Refusing blood cost Jehovah's Witness her life

Havermeyer

Excuse me if I'm being a little harsh, but we're better off without these fúcktards in the gene pool.

MagicMarker

What a dope.

That is all.

MrPudding

Natural selection FTW.

MrP

Sea Sharp

They should be forced to take blood by law

Boston

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

They should be forced to take blood by law

Why should someone of sound mind be forced to undergo any medical treatment? We live in a free society last i checked.

MagicMarker

Boston wrote: »

Why should someone of sound mind be forced to undergo any medical treatment? We live in a free society last i checked.

That there is the grey area.

Boston

I don't see how. She understood the risks involved and she made a decision that staying true to her faith was more important then her mortal life. I don't think it was the right decision but I definitely think it was her decision to make.

MagicMarker

Boston wrote: »

I don't see how. She understood the risks involved and she made a decision that staying true to her faith was more important then her mortal life. I don't think it was the right decision but I definitely think it was her decision to make.

Would you say the same if it was her child she was making the decision for?

Boston

MagicMarker wrote: »

Would you say the same if it was her child she was making the decision for?

Thats a different situation. I don't believe anyone has the right to determine the life and death of another human being, not the state and certainly not the parent. As a parent she may have felt refusing the blood was in the best interests of the child but the state has also a duty of care to those not yet capable of self determination, as such its right that the state has a say. There no hard and fast rule but as an adult she was capable of making her won decisions.

Frankly once you get into the area of making medical decisions for minors it becomes dubious. For example in the states it is hugely common for male children to be circumcised as that is considered best practice. To do otherwise is looked upon as neglect by some doctors.

o1s1n

MagicMarker wrote: »

Would you say the same if it was her child she was making the decision for?

OMFG WON'T SOMEONE PLEEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!|!|!ONE!!!

She didn't, she made the choice for herself. Therefore children have no relevance to this. You can disassemble your straw man now.

Voodu Child

What a tragic waste of hospital time and resources.

MagicMarker

Boston wrote: »

Thats a different situation.

It is a different situation, and we wouldn't/shouldn't allow it to happen, because it's completely insane.

If this woman had said she didn't want a transfusion because the tooth fairy told her not to, she would have been given it, and then she would have probably been committed. I personally don't see the difference, but I suppose that's another thread right there.

But yeah, I agree, it's up to her, and so long as it doesn't effect anyone else I don't particularly care. I wonder if she had kids?

Boston

MagicMarker wrote: »

It is a different situation, and we wouldn't/shouldn't allow it to happen, because it's completely insane.

If this woman had said she didn't want a transfusion because the tooth fairy told her not to, she would have been given it, and then she would have probably been committed. I personally don't see the difference, but I suppose that's another thread right there.

You know, I'm not exactly rushing out to get the swine flu injection despite claims it safe. Am I completely insane? Unless you consider religious faith to be a sign of insanity then your tooth fairy comparison doesn't hold water.

Sea Sharp

Boston wrote: »

Why should someone of sound mind be forced to undergo any medical treatment? We live in a free society last i checked.

Why should anyone of sound mind be allowed to choose death over a simple medical procedure.
The dilemma is similar to euthanasia. Is a person allowed to commit suicide by refusing blood.

It's a very grey area.

Boston

Why should a doctor get to decide if a person lives or dies.

Sea Sharp

In some cases, such as in the story in the OP, the refusal to take blood leads to death. If the Doctor can foresee this then he would know that refusal to take blood is suicide.
If he has a patient that is refusing blood in the face of death, I believe that the doctor should force the person to take blood.
In the same sense that they should try and prevent a suicide.

People should not be allowed to commit suicide because of religious beliefs

Boston

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

In some cases, such as in the story in the OP, the refusal to take blood leads to death. If the Doctor can foresee this then he would know that refusal to take blood is suicide.
If he has a patient that is refusing blood in the face of death, I believe that the doctor should force the person to take blood.
In the same sense that they should try and prevent a suicide.

People should not be allowed to commit suicide because of religious beliefs

It's not suicide since you're not causing the mechanism of your death, you are merely not stopping it.

MagicMarker

Boston wrote: »

You know, I'm not exactly rushing out to get the swine flu injection despite claims it safe. Am I completely insane? Unless you consider religious faith to be a sign of insanity then your tooth fairy comparison doesn't hold water.

Are you comparing a flu jab with a life saving blood transfusion?

If it's perfectly acceptable for her to make this decision for herself, why is it not okay for her to make it for her child? Isn't that her right? A child is too young to make the decision and in any other situation the parent has the last say. So why in this case are we allowed to intervene? Is it not undermining their faith?

Why don't we intervene if the woman refuses to allow a flu jab?

Sea Sharp

It's not suicide since you're not causing the mechanism of your death, you are merely not stopping it.

So is running out in front of traffic.

Feeky Magee

Religious person in stupid shocker.

Boston

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you comparing a flu jab with a life saving blood transfusion?

If it's perfectly acceptable for her to make this decision for herself, why is it not okay for her to make it for her child? Isn't that her right? A child is too young to make the decision and in any other situation the parent has the last say. So why in this case are we allowed to intervene? Is it not undermining their faith?

Why don't we intervene if the woman refuses to allow a flu jab?

Refusing the flu Jab could be fatal. As for your other points, I dealt with them already. a) the child doesn't exist and b) There's a difference between making a decision for yourself and making a decision for someone else. since ultimately you don't have to live with the consequences.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

So is running out in front of traffic.

You're being facetious and deliberately obtuse.

Sea Sharp

You're being facetious and deliberately obtuse.

No I'm not. Allowing someone to refuse blood knowing that they'll die because of this refusal is allowing them to do something stupid that will get them killed.

What would you do if you saw some insane person running out in front of traffic because of delusional thoughts?

I know that it might seem harsh to force somebody to take blood but the reality is that taking blood is often a foreseeable life or death matter.

Boston

Delusional? You realise these a actual physiological terms and that if she was delusional, insane or divorced from reality then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Also your post suggests that people shouldn't be allowed do things which may result in death.

mikemac

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

If he has a patient that is refusing blood in the face of death, I believe that the doctor should force the person to take blood.

That person may well end up sueing the doctor, the hospital and the State for millions if they do this.

The patient here signed a written instruction and the doctors followed it.
There is nothing more then the doctor could have done

Mike 1972

MagicMarker wrote: »

If it's perfectly acceptable for her to make this decision for herself, why is it not okay for her to make it for her child? Isn't that her right? A child is too young to make the decision and in any other situation the parent has the last say. So why in this case are we allowed to intervene? Is it not undermining their faith?

If social services were to become aware of a parent who had decided to stop feeding their child would you say they shouldnt take the child into care/prosecute the parent for neglect because starving a child to death was a parents right ?

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

If he has a patient that is refusing blood in the face of death, I believe that the doctor should force the person to take blood.
In the same sense that they should try and prevent a suicide.

People should not be allowed to commit suicide because of religious beliefs

If the patient has no other mental health issues and is over 18 why shouldnt they be allowed to suicide ? Suicide is not a crime.

WindSock

Boston wrote: »

What an absolutely pathetic stance. This woman never did any wrong to you or anyone else. There's no need to crow over her death.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What a horrible thing to say. So you're glad that someones mother/sister/daughter/niece died? Why is her life worth less than anyone elses? That is a disgusting comment.

I never said I am glad she is dead, or deserves to die or that her life is worth less than anyone elses. I said I am glad she didn't get the blood she didn't want. It would have been a bloody waste to give it to someone who doesn't want it over someone who does.

Sea Sharp

Delusional? You realise these a actual physiological terms and that if she was delusional, insane or divorced from reality then there wouldn't have been a problem.

Also your post suggests that people shouldn't be allowed do things which may result in death.

I believe that she should not be allowed to choose death because of what some weird cult has told her to do based on bronze-age folklore. If a person is refusing medical treatment, and that medical treatment is overwhelmingly essential for their survival, then that is a delusional decision. They are choosing to die because the old testament says:
"you should drain the blood from an animal before eating it."

To refuse blood because of this is delusional.

hat person may well end up sueing the doctor, the hospital and the State for millions if they do this.

The patient here signed a written instruction and the doctors followed it.
There is nothing more then the doctor could have done

I believe that laws should be changed so that people cannot sue because the doctor acted legally. The instructions of religious organisations should not be allowed to deny a person essential medical treatment.

If the patient has no other mental health issues and is over 18 why shouldnt they be allowed to suicide ? Suicide is not a crime.

BEcause they're following the instructions of a mentally delusional religious organisation. This organisation thinks that the end of the world is coming and everybody on earth except them are gonna get killed.
Complete nutters!!!!

Also, suicide IS a crime.

Mike 1972

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

I believe that she should not be allowed to choose death because of what some weird cult has told her to do based on bronze-age folklore. .......Because they're following the instructions of a mentally delusional religious organisation. This organisation thinks that the end of the world is coming and everybody on earth except them are gonna get killed. Complete nutters!!!!.

Trouble with that is that as it would appear the majority of healthcare workers are not actually atheists it might be difficult to find a doctor in a position to make such a call.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Also, suicide IS a crime.

Can you quote the relevent subsection of the statute which states this ?

mikemac

Suicide was a crime at one stage, it no longer is

Possibly classified as a sin though, I'm not sure

jerry2623

The Reason the women was been operated on was beacuse of Colon cancer ,Me thinks she was f***** in any case .
She just saved the HSE a few bob by deciding to go early

drkpower

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

To refuse blood because of this is delusional..

You may be either confusing 'delusional' with 'irrational' or more probably using 'delusional' in a colloquial sense to mean irrational/mis-guided etc. Anyone is entitled to refuse medical treatment even for entirely irrational reasons or, indeed, no reason at all. That is their right.

Whether a patient is actually 'delusional' is a clinical judgment made by appropriately trained individuals in each case and if that judgment is made there are, of course, many options open to them to compel a certian treatment. But the mere fact of religous belief is not 'delusional' in the clinical sense, even if it may well be in the colloquial sense.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Also, suicide IS a crime.

No, it isnt.

Mike 1972

mikemac wrote: »

Possibly classified as a sin though, I'm not sure

Statute law generally concerns itself with offences, misdemeanours and felonies rather than "sins" though.

mikemac

Of course, statue law and sins are completely different, I never said otherwise

I know it's not against the law in Ireland, probably is a sin which why I've started another thread over in Christianity forum which is the place to find out

Mike 1972

Sin is generally a rather more subjective concept than law though is it not ?

philologos

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Sin is generally a rather more subjective concept than law though is it not ?

How can sin be subjective?

God has revealed to us a standard in the Scriptures. If we fail to reach His standard, we have sinned. God however, brought Jesus Christ a man who fits His standard perfectly to die for our sins in our place, so that our sins may be no longer regarded, and so that we have another chance to live for Him before we die.

Voodu Child

Jakkass wrote: »

God has revealed to us a standard in the Scriptures. If we fail to reach His standard, we have sinned. God however, brought Jesus Christ a man who fits His standard perfectly to die for our sins in our place, so that our sins may be no longer regarded, and so that we have another chance to live for Him before we die.

LOL

philologos

Thanks for that intelligent contribution ^^

DamoDLK

I can't understand why she even underwent the procedure...

jhegarty

DamoDLK wrote: »

I can't understand why she even underwent the procedure...

Because cancer is a bad thing.

escapethematrix

Absolute waste of life. This person died for a book publishing company.

I've already posted on this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055773696

Mike 1972

Jakkass wrote: »

How can sin be subjective?

God has revealed to us a standard in the Scriptures. If we fail to reach His standard, we have sinned. God however, brought Jesus Christ a man who fits His standard perfectly to .........

Doing a pretty good job of answering your own question so far...keep going.....

MagicMarker

God has given us many standards, thank fúck people ignore most of them.

DamoDLK

jhegarty wrote: »

Because cancer is a bad thing.

Yes, but surely she knew, or ought to have known, that there would be "a risk" of some blood transfusion.

philologos

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Doing a pretty job of answering your own question so far...keep going.....

My point is, if God has authority over us (yes I realise that's a big if), then irrespective of what we regard to be sin or not His standard will count, as He will have the final say.

Mike 1972

Jakkass wrote: »

yes I realise that's a big if.

Doing well............

Stercus Accidit

Just be glad however you ended up so convinced by your current religion, that it wasn't one that demands you refuse life saving medical treatment, and just demands various unnatural sexual practices and guilt.

jhegarty

DamoDLK wrote: »

Yes, but surely she knew, or ought to have known, that there would be "a risk" of some blood transfusion.

There (I presume) would have been a 100% risk of death with the cancer , so she took the option with the best odds.

basil63089

I met a jw in a bar last sat. he approached me and seemed ok. but was very quick to declare his religion even tho he wasn't asked and i didn't care less either way. but i kinda felt sorry 4 him i felt he was brainwashed and couldn't even consider my opinion. but very sad 2 think they would let a loved one die in gods name.

mardybumbum

Very sad story.

I am a bit shocked at the admiration some people have shown for her beliefs.
Its nothing to admire.
Unfortunately, she was brainwashed into believing that she was going to hell if she recieved a blood transfusion.
Its sad, not admirable.
Would anyone admire a grown man that believed in the tooth fairy?

I despise religion as much as the next rational being but I dont think the patient's autonomy should have been compromised in this case.
If she had been given a blood transfusion while she was unconscious, what sort of life would she have led when she went back home?
Remember that this is a woman who now believes that she will burn in hell for eternity. Not a very pleasant scenario.
You cant win in a situation like that.

The only thing to do is ensure that the next generation aren't led into believing this bull****.


Another reason why religion should be stamped out for the bug that it is really.

RedDragonJack

It's kinda sad actually. She said, "she did not want to die but she did no want a bllod transfusion". It makes you wonder how many people have made this decision because not wanting to feel like they were betraying their community or because their kids might be oztrisized from the community because of it.

Also, isn't this like asking to the doctors to euthanize her. the doctor said that it was unlikely she would survive without the transfusion.