a secret?

Yes, this Aunt murdered that boy with her religious fantasies. We all want to protect the children, but when delusional adults put children in danger, we back off because their religion is more important than the health and well being of the child.

We should know who the Aunt is and shun her. If she is so dangerous that she would allow a child in her care to die, then she's dangerous to society.

Jennifer -- obviously, the point where this becomes "okay" would be different for every individual.

But, I think we can safely say that every 9 year old is not able to make this decision themselves. So, what does the distribution look like (e.g., at 11 years old, 1% of kids could make the decision, at 12 - 2%, 13 - 3%, etc.)? Everybody on this board would come up with a different answer, but I happen to think that there are a miniscule number of 14 year-olds who could freely make this decision themselves. Maybe this kid was one of them. I don't know, but I find it very unlikely.

One more thought -- I think it is very unlikely that this kid was one of the few who could freely make this decision at 14 because of the nature of the JW community. I had a very open religious up-bringing -- my parents took me to their church but gave me the freedom to explore and think about God on my own. People I know who are current/former JWs did not have such an experience -- the very nature of their community prevents this from happening.

It is rather presumptuous to think that he didn't know what he wanted to do with his own life. It is the nonsense of present day society that says that under the age of 18 or 16 that a child can't think. Just over 100 years ago girls ran entire households well before either of those age while raising their own children. Culture today have made children too dependent on the adults around them. At the same time they have no responsibilities to their bad behavior either....oh they are just kids. That is baloney Kids act like babies because they are treated like that and become spoiled little brats who have little chance to succeed in this world. I so look forward to having to support through my taxes another generation of lazy savages.

Jehovah's Witnesses elders will investigate and disfellowship any Jehovah Witness who takes a blood transfusion,to say the issue is a 'personal conscience matter' is subterfuge to keep the Watchtower out of lawsuits.

Many Jehovah's Witnesses men,women and children die every year worldwide due to blood transfusion ban.Rank & file Jehovah's Witness are indoctrinated to be scared to death of blood.

FYI
1) JW's DO USE many parts aka 'fractions' aka components of blood,so if it's 'sacred' to God why the hypocritical contradiction flip-flop?

2) They USE blood collections that are donated by Red cross and others but don't donate back,more hypocrisy.

3) The Watchtower promotes and praises bloodless elective surgeries,this is a great advancement indeed.BUT it's no good to me if I am bleeding to death from a car crash and lose half my blood volume and need EMERGENCY blood transfusion.

Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
The Watchtower's rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood 'components' are allowed.
In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.

None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines
Are there dangers from blood?There are over 500 aspirin deaths in USA yearly.
---
Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness

Who are Jehovah's Witnesses?
Up close and personal Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing.
Think about this-When the devil comes knocking on your door he may not have the 'dark goth look'.They could be smartly dressed and wielding the Christian Bible.
The central core dogma of the Watchtower is Jesus second coming (invisibly) in 1914 and is a lie.Jehovah's Witnesses are a spin-off of the man made Millerite movement of 1840.
A destructive cult of false teachings, that frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths (bogus blood transfusion ban).
Yes,you can 'check out anytime you want but you can never leave',because they can and will hold your family hostage.

The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.
----
Danny Haszard Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation