Do you believe that a person should let their religious beliefs override medical opinion?

Say for instance, a devout Jehovah's Witness has a child who is in desperate need of a blood transfusion in order to live, but their religious philosophy says: no blood transfusions.

In a situation like this, particularly where there is a child involved, should the law override their decision to refuse treatment?

I think for cases like that a doctor should be able to petition the court to have somebody else make medical decisions for the child if the parents are citing religious reasons for non-life saving treatment.

Yes and No. A person is allowed to refuse medical treatment. When it comes to a child, I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

Forgiveness_Man wrote:

Yes and No. A person is allowed to refuse medical treatment. When it comes to a child, I think it needs to be taken on a case by case basis.

An adult can make their own decision about whether they do or don't want to go through with a blood transfusion, but the law should protect children from having their ultimate fate dictated by their parents religion in life or death situations.

JM130ELM wrote:

An adult can make their own decision about whether they do or don't want to go through with a blood transfusion, but the law should protect children from having their ultimate fate dictated by their parents religion in life or death situations.

When it comes to life or death treatments and children, I think the law should dictate that no parent or legal guardian can override the child getting all the medical opportunities to live, even if it's against their religion.