zarathustra:

In abstract, it is easy to respect freedom of religion and freedom from religion, but in particular cases, the application of such principles may be unclear.

For background, I'm citing the following articles:

    * A matter of blood
    * Widow wins battle in quest for benefits

The articles relate how a man died after declining a blood transfusion as treatment for a work-related injury, on account of his being a jehovah's witness. The insurance company subsequently discontinued death benefits to the man's widow, claiming that it was an unreasonable refusal of medical treatment, thus releasing the company from liability. The widow has legally contested this action and benefits have been restored.
 
I feel one is certainly entitled to their own religious beliefs, as well as to the right to decline medical treatment for any reason, religious or otherwise. Yet in this instance, should the insurance company be held liable for the worker's death, when he voluntarily declined available medical treatment that may have saved his life? I would not think to make light of the potential financial hardship incurred upon the widow (let alone the grief of her husband's demise), but are such hardships the price to be paid for religious freedom?
 
The limits of such freedom grow murkier when considered in the case of children, for whom parents or guardians make the decisions (examples of this are given in the first article). When a child's life and health hang in the balance, do faith-based decisions lie within the scope of parental rights, or should authorities be able to intercede?
 
There are less sensitive cases to consider, such as in regard to employment. In the UK, muslim workers are being allowed to refuse to serve alcohol. Some years ago in my town, a muslim cab driver refused to drive passengers to a gay bar. Should an employer be obliged to make such accomodations? My feeling is that it is contingent on the worker to find a job whose duties do not infringe his beliefs, whatever resulting inconvenience being the price of freedom.
 
Your thoughts?

---

Cpt_pineapple:
   

I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies start asking about these things, like if you would refuse certain treatments.

---

wavefreak:
   

The first one seems easy to me. It's first a matter of contract law. If the insurance company has a clause regarding unreasonable refusal of service then they need to show his actions as such. As the Jehovah Witness's beliefs about transfusion are well known, then it unreasonable to think the man would go against his belief (no comment on the rationality of the belief).

 The second isn't even a religious question, in my mind. It is a question of when do individual rights trump collective rights. I personally feel that I have a great deal of leeway to live as I choose, but considerably less when that directly effects others. I can be nudist, but I can't parade around the mall nude (thank god for that - wait! a proof for god! You just thanked him ... oh never mind). A person that takes employment in a situation where the regular course of work is in conflict with a personal belief, IMHO, is shit out of luck. On the other hand, an employer asking an employee to do something out of their ordinarily expected duties that creates such a conflict is in the wrong.