PDA

View Full Version : Refusing Medical Treatment : Religious Freedom or Negligent Homicide?


neutron star
03-24-2000, 04:13 PM
This (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/006800.html) thread was almost turned into a debate by yours truly over whether or not it should be legal to refuse medical treatment for your child. (If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. Just don't drag an innocent kid into this.)

I say it's negligent homicide, akin to letting your kid stand in traffic and telling him that if a car hits him, well then that was just god's will.

Any Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses want to weigh in on this?

------------------
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, pee in it, and serve it to the people that piss you off.

quadell
03-24-2000, 04:35 PM
Okay, I'll chime in. I'm agnostic, but I believe in the right to refuse medical treatment. Forcing medicine on someone is like forcing a haircut on them. Okay, it's more serious, but it's the same basic principle: you have the right to refuse whatever you like, so longer as you're not denying someone else their rights.

With kids it's more tricky, but a young child can't decide for himself whether to receive medical treatment or not. So you either go with the parent's wishes, or you submit the child's health to popular vote. You may disagree with some parents, but they're still the parents.

My 2 cents.

Your Quadell

neutron star
03-24-2000, 04:56 PM
But what happens when the parents are clearly insane? Some people hide thier insanity very well under the guise of religion. You'd take a baby away from a mother who was a crackhead. Why not take a baby away from a mother who would refuse the kid simple medical procedures thereby killing him?

Spiritus Mundi
03-24-2000, 05:08 PM
Society has already made the decision that parent sdo not have ultimate authority to raise their children in any way they see fit. Denial of medical care in situations where it can seriously damage the health of a child is abuse. Abuse is grounds for loss of custody. If you want to pray for your child, fine. If you want to allow deny him dialysis after his kidneys fail you have lost your moral authority as a parent.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

Mojo
03-24-2000, 06:19 PM
IIRC, there was a News of the Weird story a while back about a guy who thought his hand was possessed by Satan so he lopped it off. The emergency room staff was fairly adamant about reattaching even though it was against his wishes until he started to get violent and threaten the physicians with physical harm. At that point they backed off and he permanently lost use of his hand. A while later he turns around and sues them, stating that they should have known he was mentally incompetent to make that decision.

I realize this is more mental illness than religion (even though Satan's name was invoked), but can you perform a medical procedure against a person's wishes if it is fairly obvious that he/she is not fully mentally competent? Does that go for their children as well?

quadell
03-25-2000, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by neutron star:
But what happens when the parents are clearly insane? Some people hide thier insanity very well under the guise of religion.

You're being silly. If the parents are not mentally fit to care for the child, we already have procedures for this. You're not really upset about that. You're upset about people that practice a religion you don't approve of.

How about sane, educated Christian Scientists? Surely you admit that's possible. . .

Your Quadell

The Asbestos Mango
03-25-2000, 01:15 AM
I agree with the idea that anyone has the right to refuse medical treatment for him/herself, but a child doesn't have the ability to make that choice. Children are not chattel. I feel that parents should teach by example, refusing medical treatment for themselves, but they don't have the right to martyr their children. They have the duty to see to it that the children get medical care necessary to insure their survival until they reach such an age that they can make their own decisions on these matters.

------------------
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side." --- Han Solo

WhiteNight
03-25-2000, 07:23 AM
Quadell: How about sane, educated Christian Scientists? Surely you admit that's possible. . .

Isn't that an oxymoron?


In some cases, a lack of action is a crime, abandonment for instance. I'd imagine not bandaging your child's wound would be a crime, and if they died from it, I think you'd be charged.

If someone wants to practice some freakoid religion, which I'll define as anything which makes them act in a counterproductive manner, relying on prayer, let them. But forcing their children to take these risks seems very irresponsible, the sort of action that could, and should, result in having the children taken away.

Oh well, being religious is its own punishment, so as long as these people don't kill their children, they've been adequately punished, imho.

casdave
03-25-2000, 09:03 AM
In France there is a law which compels passers-by to provide emergency assistance, for instance in the case of road accidents.(remember the Princess Dianna case where several journalists were investigated on this)The good Samaritan law.
How far you can apply this to denying medical treatment I'm not sure, could the victims sue if they were not conscious at the time and could not withdraw consent?Could a relative sue if treatment were not given in a similar situation when the patient died?
I could imagine a situation where a child might decide it wants medical treatment, including blood transfusion, against the express wishes of the parent.
Since we in the UK have universal health cover which is paid out of the public purse I don't know how your system works.We get horror stories about accident victims and the high cost of treatment from the US but this could be sensationalist reporting.The point to all this is, can someone refuse medical treatment for either themselves or their children on the grounds of cost?If the answer is yes I really think you have a moral problem here.

aschrott
03-25-2000, 09:21 AM
How is a child supposed to feel if he/she grows up as a Christian Scientist and is denied medical treatment in some way that leaves him scarred or disabled for life--and then as an adult decides that he does not share his parents' faith? He would have forfeit his health for the sake of a faith that is not his own--at the hands of people who were supposed to care for him. How could that person not feel abused? How could we not consider that persona to have been abused? There is no debate here in my mind. We have seperate laws concerning children for a reason--they are incapable of fending for themselves in some situations, and they are often unable to comprehend--let alone make--many of the important choices that adults confront on a daily basis.

I have known two Christian Scientists in my life. They were both fine people who I enjoyed being with and learning from. They both died of treatable diseases. I respected their choices in life---as adults. I do not, in any way, recognize anyone's right to make those choices for their children when the results can be harmful or dangerous. Period.

SouthernXYL
03-25-2000, 09:48 AM
Casdave, usually if treatment is refused it is on grounds of religious conviction. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, believe that it is wrong to have a blood transfusion; devout ones would literally rather die. There are lots of options for medical care for people who want it and can't afford it; church health centers and the like. Also, emergency rooms tend to treat folks first and ask questions later if their lives are at stake. At least, around here they do.

We get horror stories, too, about people in the UK dying of treatable conditions because the national health care is overwhelmed.

It's a tough call, tho, because those of us who go to the doctor and so forth have a different point of view about medical care than do people who refuse it. Suppose that the nationally accepted treatment of choice for pneumonia was to apply leaches until the sufferer is anemic; not too far-fetched, actually, considering the history of health care. Suppose that you knew that was a crock, and furthermore, you suspected that the patient has a high risk of contracting blood-borne diseases therefrom. Suppose that your 3-yr-old suffered from pneumonia and the family doctor prescribed bleeding, and you declined. Now the doctor reports you to the court system for refusing medical treatment for your child. Should the courts agree with you, that you have the right to decline treatment, or should they put your child into a foster home and bring on the leeches?

quadell
03-25-2000, 10:32 AM
First point:
I have looked and looked for good stats on child mortality rates on various religions, and can't find anything. So I have to be hypothetical. But let me ask you (Neutron Star, et al), hypothetically:

If, statistically, children of Christian Scientists were less likely to die before they turned 18 than the average American child (due to decreased risks in other areas) would that change your mind? I suspect it's true, that children of CSs are statistically safer, but I can't prove it. But if I could, you could no longer argue that the children were being put in a high-risk environment by being kept in that home, right? Would you change your mind then?

Second point:
Originally posted by WhiteNight:
Isn't that an oxymoron? . . . If someone wants to practice some freakoid religion. . .

Well now, you're no longer arguing the merits. You're just persecuting people for their religion. Your comments belong in the Pit.

Your Quadell

Spiritus Mundi
03-25-2000, 12:25 PM
Quadell:
I think you are speaking to a different point. To me, it is not a question of whether statistically a lifestyle is more high risk than another; it is a question of deliberate action (or in action) in the face of a specific circumstance.

If my religion believed that bottle-feeding, to take a purely hypothetical example, were evil, and I had a child who was alergic to breast milk (rare, but it does happen), what do I do? If I keep breast-feeding and praying and allow my child to sicken and starve, then I am abusing my baby. In such cases, society has an obligation (self-imposed, I admit -- but one I agree with) to step in for the welfare of the child.

------------------

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

casdave
03-25-2000, 03:20 PM
SouthernXYL
You've answered me in part but not wholly.
Yes I understand how the devout might refuse treatment on their own behalf.I can easily imagine a situation where a frightened child might demand treatment ,especially if severe pain is involved, but where a parent wishes to deny that treatment on religious grounds.
Where do you stand on that?What happens in practice?


As for our National Health Service, does not the scale of demand here imply that there is a massive unmet need in the US.Healthcare has to be paid for ,I would have thought it was better to spend available resources on service rather than on producing profits for medical insurers and the like.
Out of curiousity,why would anyone want to pay for medical insurance if the treatment from church health centres is free?

In some countries, where resources are scarce ,the burden of one sick child could have a disastrous effect on the welfare of the rest of the family,are the parents justified in choosing to lose one child to preserve the lives of the others?
What about cultural differances,in China and India boys are more highly prized as they bring resources into a family whereas girls take them away(dowries),as a result girls are routinely denied medical care.
If such a family brought their practices to the US they would surely be condemned-is religion really all that differant?

SouthernXYL
03-25-2000, 03:35 PM
Casdave: Typically, when the parent declines treatment in a life-threatening situation, there is a court action (don't know who brings it) and subesequently the child is treated. Where do I stand? Heck, I don't know. I can see both sides. I guess I'd refuse treatment for my child if I thought the treatment would send her to hell, but I don't think that of any medical treatment and I personally don't know anyone who does.

Church health centers and the like are usually staffed by medical personnel who volunteer so many hours a week, and charge fees based on a sliding scale. The only problem would be that you may not have any choice in who treats you, a problem that they share with some HMOs.

I don't think unmet care in the UK implies umnet care here. In my own very humble opinion, there's nothing that can't be screwed up by government micromanagement. Doctors and hospitals here actually compete for patients. We nearly lost our good children's hospital here, though, because the state's substitute for Medicare nearly ran it into the ground. Methodist hospital systems stepped in and saved it, fortunately.

If it's truly a choice of losing one child to save others, I suppose that could be justified, but hopefully that doesn't really happen too often. And I do frown on giving boys better medical treatment than girls - being a girl myself, and all.

DoctorJ
03-25-2000, 03:50 PM
It is usually the health care institution that brings the court action. The basis (especially with the JW's) is usually that the church, through its misinformation and threats of "disfellowship", has rendered the parent incompetent to grant informed refusal.

Apparently, parents will often force the court order, but make no real attempt to fight it. They are torn between their religion and what is best for the child, and figure the Church will forgive them if "their hands were tied".

Dr. J

Holly
03-25-2000, 06:13 PM
In several cases, JW children between the ages of 11 and 17 have been deemed "mature minors" by the court, giving these children permission to refuse life-saving transfusions. JW parents are encouraged to coach their kids in preparation for the possibility of facing transfusion; they teach the kids what to say to convince the judge to let them refuse blood. If worse comes to worst, the child is taught to rip the IV out of his arm, kick and fight, and do everything else possible to resist.

Any JW child is well-prepared to refuse transfusion.

JW children are so heavily indoctrinated that they will choose to die rather than receive a transfusion. In cases where the state gains custody in order to force transfusions, doctors are reluctant to do so because these kids are terribly traumatized by having transfusions forced on them.

JWs kidnap their children from hospitals to prevent transfusions. If they fail to fight against transfusions tooth and nail, they face severe penalties from the church. The worst sanction is disfellowshipping, in which the offenders are cast out of the church and forbidden to associate with any JWs, including immediate family members.

The JWs I've dealt with in the hospital oppose blood largely because they've been taught that transfusions are not only unnecessary but also extremely dangerous. JW publications point to blood-borne diseases (especially AIDS and hepatitis) as "proof" that their religious stance is correct. I was recently presented with a pamphlet by a JW family and instructed to put it in the patient's chart; it outlined dozens of helpful hints to minimize blood loss, including "use a pulse oximeter instead of drawing blood to determine blood oxygen levels" (worthless- the pulse ox only tells you what percentage of hemoglobin is bound to oxygen; it can't tell you what you really need to know), and "in surgery, the physician can minimize blood loss by making smaller incisions" (gee, I bet the surgeon never thought of that one). This crap went on for pages and pages.

A JW elder is stationed at the patient's bedside 24 hours a day to ensure the medical staff does not sneak blood into the patient's veins. If you so much as take the patient's temperature, that bastard will rush up to you and demand a full explanation for your every move.

In fact, JW's seem to believe that blood transfusions are an evil plot by the medical community to undermine their faith and persecute them.

Interestingly, for a period of about 13 years (roughly 1967-1980) JW doctrine forbade organ transplants as well because it was considered "cannibalism". Then the Watchtower society changed its mind, so now transplants are allowed. I have no idea how many good JWs died as a result of this policy.

Blood is forbidden for the same reason: transfusion is considered to be "eating" blood, which is forbidden in the Bible. The train of "logic" goes like this: doctors can feed the patient through an IV with TPN (total parenteral nutrition, used for people who cannot eat or absorb food through the digestive tract). Therefore, everything given to a patient through an IV is food. (This is simply false.)

I have no problem with an adult JW refusing blood. I sure don't think JW parents have the right to let their child die this way. As for "mature minors" refusing blood for themselves- I think it's very sad. Those kids really can't make a good decision for themselves because they only know the lies they've been taught.

jab1
03-25-2000, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by neutron star:
I say it's negligent homicide

I say it's negligent homicide, also. Of course, I'm a God-less atheist who doesn't believe in homeopathy. ;)

The notion that blood transfusions are bad for you stems from the days before we learned about blood typing and not about blood-borne diseases. Give someone the wrong type of blood and you can kill them. Transplanting organs means the risk of rejection.

But these are naturally-occurring consequences that can be prevented. There is no good reason for refusing a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant.

------------------
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don't be surprised if I try to correct you.

SouthernXYL
03-25-2000, 08:40 PM
"There is no good reason for refusing a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant." You realize that not everyone agrees with that. I take your signature line literally, and feel free to correct your statement. Here is the correction: "There is no good reason for anyone who shares my worldview to refuse a properly-administered transfusion or organ transplant."

Northern Piper
03-26-2000, 02:42 AM
there was actually a very dramatic case of this happening about a year ago in Saskatchewan.

- 13 year old boy was diagnosed wtih a nasty form of bone cancer in his leg.

- doctors began treating with chemo, but eventually the parents and the boy refused, saying it conflicted wtih their religious (Christian) beliefs.

- doctors notified provincial Social Services, who went to court for a temporary guardianship order under child protection law, for the purpose of consenting to medical treatment for the boy.

- court ruled that the parents had unduly influenced boy, so he could not make a truly informed decision (i.e. - was not a "mature minor"). Granted order to Social Services, including power to consent to amputation of the leg, if necessary.

- Social Services consents to more chemo; boy comes back to hospital; doctors discover that in the interval, cancer has spread, rendering further treatment, even amputation, useless.

- parents take boy to Mexico for alternative treatment.

- boy dies, some months after return from Mexico.

what do you think?

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

sqweels
03-26-2000, 02:49 AM
We often say that religion and politics don't mix, but that doesn't make sense because religion is a form of politics. It's politics and science that don't mix. Poilitics deal with absolute rights and matters of law while science deals with degrees of certainty.

I'm starting to repeat myself (maybe I should change my handle to 'pragman') but it's all about drawing the line. There should be a point at which a medical procedure should be considered tried and true and not simply part of someones belief system. We already draw the line at some of the ways parents are allowed to treat their children. In a life-threatening situation, it should be reasonable for the state to require tried-and-true medical treatment for children and unreasonable for parents to refuse such treatment, religion or no.

Northern Piper
03-26-2000, 12:25 PM
sqweels - even amputation of a leg, over the objection of the child and his parents?

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

SouthernXYL
03-26-2000, 03:11 PM
What if you gave the kid a blood transfusion that he didn't really HAVE to have, but you thought he probably would do better with it than not, and he got AIDS from it? I know they test the blood and all, but the risk is not 0.0000%.

I will tell you this, and it's not for religious reasons at all: if my dr. wanted to give me a blood transfusion, and it wasn't a matter of life-and-death but a matter of me being very tired for a few days and having to drink lots of water or eat liver or whatever if I didn't get it, I would say, no thank you, I'll take my chances without it. I know that with the best intentions in the world, mistakes are made. I don't want AIDS.

Holly
03-26-2000, 04:05 PM
It's true that doctors often prescribe blood transfusions when it's not a matter of life and death. Once your hemoglobin gets dangerously low, the doctor and nurse will want to give you a transfusion. Say you had coronary artery bypass graft surgery yesterday, and today your hemoglobin is 7.0. Can you survive without a blood transfusion? If you're otherwise in good health, probably. Your almost certain to do a whole lot better and have fewer complications if you get the blood.

As with any treatment, from surgery to giving the patient an aspirin, there are risks. The job of the medical team is to evaluate the risks and inform the patient of what those risks are. "Look, there is a miniscule chance that you can contract AIDS or hepatitis from this blood transfusion, or you could have a deadly transfusion reaction. On the other hand, if you don't get this blood, you will almost certainly die." An adult patient has the absolute right to refuse any treatment. As a nurse, I may not agree with your choice but I will defend it by every means necessary.

Believe it or not, doctors and nurses respect the right of patients to refuse treatments they don't want. A hospital will not seek a court order to force a transfusion unless it is necessary to save a child's life.

JW parents (under threat of disfellowship and damnation) refuse blood transfusions for their kids. They kidnap their kids from the hospital to prevent transfusion. Kids die because of this.

SouthernXYL
03-26-2000, 05:50 PM
The sentence "If you do not get this blood tranfusion you will almost certainly die" would do it for me.

Sterra
03-27-2000, 01:10 AM
id say only if its a disease that has a 99% fatality rate. But as far as parents rights goes i think they go further than some strangers. Think about this... what if the doctor only did that because he wanted the money and the treatment wouldent help at all, but the kid loses a leg.

David B
03-27-2000, 08:56 PM
Way up near the top of this thread, Quadell (welcome back, BTW) said:a young child can't decide for himself whether to receive medical treatment or not. So you either go with the parent's wishes, or you submit the child's health to popular vote. You may disagree with some parents, but they're still the parents.Yes, they are still the parents. But their children are not their property. They are human beings. When parents abuse their kids, the courts step in (or at least should). When parents otherwise neglect their kids, the courts step in. If the parents choose a course of action that would likely result in harm or death -- even because of a religious belief -- the courts should step in to save the child.

sqweels
03-27-2000, 10:05 PM
If medical experts declare with a high degree of certainty that a certain procedure is necessary to prevent a child's death, then the law should mandate it. Science is not a belief system, and this isn't a game of make-believe, this is life and death.

inertia
03-27-2000, 10:58 PM
Negligent Homicide.

The Ryan
03-27-2000, 11:31 PM
I'm still mulling this over, and I don't have a final answer to the OP, but several side issues have occurred to me:
What if the child aactually does want to get treatment, but the parents refuse consent?
What if (as Casdave asked), the parents refuse on the basis of cost? This question was dismissed as not being what is being discussed, but if parents can refuse for one reason, can't they refuse for another reason? Even if religion is the central issue, if the State forces the treatment upon the a CS's child, is it fair to bill the parents? On the other hand, would it be fair not to bill CS parents, but do bill parents that consent to treatment?
What if a treatment has serious side effects? For instance, chemotherapy can often be worse than the cancer it is supposedly treating (and I say supposdedly because chemotherapy doesn't have anywhere near a 100% sucess rate). Does a parent have the right to decide that they would prefer their child to have a life expectancy of six relatively painless months than one very painful year?

David B
03-28-2000, 08:26 AM
Ryan: For the last question, I would say allow the parents to decide if the doctors think the child will die either way. If, however, there is a decent chance of killing off the cancer, it should be done.

Northern Piper
03-28-2000, 03:29 PM
David B,

what do you think about the situation I described, where the likely treatment was amputation of the leg, and both the parents and the boy were opposed? When I read about the judge's order, I had an image of the boy being taken into surgery, crying "I don't want you to cut off my leg!"

The issue didn't arise because the cancer had spread, but what do you think of it? It gave me the willies.

------------------
and the stars o'erhead were dancing heel to toe

dougie_monty
03-28-2000, 04:02 PM
JW parents (under threat of disfellowship and damnation) refuse blood transfusions for their kids. They kidnap their kids from the hospital to prevent transfusion. Kids die because of this.
You're stacking the deck. Did you know that there have been many instances of Witness children who have been given transfusions despite their parents' refusal and have been brought back dead? :(
Hadn't thought about that, had you?
I recognize that quite a few who have posted here do not accept Christianity or even the notion that there is a God--let alone the doctrine of the Witnesses opposing blood transfusions. Somehow I sense that for those so opposed to advise me on this matter--well, it's a little like hiring the fox to guard the chickens.
And I reject the idea that the State must be allowed latitude in a controversy such as this. Didn't they go through something like that in Germany sixty years ago?? :(

David B
03-28-2000, 08:28 PM
Jti said:what do you think about the situation I described, where the likely treatment was amputation of the leg, and both the parents and the boy were opposed?I think I'm glad the decision isn't up to me.

Seriously, these almost have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. If the cancer is of the type that is known to spread rapidly, and amputation is the best known way to stop it, then amputation it is. What's worse: A kid who has one leg or a dead kid?

kinoons
03-29-2000, 12:11 AM
There is a nice catch to this issue, atleast in the state of NM

As an EMT, I advise a patient that if he does not accept medical treatment he is in danger of loosing life or limb.

Now, if for some reasion I can, with the assistance of a doctor, deem my patient mentally incomptant to make an informed decision, I can treat and transport him w/o his concent.

The normal realms of this law revolves around people who have consumed mind altering drugs, or patients whom have been injured in their head. I have seen this taken to pretty extreme measures. I once heard over the radio a Paramedic call a doctor because his patient did not want to go to the hospital. The paramedic believed that the patient was bleeding internally. The doctor stated that the patient had lost too much blood, and deemed the patient unable to make an informed decision. That patient got the Ambulance to the hospital.

------------------
Kinooning it up for 20 years and counting

kinoons
03-29-2000, 12:12 AM
in reference to the orgional question, If I can deem the parent incomptant for any reasion, I can perform any medical procedures I feel are necessary

------------------
Kinooning it up for 20 years and counting

neutron star
03-29-2000, 02:22 AM
Did you know that there have been many instances of Witness children who have been given transfusions despite their parents' refusal and have been brought back dead?

All this proves is that the child was going to die no matter what. Doctors tried to save the child with a blood transfusion, but they were unable to. What on earth does this prove?

------------------
`They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety'
- Benjamin Franklin -

Holly
03-29-2000, 03:44 AM
What neutron star said. Plus, if a transfusion is needed to save a life there generally isn't much time to spare. Minutes count. Getting a court order to force a transfusion (I've never been involved in one personally, as I don't work pediatrics) takes time. Sometimes kids die because the parents' refusal causes a fatal delay.

I'm all for JW's refusing blood for themselves, even though I obviously don't agree with the doctrine. I've on a few occasions had JW patients who died rather than take blood; I wouldn't dream of interfering with that. I don't think JW's have the right to make their kids pay for that doctrine with their lives.

dougie_monty
03-29-2000, 05:39 PM
To Holly:
You would prefer to dictate others' religion to them then? (I understand the Chinese Communists, when taking over the producting of livestock, took it upon themselves to force Musliums in China to eat pork; religion, is, after all, according to Marx, "The opiate of the masses.")
In 1970, then L. A. Police Chief Tom Reddin, in a Saturday editorial on a local radio station, deplored the skid row bums who would give any answer expedient, when they wanted to sell their blood for Muscatel or Tokay. I know medical science is more sophisticated now, but the fact remains that the Bible (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17;10, 11, the 15th chapter of Acts) forbid the use of blood in medical treatment such as transfusion; I refuse to accept the notion that medical expedience compels anyone to be conveniently hypocritical in observance of their religion; I could compare it to Jews or Muslums living in Iowa or other pig-farming areas and being pressured for the sake of the local economy to eat pork anyway. And I have already made clear the point about what is or can be more important than one's own life--and there are such things, as noted in Matthew 10:39. :)

Hey Hey Paula
03-29-2000, 07:08 PM
What about a parent who refuses medical treatment, or a specific medical procedure, for non-religious reasons? Say the child was on life-support with no hope of recovery, and the parent wanted to discontinue it? Or the parent refused to allow the life-support equipment to be hooked up in the first place? Or a parent refusing to allow a surgery because he or she disagreed with the doctor's opinion of its worth?

Would you still consider those situations "negilgent homicide", or is it just the religious aspect that bothers you?

(I'm non-religous but hate the idea of languishing on life-support equipment.)


------------------
"The analyst went barking up the wrong tree, of course. I never should have mentioned unicorns to a Freudian." -- Dottie ("Jumpers" by Tom Stoppard)

dougie_monty
03-29-2000, 07:26 PM
I know a girl from high school (the 60s) whose mother suffered congestive heart failure, which apparently caused her brain to fail, too. (The mother was about 72 at the time.) While the mother was in the hospital, the daughter told me she had discussed the situation with her husband and her brothers; they decided they were going to "pull the plug." The point was apparently: Better she should die sooner rather than her life be prolonged arftifically--and she would be no more than a vegetable. :(

SouthernXYL
03-29-2000, 11:19 PM
doug_monty, remember the story that hit the papers recently about the woman who woke up after sixteen years in a vegetative state? There are folks who are thought to be end-stage cancer patients, given treatment to control their pain only, who live for years; my mother knows such a person. Doctors are wonderful people who know a lot of things, but they can't see the future. I want them to be VERY conservative about turning off my life-support. Hope it never comes to that, of course.

However, I do agree with you that there are worse things than dying. Those of us who believe that this world is not all there is will never see eye-to-eye with those who think that once you die, that's it.

neutron star
03-30-2000, 03:36 AM
Whenever a religion teaches man to ignore his most basic human instinct (self-preservation), I'd have to say it's on the way out.

Holly
03-30-2000, 04:11 AM
dougie monty:You would prefer to dictate others' religion to them then?No. I stated that although I personally disagree with the JW doctrine, I would not try to force a JW adult to have a transfusion. I believe adults have the right to worship however they choose, whether that means refusing a transfusion or deciding to drink the Special KoolAid. I do NOT believe an adult should be permitted to serve his kids the Special KoolAid.

I know medical science is more sophisticated now, but the fact remains that the Bible (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17;10, 11, the 15th chapter of Acts) forbid the use of blood in medical treatment such as transfusion.Unfortunately, the language in those verses is not so specific; the concept of "transfusion" isn't in there. These passages were also used by the Watchtower society to forbid organ transplants but they reversed that position. Most Christians do not interpret the passages the way you do. You may, of course, believe anything you choose.

And I have already made clear the point about what is or can be more important than one's own life--and there are such things, as noted in Matthew 10:39.
Again, you are free to do whatever you want with your own life. Your kid's life is not your own life.

Would you care to address the Watchtower's vacillating position on organ transplants?

What about immunizations? For many years, the Watchtower taught that immunizations were not only dangerous and ineffective- sound familiar?- but also in direct opposition to Biblical laws. JW parents would burn their children's arms to make a scar resembling a smallpox vaccination; some went to great lengths to obtain forged vaccination records. Now immunizations are allowed.

WhiteNight
03-30-2000, 05:58 PM
WhiteNight: Isn't that an oxymoron? . . . If someone wants to practice some freakoid religion. . .

Quadell: Well now, you're no longer arguing the merits. You're just persecuting people for their religion. Your comments belong in the Pit.


Neutron Star: Whenever a religion teaches man to ignore his most basic human instinct (self-preservation), I'd have to say it's on the way out.

That's my definition of a freakoid religion, something that harms more than it helps. Call it quack religion if it makes you feel better. People who practice is deserve no more respect than people who douse themselves with gasoline and threaten to light themselves. People who subject their children to this should be charged with homicide and, if applicable, given the death penalty.


And I do think "Educated Christian Scientist" is an oxymoron. Considering that what they consider science is pathetically misguided, and mangled to fit their religion, they can't be very educated, or they'd have noticed the contradictions and then they wouldn't be very good little mindless drones, would they? And the cult leaders wouldn't want that.


If I saw a JW parent in the ER refusing to let their kid get a transfusion, I'd treat it like a parent beating their child abusively. I'd step in and end it. Murder is murder, doing it because of you freaking stupid beliefs, or because of your bad temper, doesn't change the end result. And I feel that if I had to watch this, I'd be condoning those abusive, deadly actions. You'd just better hope you never abuse your children around me.

You can be someone else's Quadell, I really don't want you.

dougie_monty
03-31-2000, 12:52 PM
White Night, unless you are a judge, a physician, a lawyer, or an authority on religion, I consider your appraisal worthless here. As for organ transplants...well, isn't it better that a clearer understanding of the Bible is used? Remember, at least one passage in the New Testament was once used to bolster the "Divine Right of Kings." This would not stand up, of course, to the two specific commandments Jesus mentioned ("on these the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets" [the Scripture commonly called the Old Testament]). As far as "interpretation" is concerned, a Scripture can really be "interpreted" only one way, lest it hit a snag--i.e., conflict with something else in the Bible. For my part, I don't oppose organ transplants: hey, if I'm not using something, anyone else who wants it is welcome to it. But not blood.

Holly
04-01-2000, 01:21 AM
Blood is, technically, an organ.

For my part, I don't oppose organ transplants: hey, if I'm not using something, anyone else who wants it is welcome to it. But not blood.

But the Watchtower Society used to forbid organ transplants. Why was it wrong then, but not now? What if the Watchtower reverted to its original mandate and once again forbid organ transplants: would you change your beliefs? What if the Watchtower Society reversed its position on blood (they have vacillated over the permissibility of receiving some blood components- some are allowed, some are not). Would you change your beliefs accordingly?

And why is it wrong to donate blood, but not wrong to donate other organs?

dougie_monty
04-01-2000, 01:52 AM
You know, if Isaac Asimov--not known for a positive attitude toward the Bible in any regard--were around, he might make the point that blood is tissue, not an "organ," as you put it. Blood is made up of cells, as is every other part of the body--skin, bone, fat, muscle, vital organs. But one speaks of "liver tissue," "lung tissue," "bone tissue," and I believe the analogy applies also to blood.
As far as the Watchtower Society "changing position," keep in mind that at one point God Almighty specifically ordered the Israelites to abstain from certain foods--birds of prey, shellfish, non-ruminant land animals, for example. And in the Mosaic Law the Israelites were commanded to observe certain rituals, including the sacrifice of animals. Chrisatians don't do this; in a sense God 'killed two birds with one stone' by superseding the kosher/non-kosher requirement and at the same time inviting Gentiles to join God's congregation, while in the time of fleshly Israel Gentiles were specificially excluded from the Jewish nation. And one more thing: How much blood, if any, is contained within a transplanted organ?

dougie_monty
04-04-2000, 05:13 PM
Oh, no? Really? You don't agree with my religious views. Damn, there goes my whole world view. Can you feel the sarcasm yet?
If not, try this?
You want me to be a judge or a lawyer before you'll accept my judgement of what constitutes a freakoid religion? Is that because you disagree with the precise legal meaning of freakoid? Are you using the definition from T. Kazinski vs US Gov, or the older definition? Please, inform me of what freakoid means to you, so that my further messages might be tailored more to your reading pleasure.
Just thought I'd log on here and get my head bit off. :rolleyes:
Can I feel the sarcasm? Yes--like whirling wire brushes on bare flesh!
Just who brought up the word "freakoid"? Until I read these postings I never saw the word before. Would you care to state clearly and plainly what you consider a 'normal' religion? It's clear to me you don't accept what the Bible says--in Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, or the 15th chapter of Acts--on the subject. You should already know that I do accept it and I resent immensley your implication that I am foolish or duped, or in any other way allegedly inferior to you, because I accept it. I think it is possible for you or anyone else to discuss the issue of blood transfusions, and still be objective and civil about it.

WhiteNight
04-04-2000, 07:52 PM
Here's a quick reference I found on www.m-w.com (http://www.m-w.com) of freak, the root word.

1 a : a sudden and odd or seemingly pointless idea or turn of the mind

3b mentions sexual deviate which isn't quite what I'm getting at, but if you combine that with 3a, which is one who is markedly unusual or abnormal, but in a mental sense instead of a phsyical sense, then you've got the gist of what I mean by freak.


But, let's use 'irrational' instead, it's a bit better defined and sort of gets to the point.

I define suicide as irrational, the strongest instinct I have is that of preservation of my life and that of my loved ones. This is the way of all right-thinking people that I know.

To act suicidally by refusing transplants and even transfusions means that you are being irrational. To be directed to do so by a religion means that the religion is irrational.

I'm just going a step farther and making a personal judgement of the people who'd make up such a religion or practice it knowing its flaws. I used freakazoid because the circus freak image seems to fit.

If you were to compare two people, identical except for their religion, an athiest and a JW, the athiest would be worth more, from the point of view of everyone around them. The JW is admittedly irrational and has very little regard for their own life or that of their family. This makes me state that they would be inferior, in most ways.

Like it or not, suicidal behaviour doesn't become rational just because it's based on some hoaky translation of a book written thousands of years ago and poorly translated ever since.

I'd support laws removing children, immediately and irrevokably, from JW parents, as soon as the parents refused common medical treatment that was generally agreed to be effective. To me this is equivalent to Susan Smith strapping her children in the car, drowing them, and then disavowing all responsibility. I really don't care why you'd act suicidally or homicidally, I don't want you near children, your own or others. It doesn't matter if you get the urge to kill via a musty old book, or voices you hear in your head, the end result is the same.

So yes, I do feel you, and until proven rational, all other JWs are inferior. They're not the only ones, but they're the ones being discussed here.

You can try to justify the murder of your loved ones by refusing life-saving treatment, but it had better be pretty good.

WhiteNight
04-05-2000, 01:04 AM
Dougie: White Night, unless you are a judge, a physician, a lawyer, or an authority on religion, I consider your appraisal worthless here.

Oh, no? Really? You don't agree with my religious views. Damn, there goes my whole world view. Can you feel the sarcasm yet?

If not, try this?

You want me to be a judge or a lawyer before you'll accept my judgement of what constitutes a freakoid religion? Is that because you disagree with the precise legal meaning of freakoid? Are you using the definition from T. Kazinski vs US Gov, or the older definition? Please, inform me of what freakoid means to you, so that my further messages might be tailored more to your reading pleasure.

Sheesh.

Freakoid is anything blatantly self destructive. When religion causes its members to act in a self destructive manner, it becomes freakoid. And I don't have to be a doctor to be able to tell a dead JW who refused a transplant from a living athiest who didn't. The diagnosis is pretty simple. You might be able to pick it up without years at med school. Hint - living people rarely have funerals.

Am I a religious authority? You bet. I've picked holes in the tissue-paper arguments of more fundamentalists than you could count. I'd argue that I'm as much of an authority on religion as anyone else, it being completely made up anyways. Sure, many people are scholars of a specific brand of religious insanity in a dead language, but what is there really to know, except that any religion that leads its followers to kill themselves, by action or inaction, is pretty stupid. And any practicioners of it deserve the 'Darwin Award'.


Hmmm, I should print out a certificate for that and hand it out to people who offer the the Watchtower... I could explain how their self destructive religion removes them and their kin from the gene pool, thus freeing valuable resources for the non-freakishly stupid.


Thanks for the laugh... Religious authority! A judge or lawyer!?! rofl.

RoboDude
04-08-2000, 02:00 AM
dougie_monty wrote:

---------------------------------------------And I reject the idea that the State must be allowed latitude in a controversy such as this.
---------------------------------------------
What's wrong with protecting children from negligent parents? Do you feel the same way about laws against child abuse?


---------------------------------------------
It's clear to me you don't accept what the Bible says--in Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, or the 15th chapter of Acts--on the subject.
---------------------------------------------
I accept what the Bible says on the subject of transfusions, which is absolutely nothing. After all, the Bible was written thousands of years before blood transfusions were even dreamed of.

And another thing: If we were talking about parents who had sacrificed their child to a pagan deity, would you think they had the right to do so, or does the right to kill one's children in the name of God apply only to the one you worship?

If you would let yourself die because you believe in a creative reinterpretation of part of the Bible, that's fine with me. But if you would force such beliefs on your children, you have no business breeding.

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

Satan
04-08-2000, 10:16 AM
I believe the standard that has been applied - and I'm sure it's somewhat open to conjecture - is that freedom of religion is paramount, but that when the religion starts to tread into illegal or otherwise threatening activity, the authorities have every right to step in and put a halt to it.

For example, Santaria, the religion of Haiti referred to as voodoo by some, asks it's practitioners for animal sacrifices. In NYC, where Haitian immigrants make a sizable number of folks, you would always (when I lived there) see stories in the paper about how the police had to bust some practitioners who were raising chickens illegally and sacrificing them.

If we are interpreting the law so that we are proitecting a bunch of chickens, I don't see how we are stepping over any lines by saying, "We respect your right to religion, but not if it means harm to a child." If it's good enough for a chicken...

Here's something else interesting... Some folks feel that the Bible mandates racism, and in fact, supremist groups such as the KKK expound verses which they say shows as much.

What would we think if a KKK member let his kid die because he refused to allow medical attention be provided by "any niggers or kikes" and the only folk(s) who could have saved juniors life was black or Jewish?

That person is convinced that the Bible told him that his racism was justified as part of his religious code.

We can turn this around and say that the child of an Islamic extremist who follows Farrakhan makes the same choice because he doesn't want "the white devil" to operate on his child. That person will feel that his religion mandates this as well, and it doesn't matter that many more mainstream Muslims feel differently.

I am willing to bet that the folks here who feel that the freedom of religion circumvents the responsibilities one has as a parent would feel differently in the above scenerios.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

dougie_monty
04-08-2000, 04:18 PM
but that when the religion starts to tread into illegal or otherwise threatening activity, the authorities have every right to step in and put a halt to it.
In other words, Acts 5:29--"We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--is just gibberish.
If you accept that, come around: I'll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.

Satan
04-08-2000, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by dougie_monty:

In other words, Acts 5:29--"We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--is just gibberish.

Why yes, it is. There is nothing in the Bible which says to do anything but treat your children well. If a few extremists think that God doesn't dig modern medicine, then they shouldn't breed. And if a few of the idiots die off as adults, all it will do is raise the average of the gene pool's IQ.

According to your logic, the creeps who kill abortion doctors because they are following "God's law" are perfectly justified. I happen to disagree.

If you accept that, come around: I'll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.

How much you want for it? I just gave a tangible example of this put into practice. If you feel that you can find another country that has more religious freedom than the USA, feel free to move there.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

RoboDude
04-09-2000, 06:16 PM
The most disturbing part about this whole issue is that in some states, parents who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons are protected from prosecution.

This is simply absurd. Nobody would dispute the fact that parents who refuse to seek medical treatment for their children for any other reason can be prosecuted, so why is this any different? Are they afraid of being accused of "persecuting" people, or do they honestly think that religion is a valid excuse to let one's kids die?

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

David B
04-09-2000, 08:51 PM
Satan said:We can turn this around and say that the child of an Islamic extremist who follows Farrakhan makes the same choice because he doesn't want "the white devil" to operate on his child.FYI, I believe when Farrakhan had some life-threatening situation a few years back, a while before he supposedly became kinder and gentler towards Jews (can't recall what it was, I'm afraid), the doctor who saved him was Jewish (and white).

Dougie_monty said:In other words, Acts 5:29--"We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--is just gibberish.I would definitely say "yes." But especially in this case -- you are trying to defend your "right" to kill children by saying we should follow your interpretation of a deity. Sorry, charlie, but that ain't gonna win you a whole lot of support around here, I suspect.

Satan
04-09-2000, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by David B:

FYI, I believe when Farrakhan had some life-threatening situation a few years back, a while before he supposedly became kinder and gentler towards Jews (can't recall what it was, I'm afraid), the doctor who saved him was Jewish (and white).

Yes, I heard this too. I wrote it for two reasons in spite of that. One, Malcolm X recanted most of his racist-speak a few years before he died, but many in the religion (such as his successor Farrakhan) chose to not listen to the rectifying words - so even though they changed, there are still likely people who haven't.

The other reason is I simply wanted to make an example on the other side of the coin as well.

But thanks for the clear-up there...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

David B
04-09-2000, 09:10 PM
I wasn't trying to show that you were wrong or anything -- actually, I find it somewhat ironic that the man could spew so much hatred at whites and Jews, in particular, but then allow his life to be saved by one. Doesn't show much courage of his convictions there. :)

RoboDude
04-10-2000, 05:33 PM
---------------------------------------------
In other words, Acts 5:29--"We must obey God as ruler rather than men"--is just gibberish. If you accept that, come around: I'll sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.
---------------------------------------------
So does that mean you think that it's okay for religious terrorists to blow stuff up?

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

kinoons
04-10-2000, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Holly:
Blood is, technically, an organ.

Holly, just a side note, but blood is considered connective tissue, not an organ.



------------------
...for more silky smooth segways, write to "silky smooth segways" 610 n 10th street, Albuquerque NM 87109.

dougie_monty
04-12-2000, 03:01 PM
It seems to me that questions such as the OP here are raised because of the distinctive nature of the Witnesses' doctrines:
Refusal to accept blood transfusions or abortion.
Refusal to participate in politics.
Abandonment of primary dopctrines of mainstream churches: a triune God, eternal fiery torture in hell, and an immortal human soul.
Observance of man-made laws where they don't conflict with God's laws.
In the spirit of Mark Twain's maxim at the start of Chapter 15 in Pudd'nhead Wilson--that nothing needs correction more than the habits and preferences of others--it's clear to me that many among the Teeming Millions would prefer that the Witnesses abandon their religion and be like everyone else. (This reminds me of my drunkard stepfather, who wanted my brothers and me to be drunkards too. If the shoe fits, wear it.)

Satan
04-12-2000, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by dougie_monty:

...it's clear to me that many among the Teeming Millions would prefer that the Witnesses abandon their religion and be like everyone else.

"It's clear to me that dougie_monty would prefer that murderers abandon their convictions and be like everyone else."

The issue, dougie, is not freedom of religion. The issue is parental responsibilities, and protecting the rights of others.

As soon as you say that it's perfectly acceptable to KILL (or allow people to be killed) in the name of how a few people (not even close to a majority) interpret some theological texts, you are saying that we should just let Muslim extremist terrorists and Fundamentalist Christian abortion doctor killers off the hook because, after all, freedom of religion is important. :rolleyes:

As soon as your freedom of religion starts to impact others, especially negatively, then the rights of those who are affected take presedence, just as the right to yell "Fire" does not extend itself to a crowded theater.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three days, 19 hours, 15 minutes and 28 seconds.
152 cigarettes not smoked, saving $19.01.
Life saved: 12 hours, 40 minutes.

dougie_monty
04-13-2000, 06:05 PM
Somehow a reply from a Doper who calls himself "Satan" is not convincing nor does it inspire agreement or contrition.
You may remember the example of the ancient Spartans, who took babies from their parents and kept them segregated until the age of about 60 (my original source, Virgil Hillyer, A Child's History of the World, 1960).
Supposedly this ensured that the city-state Sparta would be invincible; but nobody told this to the Athenians, who defeated the Spartans anyway.
Parents are responsible before God for how they rear their children. If the Witnesses' doctrine in this matter doesn't suit you, well, that's not my headache.

Satan
04-13-2000, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by dougie_monty:

Somehow a reply from a Doper who calls himself "Satan" is not convincing nor does it inspire agreement or contrition.

Nice ad hominem. I was unaware that my name had anything to do with this debate.

You may remember the example of the ancient Spartans, who took babies from their parents and kept them segregated until the age of about 60 (my original source, Virgil Hillyer, A Child's History of the World, 1960).
Supposedly this ensured that the city-state Sparta would be invincible; but nobody told this to the Athenians, who defeated the Spartans anyway.

And this has what to do with the issue in America in the here and now?

Parents are responsible before God for how they rear their children. If the Witnesses' doctrine in this matter doesn't suit you, well, that's not my headache.

It's not that it doesn't suit me. It is that it doesn't suit the people who are DYING! If a parent endangers the welfare ald life of their children in the name of anything, this does not excuse them.

As I said, freedom of religion is paramount, but when you start infringing on other people's freedoms, and allowing this freedom to get in the way of your responsibilities, such as raising your kid in a manner which is condusive to allowing the kid to not BE a kid and GROW UP!

You also failed to comment on what I said about how your reasoning means that abortion doctor-killers and Islamic terrorists are perfectly justified because their religious convictions mean more than man's laws, which is exactly what you said.

I guess you were too busy looking at my user name than to actually try and take on something I asserted in the debate, huh... :rolleyes:

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Four days, 22 hours, 13 minutes and 11 seconds.
197 cigarettes not smoked, saving $24.63.
Life saved: 16 hours, 25 minutes.

David B
04-14-2000, 08:07 AM
Dougie-Monty said:Somehow a reply from a Doper who calls himself "Satan" is not convincing nor does it inspire agreement or contrition.That's the best you can do? Attack his handle? Well, that says a lot about your argument right there...

(I used to go by the handle of "Crackpot." When somebody would say something like, "What should I expect from somebody called Crackpot?" I knew I'd won the debate. So did everybody else who was reading the forum. Indeed, that's one reason I used the handle.)

dougie_monty
04-14-2000, 05:55 PM
All right, all right--I probably should not have used such an argumentum ad hominem comment. I still stand by my positing against transfusions; nobody has more to lose than the children themselves and their parents.
And, to respond to an earlier objection, yeah, I know transfusions are not mentioned in Scripture. So what? The Bible doesn't mention automatic weapons, hit-and-run driving, securities fraud, nuclear warfare, or even Internet hackers--that doesn't mean the precepts of the Bible would condone such things. Nor does the Bible say you shouldn't shovel your dog's droppings into your neighbor's yard! By the Scriptures I have cited in this thread, the Bible doesn't condone blood transfusion either.

Satan
04-14-2000, 08:08 PM
I will ask for the third time:

What about Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of a jihad they feel is mandated by Allah?

What about the Christian who murders an abortion doctor because of "God's laws" as mandated in the Bible which need to be enforced?

If you are saying the the religious freedoms in this country allows a parent to put their child in danger, don't they also protect these people?

I see no way you can say no to this and remain consistant. And if you say yes, then I really do feel you are in the wrong country.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five days, 22 hours, 6 minutes and 55 seconds.
236 cigarettes not smoked, saving $29.60.
Life saved: 19 hours, 40 minutes.

Holly
04-14-2000, 09:56 PM
Danger: long rant to follow.

Genesis 9:3-7 says 3 things:
first, it's okay to eat meat as long as it does not have its soul, or blood, still in it. In other words, don't eat an animal that is still alive. In various cultures, in various times, it has been common for people to carve steaks from living animals to keep the rest of the meat fresh for later use. This verse is quite clearly emphasizing the sanctity of life, not the magical mysterious holiness of a body fluid.

It wouldn't make sense for God to say, "Eat meat only if there's no blood (literally, blood) in it" because all meat contains quite a bit of blood, even when the animal has been bled to death beforehand. If God didn't want people to eat blood, he would not permit them to eat meat at all. About 50% of the blood remains in the meat.

Secondly, this passage warns against shedding blood (murder). Murderers shall be put to death. Again, this deals with the sanctity of life.

Third, this covenant with Noah requires that Noah and his descendants be fruitful and multiply. JW's do not follow this command; they do not prohibit birth control. On the contrary, the Watchtower has often warned its followers to defer such things as marriage and childbearing, since the end is so near. (They've been saying this for over 100 years, but the most recent official date the Watchtower gave was 1975- although less officially, the Watchtower strongly hinted that the end would come before the year 2000. After dozens of false prophecies, the Watchtower apparently learned a lesson and now simply says it'll be real darn soon.)

The verses in Leviticus are dietary regulations, binding on the Jewish people under Mosaic law. Of course, Jesus was supposed to have freed everyone from having to follow those pesky Jewish traditions. The early church was divided between Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. There was a major controversy: were they still required to follow all those rules, or not?

To help resolve the conflict, James repeated the regulations found in Leviticus 17 and 18, asking the gentiles to follow these as a bare minimum to make them tolerable to their Jewish Christian counterparts. These rules were the ones listed in Leviticus that were binding on gentiles living in Israel. This did much to placate the Jews, who were adamant that the gentile Christians should submit to circumcicion. (Requiring all new converts to get circumcised would have put a damper on the new religion's popularity.)

Anyway, the JW doctrine is pretty hypocritical. As time goes by, the Watchtower Society changes its stance, allowing more and more blood components to be acceptable. Much of this makes no sense whatsoever. For example, blood plasma is forbidden, but the individual components of plasma are allowed. Hemophiliacs are allowed their Factor VIII, even though this requires a pool of blood from thousands of donors.

Decisions on which components to allow and which to forbid are based on how much of the component is present in whole blood. This is why Factor VIII is allowed: it's such a tiny fraction. Ironically, the Watchtower uses the threat of blood-borne diseases (hepatitis, AIDS) as evidence that God disapproves of transfusion, but a JW hemophiliac who is allowed a dose of Factor VIII is being exposed to 2,500 blood donors per dose (by the Watchtower's own admission, in the June 15, 1985 edition). A person who receives a forbidden unit of packed cells is at much, much smaller risk.

Albumin is allowed, even though it contains about 1% leukocytes, which are forbidden. Immunizations that are made from blood components are now tentatively allowed, whereas all immunizations were forbidden in the past. Organ donation was forbidden for the same reasons blood is forbidden today, but now transplants are allowed.

Human breast milk contains more of those forbidden leukocytes by volume than whole blood, but hypocritically breastfeeding is not condemned. As has already been noted, JW's are not forbidden to eat meat, which is also hypocritical.

Satan
04-15-2000, 01:50 AM
Does this mean that I won, David?

Wow! I ain't never won anything before! You like me! You really, really like me!

I'd like to thank the academy, without whom...

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five days, 15 hours, 50 minutes and 19 seconds.
226 cigarettes not smoked, saving $28.30.
Life saved: 18 hours, 50 minutes.

Sterra
04-16-2000, 01:29 AM
What about Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of a jihad they feel is mandated by Allah?

What about the Christian who murders an abortion doctor because of "God's laws" as mandated in the Bible which need to be enforced?

If you are saying the the religious freedoms in this country allows a parent to put their child in danger, don't they also protect these people?


What about the unborn babys that are aborted every year? Theres no way you can agree with supporting prosecution of parents who do this and mothers and doctors who abort babies.

Satan
04-16-2000, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Asmodean:

What about the unborn babys that are aborted every year? Theres no way you can agree with supporting prosecution of parents who do this and mothers and doctors who abort babies.

Hoow nice that I'm not at the LBMB now, because I can say exactly what I feel...

Look up "baby" in a dictionary, asshole. Abortion has nothing to do with babies. It has to do with an adult person with a blob of congealing cells and blood which has the potential to become a baby, but is not one yet.

If you wish to start an abortion thread, feel free. Do not compare a breathing, thinking, feeling human being with a blob that needs a breathing, thinking, feeling human being in oorder to become a breathing, thinking and feeling human bing.

In nicer terms: Straw Man.

And abortion - whether your personal morality says it shouldn't be or not - is perfectly legal. Terrorism and killing doctors who perform abortions is not. Just because you think that a blob has the same rights as an actual human does not make it so. Sorry.

I repeat - Feel free to bring this up in another thread, but it has nothing to do with this - on several levels - so do not bring it up again here, please.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, 4 hours, 18 minutes and 30 seconds.
287 cigarettes not smoked, saving $35.90.
Life saved: 23 hours, 55 minutes.

Gaudere
04-16-2000, 03:22 AM
Hoow nice that I'm not at the LBMB now, because I can say exactly what I feel...

Look up "baby" in a dictionary, asshole.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Um, not quite. Don't call anyone an "asshole" in GD, please. I seem to recall seeing a moderator on another board say "profanity is the last refuge of a beaten person." Perhaps you should take those words to heart. :D

Congrats on one week smoke-free, by the way. I wish you success in your endeavor.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Gaudere
04-16-2000, 02:20 PM
[Moderator Hat ON]

Satan, I "call out" people for saying "idiot" and "moron", let alone "asshole"--which I consider worse than the first two. You're not being singled out; direct personal insults are not allowed in GD, and never have been. I'm sure you could find times when David and I have missed an insult in a GD post, but we do try to catch all of them. If you have further comments about my moderating, start a thread in the Pit or take it to email, please.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

dougie_monty
04-16-2000, 07:38 PM
All right, I was wrong to ignore this question posed to me:
What about Islamic terrorists who kill innocent people in the name of a jihad they feel is mandated by Allah?
What about the Christian who murders an abortion doctor because of "God's laws" as mandated in the Bible which need to be enforced?
If you are saying the the religious freedoms in this country allows a parent to put their child in danger, don't they also protect these people?
In reference to the first point, I would he hard put to find a passage in the Koran--let alone the Bible--justifying "holy wars," which to me is an oxymoron. (Any Muslims among the Teeming Millions may reply with passages from the Koran, which have been used, or may have been used, for this purpose.)
I certainly don't condone the "murder of an abortion doctor," although I most certainly oppose abortion--which to me is the pound of cure. (If you want to take this topic up with me, start another thread.) Unless I am mistaken, God is quoted in Romans (12:17-21) as saying, "Vengeance is Mine; I shall repay." (Emphasis added.)
And while we're talking about parents allegedly putting their children in danger, how about blood transfusion itself? I would venture to say that blood, far from being conveniently divided into groups O, A, B, AB, or RH negative and Rh positive, is as individual as the person--hey, isn't there DNA in blood? A person's DNA is as individual as his fingerprints. And may Witnesses' children have been taken from their parents, given blood anyway, and brought back dead. :( Science marches on.

Holly
04-16-2000, 08:09 PM
And while we're talking about parents allegedly putting their children in danger, how about blood transfusion itself?
Blood transfusion is not without risk. No medical treatment, from brain surgery to taking a single aspirin, is without risk. The risks are weighed: if a child can easily survive without a transfusion, a doctor will not force the issue to the point of asking the state to intervene.

The fact remains that sometimes transfusion IS necessary to save a life. In this case, the risk of complications from the transfusion is dwarfed by the risk of NOT having one. There is no substitute for blood.
I would venture to say that blood, far from being conveniently divided into groups O, A, B, AB, or RH negative and Rh positive, is as individual as the person--hey, isn't there DNA in blood? A person's DNA is as individual as his fingerprints.
What are you saying here, exactly? Rarely, a person may have a transfusion reaction. I have not personally seen this, though I have administered thousands upon thousands of units of blood to patients. I have, however, seen JW's die after refusing a transfusion. (As an aside, red blood cells have no nucleus and thus no chromosomes and no DNA.) Furthermore, the Watchtower Society allows several components of blood to be transfused- why are these components any different than the forbidden ones?
And may Witnesses' children have been taken from their parents, given blood anyway, and brought back dead.
If the child is sick enough to require a transfusion, he needs one right away. Say your child is in an accident, has multiple injuries, and loses a perilous amount of blood. The delay caused by having to wait for the state to make a judgement can be enough to kill that child. Have you ever heard of the "golden hour" in trauma? It's more like the "golden thirty minutes".

Some patients die despite having blood transfusions. Some patients die because they don't get a blood transfusion in time. This does not mean that the blood transfusion caused the death.

I'm curious as to your opinion about the Watchtower Society's hypocritical stance on blood. Why, if blood transfusion is against Jehovah's commands, are hemophiliacs allowed to accept Factor VIII? Why do you suppose the Society reversed its stance on organ transfusion? Why are many blood components permitted, but others not?

Holly
04-16-2000, 08:11 PM
Reversed its stance on organ TRANSPLANTS, duh.

dougie_monty
04-16-2000, 08:33 PM
I'm curious as to your opinion about the Watchtower Society's hypocritical stance on blood. Why, if blood transfusion is against Jehovah's commands, are hemophiliacs allowed to accept Factor VIII? Why do you suppose the Society reversed its stance on organ transfusion? Why are many blood components permitted, but others not?
Why ask me? Whay not ask them?

Holly
04-16-2000, 08:53 PM
I know what the Watchtower Society's stance is on blood. I'm curious as to why anyone would follow this doctrine when cursory research shows it to be false and hypocritical.

Satan
04-17-2000, 01:59 AM
So in an entire post I say one little word which really isn't even that bad, and you have to call me out. Uh huh. Whatever... :rolleyes:

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan http://www.raleighmusic.com/board/Images/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One week, 15 hours, 57 minutes and 45 seconds.
306 cigarettes not smoked, saving $38.32.
Life saved: 1 day, 1 hour, 30 minutes.

RoboDude
04-17-2000, 06:37 PM
I guess it has to do with the fact that some people (dougie_monty, for example) are easily brainwashed into thinking that they should wholeheartedly and unquestioningly believe whatever they are told.

As to why someone would create such doctrine, the best explanation is probably that they're a few sandwiches short of a picnic, so to speak.

------------------
Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

David B
04-17-2000, 11:23 PM
Dougie_monty said:I still stand by my positing against transfusions; nobody has more to lose than the children themselves and their parents.Almost exactly right -- nobody has more to lose than the children themselves. They may lose their lives if their parents insist on following ridiculous religious beliefs. And that is pretty much what this whole thread is about.

dougie_monty
04-18-2000, 03:02 PM
Almost exactly right -- nobody has more to lose than the children themselves. They may lose their lives if their parents insist on following ridiculous religious beliefs. And that is pretty much what this whole thread is about.
Uh-huh. It seems the thread has two themes: Name-calling and pressure to conform.
I consider both concepts far more "ridiculous" than any of the Witnesses' tenets.

David B
04-18-2000, 09:49 PM
[Test Post]

(Do not try this at home. I am a professional.)

David B
04-18-2000, 09:52 PM
(Ignore the test, above -- I saw that the list showed a later time and date for the last message than was actually shown in the thread, and figured there was a message hiding. I was right.)

D-M, what "namecalling" and pressure to conform are you talking about? I'm talking about saving lives and not allowing child abuse (even under the guise of religion).

Flymaster
04-18-2000, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by dougie_monty:

Uh-huh. It seems the thread has two themes: Name-calling and pressure to conform.
I consider both concepts far more "ridiculous" than any of the Witnesses' tenets.

What if I wrote a "holy book" that stated that all children with brown eyes were the spawn of satan, and reccomended execution. Would I then be justified in killing those children?



------------------
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno

David B
04-18-2000, 10:53 PM
But you don't understand, Flymaster. That would be a false religion, not at all like the true religion that tells parents to kill their kids!

Jeez. Some people...

evilbeth
04-19-2000, 03:44 AM
I cordially invite all of you to voice your opinions over at this (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001743.html) thread.

------------------
Those who are dancing look insane to those who cannot hear the music.

*************************

One-of-a-kind, custom-designed Wally sig available on request.

Holly
04-19-2000, 03:55 AM
dougie_monty:Uh-huh. It seems the thread has two themes: Name-calling and pressure to conform.
I consider both concepts far more "ridiculous" than any of the Witnesses' tenets.
Name-calling and pressure to conform are both major tenets of the JW religion.

JW's reserve their most impressive hatred and cruelty for those JW's who have done something to get themselves disfellowshipped (say, questioning something the Watchtower Society says or failing to conform to the strict rules for behavior- and spies are watching you to be sure you do conform). "Apostate!" If you slip up, they will put you on trial. Questioning any detail about the religion is simply not allowed. If your mother or brother or child is disfellowshipped, you must literally "hate" that person and are forbidden from ever speaking to your loved one again.

JW's are not supposed to study the Bible on their own (without the Watchtower to interpret it for them during the mandatory Bible Studies); they mustn't consult any version or translation of the Bible other than the one approved by the Watchtower Society.

Of course, according to their literature, JW's are really not supposed to post messages on a non-approved message board. You may get in hot water if the elders find out you're associating with us worldly people.

Jehovah's Witnesses are compelled to conform every facet of their lives and minds to their rigid doctrine, from how they dress to who they can have as friends to what sort of entertainment they may enjoy. They are often discouraged from seeking higher education, and their choice of careers is limited. It's all about being a good sheep.

dougie_monty
04-21-2000, 07:29 PM
Since the prevailing sentiment of other Dopers positing here is that the Witnesses and the Watchtower Society are "hypocritical," I think it's a good idea to quote some other authorities these Dopers might heed if they don't heed me:
"...it is deserving of particular notice that at the very time when the Holy Spirit declares by the apostles (Acts xv) that the Gentiles are free from the yoke of circumcision, abstinence from blood is explicitly enjoined, and the action thus prohibited is classed with idolatry and fornication."--M'Clintock and Strong's Cyclopedia, Volume I, p. 834.
"It ought to be observed that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv; and thereby made of perpetual obligation."
--Benson's Commentary, Volume I.
(I should point out that "eating" versus "transfusion" does not matter here: It is ridiculous to assume that if a doctor has told his patient not to drink alcohol he could still inject it into his bloodstream!)
"[Blood transfusions produce] a weird assortment of antibodies, which may prove to be the cause of crossmatching difficulties amd may even endanger the life of the patient if he is given more blood."--Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Sept. 19, 1952.
(If anyone has anmy information after the date of this last quote, by all means post it here.)
"Outstanding hematologists have found that the circulating blood in humans and animals alike harbors more, if not all, pathogenic protozoans. Of course, the white blood cells in the circulating blood and in the lymphatic system serve as guards for the protection of the human body in warding off these harmful agents; but the massive concentration of the toxic material in blood is always potentially dangerous for human consumption."--Dr. Jacobh B. Glenn, The Bible and Modern Medicine, p. 18; emphasis in original.
I also used to know a man who was working on a scaffold when it collapsed; he fell, breaking both legs. When his wife spoke to the attending physician about the Witnesses' refusal to accept transfusion, the doctor declined to listen; he said he did not base his treatment of patients on their religion, but he too abstained from the transfusion of blood as a medically unsound practice.

Holly
04-21-2000, 09:16 PM
(I should point out that "eating" versus "transfusion" does not matter here: It is ridiculous to assume that if a doctor has told his patient not to drink alcohol he could still inject it into his bloodstream!)
Despite you protests, "eating" is not the same as "transfusing". Alcohol, water, glucose, and some other substances do not need to be digested before performing their desired effects upon the body. They are in a predigested state, so to speak. If I have a patient with a dangerously low blood glucose, I can inject glucose directly into his vein. I have, on occasion, had a patient who was in danger of death from severe delerium tremens due to alcohol addiction; a ETOH drip was prescirbed, which I administered directly into the patient's bloodstream to prevent fatal complications.

Blood is never, ever, ever given as food. If the patient is starving to death, you do NOT give blood; you give Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN). Blood, given intravenously, is NOT food. It it given when blood loss is severe enough to prevent proper oxygenation of the tissues, or to replace platelets when the patient is bleeding to death. It is not food. The body does not digest it, or use it as fuel. It is used to transport oxygen to the tissues, or to stop uncontrolled bleeding.

"[Blood transfusions produce] a weird assortment of antibodies, which may prove to be the cause of crossmatching difficulties amd may even endanger the life of the patient if he is given more blood."--Journal of the Florida Medical Association, Sept. 19, 1952.
I will readily agree with this. The more often you receive transfusions, the more risk of developing antibodies. As an example, I once had a patient who had received so many transfusions (he was a very sick man) than he developed antibodies against cold blood. We therefore had to run the blood through a warmer when transfusing him.

Of course, if you are given a choice between dying right now or living, but potentially having some antibodies against some blood in the future, you will still die now if you refuse the transfusion. This also doesn't explain why the Watchtower Society continues to allow Factor VIII, albumin, or various other blood components.

"Outstanding hematologists have found that the circulating blood in humans and animals alike harbors more, if not all, pathogenic protozoans. Of course, the white blood cells in the circulating blood and in the lymphatic system serve as guards for the protection of the human body in warding off these harmful agents; but the massive concentration of the toxic material in blood is always potentially dangerous for human consumption."--Dr. Jacobh B. Glenn, The Bible and Modern Medicine, p. 18; emphasis in original.
Receiving a blood transfusion is always potentially dangerous (though the risk is small: only a tiny fraction of transfusions result in complications); blood transfusions are given when the risk of bleeding to death outweighs the risks of transfusion. Again, I have never seen a person die as the result of a protozooan infection contracted from blood, but I have seen Jehovah's Witnesses bleed to death.

This quote is also kind of strange; the circulating blood in humans and animals alike harbors more, if not all pathogenic protozoans... than what? If the massive concentration of the toxic material in blood is so dangerous for human consumtion, why wouldn't it be a good idea to drain out all of that dangerous blood from your system right now? If blood is so terribly dangerous, and contains so much toxic material, why did God design us to have blood?

the doctor declined to listen; he said he did not base his treatment of patients on their religion, but he too abstained from the transfusion of blood as a medically unsound practice.
What was the patient's hemoglobin and hematocrit? Perhaps the patient wasn't bleeding as much as you imply; broken legs does not automatically equal severe (life-threatening) blood loss. If the patient's H&H was not dangerously low, of course the doctor wouldn't transfuse. It is "medically unsound" to transfuse if there is no need to do so. This does not mean that transfusion is ALWAYS medically unsound. If a patient is bleeding to death, it is medically unsound to NOT tranfuse.

David B
04-21-2000, 09:55 PM
Dougie_monty said:Since the prevailing sentiment of other Dopers positing here is that the Witnesses and the Watchtower Society are "hypocritical,"I don't know that anybody said it was hypocritical -- just dangerous and not terribly bright. But if it's you or some other adult making the choice, have at it! Evolution in action.

However, if it's a child, as we've noted, that's quite a different story. And that's when somebody else needs to step in and say "Whoa!"

dougie_monty
04-23-2000, 07:27 PM
I have no information on the man's hematocrit or other readings. I do know that he did not get a transfusion; that his recovery was uneventful; that he spent several weeks on crutches after he left the hospital. He was about 40 then (1970) and is alive today for all I know. When I was nicked by the power-mower blade (and my mother told me "You know if you had to you would have had a transfusion") in 1973, I was 24. In fact, the physician who treated me--with whom I have never discussed religion--commented he was surprised I did not bleed very much.

Holly
04-23-2000, 10:08 PM
so, are you saying that maybe you didn't bleed so much because of some divine intervention, or just because it was "one of those things"?

Flymaster
04-23-2000, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Flymaster:
What if I wrote a "holy book" that stated that all children with brown eyes were the spawn of satan, and reccomended execution. Would I then be justified in killing those children?




So, dougie, any chance of getting an answer? Or are you just going to ignore the question? You said the crazy islamic terrorist theory wasn't the same, because nowhere in the Koran did it say to bomb cafes in populated cities, but my "holy book" does SPECIFICALLY say to kill these children, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Should it be legal, and is this a defendable action?


------------------
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno

heyjoe
04-23-2000, 10:22 PM
This somehow reminds me of an old Victorian practice of castrating teenage males when they were caught masturbating.....Better to ruin their secular future than give htem the oportunity to land themselves a spot in hell. It is now seen as brutality, as i hope refusal of medical treatment will be in the near future.

I read about a case in which a boy's parents refused to allow a doctor to give him insulin when he was diagnosed with diabetes (type 1). Any of you out there that are diabetic know how bad you feel when you're first diagnosed: basically, it's mono with bad eyesite and the flu. I can't imagine the hell that poor guy went through before he died. His parents might still be charged with abuse, etc.

chris


------------------
Remember, you should never discriminate based on looks. you never know when the ugly duckling will turn into the ugly skank with a bottle of cavackia- The Ladies Man, SNL

dougie_monty
04-25-2000, 05:26 PM
I'm not evading anyone's question. I don't own a computer and can't always get to a p;ublic computer to log on here.
Your blodface quote sounds like an argumentative statement; you are "heckling" me, claiming you can make up your own religion and bolster it from the First Amendment. Now all I'll have to do is check in the U. S. Code Annotated under the First Amendment to see how the Courts have addressed the issue of "ersatz" religions. I'm certain that, in this regard, your "brown eyes" cult would resemble, not the Witnesses, but the Moonies, if a comperison had to be made. (The Moonies claim the Bible is a coded message only they can understand. Hoo Hah.)

evilbeth
04-26-2000, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by evilbeth:
I cordially invite all of you to voice your opinions over at this (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001743.html) thread.



dougie-monty, I would really be interested in your opinion on the above thread. I realize these parents' religious preferences have nothing to do with yours--I just wanted your opinion since you seem to believe very strongly in the parents' right to do as their religion commands. I'm not trying to provoke you--I am genuinely interested in your take.

------------------
Those who are dancing look insane to those who cannot hear the music.

*************************

One-of-a-kind, custom-designed Wally sig available on request.

neutron star
04-26-2000, 09:14 AM
(The Moonies claim the Bible is a coded message only they can understand. Hoo Hah.


"Golly, those Moonies sure is NUTS, yesiree," he says as he watches his child die a painful and preventable death.

Flymaster
04-27-2000, 01:59 AM
Ok...lets try this again, then. What if I find a book in the arabian desert, that I can prove is over 1000 years old, and is in a box labeled "Word of God (C)1000 A.D, Jerusalem, Israel, YHWH House Publishing Co." I didn't have to decode it, as the first paragraph is "Kill all brown eyed children."

Is it then legal for me to kill all the brown eyed kids? And should it be?

------------------
Truth does not change because it is, or is not, beleived by a majority of the people.
-Giordano Bruno

RoboDude
04-30-2000, 03:57 PM
------------------------------------------------------------
I just wanted your opinion since you seem to believe very strongly in the parents' right to do as their religion commands.
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, dougie_monty seems to believe very strongly in the parents' right to do as his religion commands.

dougie_monty
05-02-2000, 05:39 PM
just wanted your opinion since you seem to believe very strongly in the parents' right to do as their religion commands. Actually, dougie_monty seems to believe very strongly in the parents' right to do as his religion commands.
You would have parents do as your religion commands? No more than you would want the butcher to repair your shoes.
__________________

Flymaster
05-02-2000, 06:21 PM
Way to not answer my question, Dougie.

Beadalin
05-02-2000, 07:29 PM
Can I take a crack at that, Flymaster? Feel free to poke holes in this (as I am sure will happen).

I think the distinction that can be made between people blowing up buildings/killing brown-eyed children in the name of God, and those refusing medical treatment for their children, is the idea of intent to do harm. Killing for religious reasons (obviously) involves a willingness to do so. I don't think that parents who refuse medical treatment are intending to harm their children in any way. If their child is ill, I doubt they're thinking, "Eh, it's just a kid, I can make more." Rather, the intent is to restore their child to health without the limitations and fear incumbent on relying on doctors and medicine.

Some background: Honestly I don't really know how to talk about this without getting into the theology, but I can tell you that I grew up happy, healthy, and extremely well-cared-for in Christian Science household. Both my parents and all of my extended family are also Christian Scientists; the adults are (and the kids are on their way to being) very well-educated, intelligent and thoughtful people. I see others have the impression that refusing medical treatment is the result of blind stupidity, but in my experience it was always done with careful consideration, love, and a desire to do what they believe is right. There is nothing sheep-like about it, and the church does not require that people rely on prayer if they do not feel capable of dealing with a problem, nor is there any "peer pressure" to do so. Everyone is free to pursue whatever course of action they feel is most appropriate. Which leads me to this:

I do struggle with the idea of children dying because of the religious beliefs of their parents, especially when it's because of an easily treatable ailment. Speaking again from personal experience, Christian Science is a tough one to get to understand, with some concepts flat-out inconceivable to a little kid. Parents who don't feel capable of relying on prayer for their children shouldn't try to do so, and those who try and don't see results should probably consider other alternatives, however difficult that might be. That said, my family's healthy. I'm healthy. I've been healed of quite a few problems, including one incurable disease. My cousin broke his arm and his cast was off, bone completely fine, in one week, with X-rays and a doctor's statement to prove both.

I guess the point of all this is that I definitely feel protective of religious freedom. While tragedies certainly can and do occur, so do healings, and in many cases those healings happen where medicine would be helpless.

It took me weeks to get up the nerve to write all this. Be kind if you can. Thanks.

Flymaster
05-02-2000, 09:10 PM
While I respect your opinion, I think you're still missing the point.

If a parent refused to allow their child to eat because a voice told them that the American government had been poinsoing their food and was trying to kill the child, and that the only way for him to live was for him to never eat anything at all, the child would be taken away from the parents. I don't see, at all, how this is any different from your view. They aren't intending to do harm, they're trying to stop harm.

In the same way, my hypothetical is the same thing. The parents would not only be saving the world from the evil that is brown eyes, they would also be cleansing the child of this horrible sin and allowing him to enter heaven, as well as fulfulling their good Flymasterian traditions, getting themselves into heaven.

ANY time that you deny a child the right to life, you are guilty of neglect. I see no way to argue otherwise. However, if I am given a convicing argument, I will concede. I haven't seen one yet.

My main gripe, now, is the fact that Dougie seems to be willingly avoiding my question, as though the knows I have him beat, and he doesn't want to face up to it. I'm aware that he doesn't have regular internet access, but he was on today, and ignored my question, which is posted in 2 places on this thread.

Sterra
05-02-2000, 09:17 PM
What if the state takes the kid away and the kid dies because hes alergic to that treatment. The state doesent know everything. We do know that someone will die without food. However on the same foot the #1 cause of death in america is mis diagnosis. Giving people power is a bad idea.

Satan
05-02-2000, 09:51 PM
What if the state takes the kid away and the kid dies because hes alergic to that treatment.

Alergic to being taken away by the state?

The state doesent know everything.

Maybe not, but why does a parent know everything about medicine - more than a doctor - because an ancient text has some verses which may or may not touch on something, and that may or may not be accurate?

We do know that someone will die without food.

Yeah... And?

However on the same foot the #1 cause of death in america is mis diagnosis.

Cite, please.

[quotte]Giving people power is a bad idea.[/QUOTE]

Giving people WHAT power is a bad idea? How so? I am confused as to what side, if any, you are taking here.

__________________
Yer pal,
Satan http://homepages.go.com/~cmcinternationalrecords/devil.gif

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three weeks, two days, 23 hours, 47 minutes and 54 seconds.
959 cigarettes not smoked, saving $119.95.
Life saved: 3 days, 7 hours, 55 minutes.

DoctorJ
05-03-2000, 01:47 AM
What if the state takes the kid away and the kid dies because hes alergic to that treatment.Medicine is all about calculated risk. Let's say a kid needs a transfusion, and we know that there's a 0.1% chance he will die of a transfusion reaction if we give it to him, and a 99.9% chance he will recover completely. On the other hand, if we don't give it to him, there's about an 80% chance he will die and another 15% that he will live with hypoxic brain damage, but 5% that he will fully recover. Can you say that it is in the best interest of the child to withhold treatment?

The state doesent know everything.This is an attitude toward medicine that pisses me off. Doctors and medical personnel don't know everything, and they should be the first to tell you that. But when it comes to treating illnesses, they know a hell of a lot more than you do. (It could just be that I've been in the library studying pathology like a bitch all day.)

We do know that someone will die without food.What about putting a gun to the child's head and pulling the trigger? Hey, it might not kill him. Should I be able to do that if God tells me to?

However on the same foot the #1 cause of death in america is mis diagnosis.You seem to have misspelled "heart disease". Medical error is said to contribute to enough deaths to place it between #4 and #6, but that is a different story--those are accidental. We're talking about willful refusal of the proper treatment.

Giving people power is a bad idea.What?

Dr. J

David B
05-03-2000, 07:52 AM
Beadalin said:I've been healed of quite a few problems, including one incurable disease. My cousin broke his arm and his cast was off, bone completely fine, in one week, with X-rays and a doctor's statement to prove both. Well, then James Randi might have a million dollars for you. I encourage you to seek it out and prove both of your claims. (Incidentally, what incurable disease did you have?)

Asmodean -- others have already said what I was going to say. But just one more question: Where do you get some of the nonsense you post here?

Ptahlis
05-03-2000, 03:20 PM
However on the same foot the #1 cause of death in america is mis diagnosis.

There are very good reasons to believe that the misdiagnosis/medical error" statistics that have appeared in the media are dodgy at best. Take a look at:

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/bunk10.html

dougie_monty
05-04-2000, 06:03 PM
Apparently quite a few Dopers are angry that Jehovah's witnesses will not accept blood transfusions, for themselves nor for their children. The Dopers' presumption seems to be that transfusion is ipso facto invariably life-saving; I can adduce a number of examples in which it would not be. (Compare Cecil's own comments on Dr. Charles Drew, fatally injured in a car crash, who would have died transfusion or no.) As I have noted elsewhere, the "trendy" medical treatment 200 years ago was bloodletting--witness George Washington and Lord Byron. Who knows what will be trendy 200 years from now?
At any rate, Jesus said, "He who loses his life for my sake will save it." Abraham had this kind of faith too, when he was all ready to cut the throat of his own son Isaac--tied on an altar for sacrifice at God's order. Abraham apparently reckoned that He could bring the boy back from the dead, if necessary--not take him to heaven (See the 11th chapter of Hebrews.) The Witness children's parents have faith in the resurrection. :)
Someone posting to this thread said, "suppose I found a book dated '1000 A.D.' ..." Sorry, I won't bite. That's like saying, If I had eighteen wheels I'd be a bus.
I think I'll wait until you can find an ancient manuscript that does not use modern indicia like "1000 A. D.," which isn't correct anyway (like the old joke about the archaeologist finding a coin with the date 50 B. C.) And then we'll see if your manuscript passes muster with competent palaeontologists.
Until then, the 15th chapter of Acts is the final word.

David B
05-04-2000, 07:35 PM
d_m said:Apparently quite a few Dopers are angry that Jehovah's witnesses will not accept blood transfusions, for themselves nor for their children. How many times do we have to explain this? We don't care if adults want to kill themselves! It's when you start killing your children that we have a problem. Get it?

Holly
05-04-2000, 10:03 PM
Apparently quite a few Dopers are angry that Jehovah's witnesses will not accept blood transfusions, for themselves nor for their children.Again, I believe you have every right to refuse any medical treatment for yourself, no matter how foolish I think your decision to be. You do not have the right to refuse treatment for your child.
The Dopers' presumption seems to be that transfusion is ipso facto invariably life-saving; I can adduce a number of examples in which it would not be.I doubt anyone believes transfusion is invariably life-saving. Certainly, many people die despite receiving a transfusion. A tiny minority die as a result of receiving a transfusion (though if they needed a transfusion, they likely would have died without it, anyway). Nevertheless, it is preposterous to suggest that transfusion never a medically sound idea, or that transfusion hasn't saved lives.
As I have noted elsewhere, the "trendy" medical treatment 200 years ago was bloodletting--witness George Washington and Lord Byron. Who knows what will be trendy 200 years from now?Do you honestly believe that transfusion is nothing more than a fad, and that it has no body of scientific evidence to prove its utility?
Until then, the 15th chapter of Acts is the final word.No, your interpretation of Acts is the final word.

David B
05-04-2000, 10:19 PM
Holly said:Do you honestly believe that transfusion is nothing more than a fad, and that it has no body of scientific evidence to prove its utility? Well, he's tried every other rationalization in the book, why not that one as well?

jab1
05-04-2000, 10:45 PM
Posted by dougie_monty:

(Compare Cecil's own comments on Dr. Charles Drew, fatally injured in a car crash, who would have died transfusion or no.)

Here's a link to the column in question: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_073.html

Here's a quote from that column:

Drew didn't receive a transfusion because his injuries didn't permit it. "He had a superior vena caval syndrome--blood was blocked getting back to his heart from his brain and upper extremities," [Dr.] Ford said. "To give him a transfusion would have killed him sooner."

Emphasis is mine.

If you STILL don't understand why a transfusion would not have helped in THAT particular case, (His injuries disrupted his circulation; additional blood would not have helped because that new blood couldn't get where it was needed.) then I don't know what more I can say.

DoctorJ
05-04-2000, 11:36 PM
dougie, you see, in this day and age we have something we like to call evidence-based medicine. Back in the old days, we did a lot of things (bloodletting, leeches) without knowing how they worked, or really even if they worked. Medicine has come a long way since the Civil War, though, and now we take the time to observe the things we do and see what happens.

Not only do we know how treatments work, but we understand the possible complications and how likely they are to happen. If someone comes in who is bleeding out, we can say to a fair certainty how likely he is to have a transfusion reaction vs. how likely he is to suffer brain damage or die if left untreated. Biostatisticians have all sorts of calculations they like to make--things like risk-benefit ratios, number needed to treat, etc. It all comes down to one thing--most of the time, we can predict the outcomes of treatment vs. non-treatment.

Of course, the irony is probably not lost on very many people here that you dismiss modern medicine by comparing it to that of 200 years ago, and instead base such an important medical decision on an ambiguously translated and interpreted passage in a 2,000-year-old book. If you want to do that, go ahead. I think your children should be allowed to grow old enough to make that decision on their own, or perhaps to recognize that any God who would let a child die of a treatable condition due to some hang-up he has about blood probably isn't worth spending Sunday morning with.

Oh, and yes, a transfusion is absolutely contraindicated in SVC syndrome. It's not hard to see why--blood coming back from the brain is blocked, you give more blood, it backs up in the brain, swelling, hemmorhage--probably would have given him a stroke. We know that a transfusion is unlikely to help him and that it would probably in fact hurt him, so we wouldn't give him one. I don't really get your point, dougie--"I knew a guy who had end-stage emphysema, tertiary syphilis, twelve different cancers, and a severed head. If they had given him a transfusion, he would have died anyway."

Dr. J

Flymaster
05-04-2000, 11:56 PM
Someone posting to this thread said, "suppose I found a book dated '1000 A.D.' ..." Sorry, I won't bite. That's like saying, If I had eighteen wheels I'd be a bus.
I think I'll wait until you can find an ancient manuscript that does not use modern indicia like "1000 A. D.," which isn't correct anyway (like the old joke about the archaeologist finding a coin with the date 50 B. C.) And then we'll see if your manuscript passes muster with competent palaeontologists.
Until then, the 15th chapter of Acts is the final word.


Dougie...Here's a big word for you: Hypothetical. It means "made up, not true, but hey, what if it was?"

Do I have to plug every hole in my story? Just answer the question.

Ok...ready? the book is dated "Blue dog peyote square"
It has passed muster with Archeologists (they study old shit) and hell, let's toss in a few ancient cultural experts (I beleive they're called anthropologists) just for shits and giggles. Ok...my question is legit. NOW answer it.

Ptahlis
05-05-2000, 11:31 AM
Simply put Dougie, the argument can be distilled down to a few facts.

Transfusion saves lives. When deemed medically necessary, transfusions preserves lives far in excess of the very rare times than it causes harm. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable by anyone with reason. No amount of hedging or tales of the exceptions can refute the statistical evidence.

The practices allowed and disallowed by the leadership of your church are haphazardly applied by picking and choosing certain elements of blood that are and are not admissable. Let's be clear here: There is no hedging in the scripture about certain parts of blood being allowed and others not. Interpret what the verse means as you like, blood means blood.

You are NOT refusing transfusion on the basis of faith in Jesus. Millions of people as devout as you have received transfusions. You are refusing transfusions on the basis of faith in the interpretation of a single line of scripture by your church leaders. An interpretation, I feel compelled to point out, that is refuted by the rest of the world. It is an awful shame that children, who really should be able to believe that their parents are guarding their well being, are being sacrificed on the altar of faith in some very HUMAN and FALLIBLE chucrch officials.

Arnold Winkelried
05-05-2000, 07:13 PM
OK, I hope I'm not out of line here, because I haven't read this thread lately, but I thought the news item could help show the dangers of refusing medical treatment.

----

Reuters, Oddly Enough Headlines
Thursday May 4 8:04 AM ET
Four Die Waiting for 'Miracle' Cures
NAIROBI (Reuters) - Four Kenyans, including two young children, died at a religious meeting while they waited for miracle cures from a visiting American evangelist, a local paper said Wednesday.

Police told the Kenya Times the four had been released from a hospital to be cured at Benny Hinn's ``Miracle Crusade'' in the Kenyan capital Sunday, but they died before Hinn could pray for them.

Ten other people suffered serious injuries including broken jaws after falling from trees they had climbed to get a view of the American preacher, who was reported to have attracted up to a million people to his two-day weekend meeting.

Hinn regularly preaches to vast audiences across the United States and his shows are broadcast on Kenya's terrestrial religious channel every night.

Preachers promising miracle cures from ailments ranging from AIDS to blindness have become increasingly popular in recent years in Kenya, a country where health care is out of the reach of many ordinary people and living standards have been gradually falling for years.

dougie_monty
05-05-2000, 07:27 PM
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear the terms "interpret" or "interpret literally" concerning anything quoted from the Bible. Case in point:
You are refusing transfusions on the basis of faith in the interpretation of a single line of scripture by your church leaders. An interpretation, I feel compelled to point out, that is refuted by the rest of the world.
Sorry, I won't buy it, no matter how high the vote ("the rest of the world") is stacked against me. I don't accept "Vox populi, vox dei." And on the subject of "interpreting literally" (which I take as a cop-out synonym for "taking seriously"), consider the 6th Commandment (murder), the 8th Commandment (theft), and the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness). Hey, obviously people like Caryl Chessman, Willie Sutton, and Joe McCarthy didn't "interpret those literally."
So if you refuse to accept the Witnesses' "interpretation" of Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, and the 15th chapter of Acts as "literal" ('Transfusion is a modern, sophisticated medical procedure and the Bible is the product of ignorance or an undecipherable code'), keep it in mind the next time you decide to "interpret" a statute against reckless driving, tax evasion or forcible rape; I doubt that the judge will listen to your assertion that you didn't "interpret" the law that way.
Or perhaps you believe that Homo sapiens alone has the ability to communicate in simple, articulate terms and the notion that there is an Almighty God who can do so (better!) is infra dig to you.

Ptahlis
05-05-2000, 08:38 PM
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear the terms "interpret" or "interpret literally" concerning anything quoted from the Bible. Case in point:
You are refusing transfusions on the basis of faith in the interpretation of a single line of scripture by your church leaders. An interpretation, I feel compelled to point out, that is refuted by the rest of the world.
Sorry, I won't buy it, no matter how high the vote ("the rest of the world") is stacked against me. I don't accept "Vox populi, vox dei." And on the subject of "interpreting literally" (which I take as a cop-out synonym for "taking seriously"), consider the 6th Commandment (murder), the 8th Commandment (theft), and the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness). Hey, obviously people like Caryl Chessman, Willie Sutton, and Joe McCarthy didn't "interpret those literally."
So if you refuse to accept the Witnesses' "interpretation" of Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, and the 15th chapter of Acts as "literal" ('Transfusion is a modern, sophisticated medical procedure and the Bible is the product of ignorance or an undecipherable code'), keep it in mind the next time you decide to "interpret" a statute against reckless driving, tax evasion or forcible rape; I doubt that the judge will listen to your assertion that you didn't "interpret" the law that way.
Or perhaps you believe that Homo sapiens alone has the ability to communicate in simple, articulate terms and the notion that there is an Almighty God who can do so (better!) is infra dig to you.


Genesis 9:4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Leviticus 17:10 "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

Leviticus 17:10 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

Acts 15:20 "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Acts 15:29 "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."


Miriam-Webster:
Main Entry: inˇterˇpret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction <interprets a role>
intransitive senses : to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages
synonym see EXPLAIN
- inˇterˇpretˇabilˇiˇty /-"t&r-pr&-t&-'bi-l&-tE, -p&-t&-/ noun
- inˇterˇpretˇable /-'t&r-pr&-t&-b&l, -p&-t&-/ adjective


Your skin should crawl, every time your sect allows a child to die based on its interpretation of those passages above. And obviously we are not dealing with a deity who can communicate clearly or there wouldn't be so many people sincerely using the Bible to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity. Plenty of folks use it to guide themselves in this life without ever falling prey to those things. Sadly enough, your sect is not among them. I do not argue that all interpretations are valid. I merely argue that yours is ridiculous. Throwing a child's life away on the basis of your sect's human and fallible interpretation of those few lines is unacceptableto every reasoning person in this world, and if God exists, I expect him as well.

Flymaster
05-05-2000, 11:47 PM
And once again, my question is ignored. Too bad, too, since I went out of my way to plug all the holes that dougie complained about. Or is there something else that you "forgot" to mention, doug?

dougie_monty
05-06-2000, 05:07 PM
And obviously we are not dealing with a deity who can communicate clearly or there wouldn't be so many people sincerely using the Bible to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity.
You call me 'unbelieveably stupid' at your own risk, Buddy.
This also reminds me of "religion is the opiate of the masses," by Karl Marx. (I consider Chico more articulate. :D)
I think I have made this clear--or not! In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children--you don't; Heck, I would never assign a dentist to remove a gall bladder and I would not assign the duty of deciding what medical procedure to allow for my child, to a stranger (let alone a judge or a politician; and even health-care professionals arouse some suspicion in me).
Okay, so you don't accept the Bible as God's word. That's no skin off my nose: You have no religious or temporal authority over me. This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT'S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!!

RoboDude
05-06-2000, 06:44 PM
Oh boy, here we go again. :rolleyes:

------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children--you don't
------------------------------------------------------------
So do you think we should legalize child abuse? After all, if parents decide that beating the crap out of their kids is the right thing to do, who are we to judge, right?


------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so you don't accept the Bible as God's word. That's no skin off my nose
------------------------------------------------------------
It's not that we don't accept the Bible as God's word, it's just that we realize the difference between "eating" blood and getting a transfusion.

jab1
05-06-2000, 07:23 PM
It makes my skin crawl every time I hear the terms "interpret" or "interpret literally" concerning anything quoted from the Bible.

It makes my skin crawl every time someone uses medical advice that is 2000 to 3000 years old.

Holly
05-06-2000, 07:29 PM
dougie_monty:You call me 'unbelieveably stupid' at your own risk, Buddy.I believe Ptahlis said the Bible is used by some people to justify hate, repugnant crimes, and unbelievable stupidity. I don't see anything in his statement to imply that he was referring to you as being "unbelievably stupid", any more than he was saying you're guilty of hate or repugnant crimes.
I would never assign a dentist to remove a gall bladder and I would not assign the duty of deciding what medical procedure to allow for my child, to a stranger (let alone a judge or a politician; and even health-care professionals arouse some suspicion in me).
Jehovah's Witnesses, as a rule, have little knowledge of medicine. They are, in fact, statistically less likely to be educated than the general public. Why is a parent with no medical background more competent to make medical decisions for a child than a doctor? I'd rather have my dentist take out my gallbladder.

Your distrust of health-care professionals is typical; the Watchtower Society has preached since its inception that medicine is bad, and evil, and worldly. At various times, the Watchtower has forbidden JW's to receive immunizations, to receive an organ transplant, or to use aluminum cookware.
This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT'S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!!
If my neighbor dips his child in a tub full of scalding water to punish him for wetting his pants, that is my business. If my neighbor is driving drunk, hits a tree, and kills her son who is sitting in the back seat, that is my business. If my elderly patient's husband throws her across the room and beats the crap out of her, that is my business. If my young adult, mentally retarded patient is being neglected and starved by his caregivers, that is my business. Shoot, if you beat your own dog it is my business.

Children are not property. Society must defend those who are unable to defend themselves.

Ptahlis
05-06-2000, 10:27 PM
You have no religious or temporal authority over me. This is a right which hinges on the understanding of the person(s) involved, not a third party. IT'S JUST NOT YOUR BAILIWICK!!


Although Holly said it most eloquently, it sure is my business. I personally may have no authority over you, but the laws of this society do, thankfully. Personally, I'm glad there is no passage in the Bible saying anything like "The breath of life is sacred, and issueth from the mouth, therefore let none but man and wife, one life joined by God press lips." Had that been in there, JW's all over the place would be pulling rescue workers off of children to prevent CPR.

For clarity's sake, I did not call you unbelievably stupid, but the belief that those passages are justification for allowing children to die. I also feel I should point out that the JW's haven't cornered the market on stupid beliefs either.

David B
05-06-2000, 10:36 PM
d_m said:In any case, parents properly have the duty to make decisions for their children--you don'tWrong

As one person already mentioned, in cases of child abuse, the parent does not have the sole duty to make decisions -- because the child is a person and, as a society, we have determined that there should be times when that person's rights supercede your parental rights.

Ya know what, dougie? If you're going to kill your child, that is one time I think society should step in. I don't give a shit if you're doing it because of your religious beliefs or because the next-door-neighbor's dog told you to do it. The fact of the matter is that you should not be allowed to murder your child.

evilbeth
05-08-2000, 04:39 AM
Well, according to the Watchtower website, Jehovas Witnesses believe that abortion is wrong. So, the deliberate death of an unborn child is wrong but the deliberate death of a "born" child is acceptable? I don't understand this. Is it because of the whole active/passive deliberate death thing?

dougie_monty
05-10-2000, 06:25 PM
Well, according to the Watchtower website, Jehovas Witnesses believe that abortion is wrong. So, the deliberate death of an unborn child is wrong but the deliberate death of a "born" child is acceptable? I don't understand this. Is it because of the whole active/passive deliberate death thing?
Once again, you assume some fact not in evidence. (According to both Dear Abby and Benny Hill, among others, when you "assume" something you make an "ass" of "u" and "me.") You assume, specifically, that 1) if someone gets a transfusion he/she will live, and 2) if the person doesn't get a transfusion he/she will die! Golly, when and where did you earn your medical degree and license?
I didn't like that 'medical knowledge two to three thousand years old,' either. To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not--near as I can figure you don't. If this had been stated in the OP that might have made a difference.
As for abortion, I consider it the Pound of Cure. This is perhaps worth another thread.

Holly
05-10-2000, 07:38 PM
In many cases, you can predict with near certainty that refusing a transfusion will result in death (or significant physiological damage) and getting a transfusion will almost certainly result in a life saved.

According to JW doctrine, it is entirely irrelevant whether or not blood transfusions are helpful. If every illness from the common cold to E. boli to metastatic cancer could be immediately cured by a simple blood transfusion, it would not matter: the Bible says it (according to the Watchtower interpretation); therefore it is better to die than to accept blood. The whole rigaramole about transfusions being so terribly dangerous and inevitably fatal is just rhetoric spewed out by the Watchtower Society to "prove" to its adherents that blood transfusions are "wrong".

The Watchtower and Awake! magazines report with eery glee quotes (often out of context) from doctors who seem to agree with their position, and case studies of patients who died as the result of transfusion or in spite of transfusion, or who survived "miraculously" without transfusion. Those who died because they refused transfusion are held up as heroes, as martyrs, if they are mentioned at all.

Nevertheless, the real issue is whether or not parents have the absolute right to control the lives (and/or deaths) of their children based on religious grounds. I say no. Do what you wish with your own life; if you choose to shoot yourself in the head, I believe that is your right; your body is yours. But children are not property.

dougie_monty
05-10-2000, 08:30 PM
The Watchtower and Awake! magazines report with eery glee quotes (often out of context) from doctors who seem to agree with their position, and case studies of patients who died as the result of transfusion or in spite of transfusion, or who survived "miraculously" without transfusion. Those who died because they refused transfusion are held up as heroes, as martyrs, if they are mentioned at all.
Care to give documentation (including your interpretation of the "context"?)

jab1
05-10-2000, 08:44 PM
I didn't like that 'medical knowledge two to three thousand years old,' either.

Sorry, but I'm not taking it back.

Guys, it's obvious that dougie's tactic is to cite the few times a transfusion failed or wasn't needed and ignore the millions of times a transfusion did exactly as it was supposed to do: Save the person's life.

As for getting AIDS from a transfusion, the American Association of Blood Banks (http://www.aabb.org/docs/facts.html#ttd) says:

sophisticated tests have reduced the risk of getting HIV from a single blood transfusion to about 1 in 676,000.

It's probably easier to get hit by lightning than to get HIV from a blood transfusion.

To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not--near as I can figure you don't.

I don't accept the Bible is the Word of God, no. I think it was written by people under their own inspiration, by people who had only the vaguest clues about how the world really works.

I'm curious. Do you follow the Bible's dietary restrictions? Those restrictions are more clearly stated than an alleged commandment not to accept transfused blood.

David B
05-10-2000, 09:28 PM
d_m said:You assume, specifically, that 1) if someone gets a transfusion he/she will live, and 2) if the person doesn't get a transfusion he/she will die! No, actually nobody is assuming that. In fact, the only assumptions around here are coming from you -- usually after we've gone over it a couple hundred times.

It has been shown over the years that people who need transfusions are much more likely to survive if they get them than if they don't. Thus, if you refuse to allow your child to have one even if s/he needs one, you are subjecting your child to an unnacceptable risk and committing child abuse -- possibly murder.

Get it? Or are you going to ignore this post like so many others and just continue to write the same message over and over again?

Flymaster
05-11-2000, 12:15 AM
Just a quick plug for what I (personally) consider the most important question in the thread. Just to be sure dougie knows I'm still watching, and waiting, for an answer. Sure would be nice to get one.

So do I kill all those brown eyed kids?

RoboDude
05-11-2000, 12:50 AM
------------------------------------------------------------
To me this all boils down to whether you accept the Bible or not--near as I can figure you don't.
------------------------------------------------------------
FYI, millions of people who fully accept the Bible have gotten blood transfusions because they, unlike you, understand that "eating" blood and having blood injected into your system to replace lost blood are two completely different things.

evilbeth
05-11-2000, 05:09 AM
I am not assuming anything. Let me put it another way. If a pregnant woman decides to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach and drink copious amounts of castor oil, why is this worse than refusing a baby a transfusion? I am not assuming that the pregnant woman will be successful in aborting the fetus but it has a good likelihood of happening. I am not assuming that the lack of transfusion will kill the baby but it has a good likelihood of happening. Now both instances are on equal footing. Now can you tell me the difference without trying to attack my question? I seriously want to know. I ask again, is it because of the active/passive role of the parent?

jab1
05-12-2000, 08:48 PM
If a pregnant woman decides to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach and drink copious amounts of castor oil, why is this worse than refusing a baby a transfusion?

Was this question directed at dougie-monty? If it was directed to us all, I think denying a child a life-saving blood transfusion is the more heinous act. Why? In that case, the child in question has already been born. It's here, it's alive, but will do so only if the transfusion is done. The fetus is a potential human being and ending a pregnancy is not committing murder, IMO. Whether the parent actively or passively causes the death of a child is irrelevant. In either case, the parent is guilty of child abuse. Whether homicide or manslaughter, I leave for a court to decide.

Holly
05-13-2000, 02:22 PM
Care to give documentation (including your interpretation of the "context"?)
I began a search to provide such documentation to you, but I was overwhelmed with the volume of such. Please refer to any Awake! magazine, to the "news" blurbs at the back two pages, for evidence. Every single Awake! magazine that I can find has at least one blurb relating to the dangers of transfusion.

Taking a quote out of "context" means (in my interpretation) that the speaker's actual words are used, but portrayed in such a way that the speaker's meaning is distorted. The Watchtower is famous for this tactic. Again, refer to any Watchtower publication for examples.

Interestingly, though the Watchtower claims the prohibition against blood is Biblical, the vast majority of Watchtower anti-blood propaganda deals with the medical dangers of transfusion (which are grossly exaggerated). Also interestingly, the Watchtower began to permit (in 1977) blood components for hemophiliacs (Factor VIII). If you suffer acute blood loss and require a transfusion to survive, you run the risk of being exposed to pathogens from a few blood donors. This is not allowed by the Watchtower: if you suffer acute blood loss, you must die.

On the other hand, if you are a hemophiliac, you require several doses of Factor VIII yearly in order to survive. Each dose is obtained by pooling the blood of thousands of donors; therefore the hemophiliac runs a risk of contracting a disease from a transfusion thousands of times greater than the patient experiencing acute blood loss each time the hemophiliac receives a dose of Factor VIII. This is allowed (since 1977) by the Watchtower Society.

Why does the Watchtower pretend their stance against transfusion is scientific and medically sound? If this was so, JW hemophiliacs would be forced to bleed to death because Factor VIII would be prohibited. As it stands, Factor VIII is acceptable, as is albumin, as are various other blood components.

The only legitimate reason the Watchtower has to prohibit transfusion is its interpretation of scripture, though of course the Watchtower violates this interpretation by permitting several blood components to be used. Fine with me, if you are an adult. If you want to drink the special Kool-Aid, that is fine with me, if you are an adult. If you intend to force your minor child to drink the Kool-Aid, I feel justified in preventing you from doing so.

David B
05-14-2000, 09:35 AM
Holly said:
Interestingly, though the Watchtower claims the prohibition against blood is Biblical, the vast majority of Watchtower anti-blood propaganda deals with the medical dangers of transfusion (which are grossly exaggerated).Sounds a lot like creationists. They claim they are right based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, but then many of them turn around and try to claim scientific evidence.
Why does the Watchtower pretend their stance against transfusion is scientific and medically sound? I would say, for the same reason as the aforementioned creationists do the same thing. I guess literal believers are in shorter supply today, so they have to try to back it up with pretend science to make them feel better about accepting it.

evilbeth
05-15-2000, 01:17 AM
If a pregnant woman decides to repeatedly punch herself in the stomach and drink copious amounts of castor oil, why is this worse than refusing a baby a transfusion?

Was this question directed at dougie-monty?

Yes, it was directed at dougie-monty. Sorry.

dougie_monty
05-17-2000, 02:44 PM
I did not reply on this until now. I don't have a computer at home and with my work I had not had access to one.
So do I kill all those brown eyed kids?
I don't know, Flymaster...why don't you see what it gets you? I'd be interested to hear what you tell the judge.
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion: The Bible is an ancient work and we need something modern as guidance. I would no more rely on any of these opponents to guide me than I would think of driving at 110 mph with my hands off the wheel. Your facade is as opaque as fresh air.
Hey, look what eradication of religion did in the Soviet Union and China; ask the Dalai Lama and Josef Cardinal Mindszenty.

RoboDude
05-17-2000, 04:18 PM
------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, Flymaster...why don't you see what it gets you? I'd be interested to hear what you tell the judge.
------------------------------------------------------------
He wasn't asking what the government would think, he was asking what you think. Do you think it would be justifiable to slaughter brown-eyed kids if Flymaster found an old religious text that said God wants you to?


------------------------------------------------------------
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion
------------------------------------------------------------
When did anybody say anything about eradicating religion? All we want is for parents to not kill their kids in the name of religion, yours or anybody's. Is that so wrong?

Holly
05-17-2000, 04:30 PM
dougie_monty:It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion.

And those who oppose my position (that society has a duty to protect children) clearly have an ulterior motive: to slaughter as many children as possible. (sarcasm)

It may be clear to you, but not to everyone else. I disagree with your stance, but I have no agenda to eradicate religion. Many Christians disagree with your view, but they certainly don't want to see religion eradicated.

I don't believe the Bible is divine, but many who do still do not see in it what you've been taught to see. You point it out to us, but we still don't believe it says what you've been taught to believe.

Ptahlis
05-17-2000, 05:10 PM
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion: The Bible is an ancient work and we need something modern as guidance. I would no more rely on any of these opponents to guide me than I would think of driving at 110 mph with my hands off the wheel. Your facade is as opaque as fresh air.


Whoa! I haven't seen someone jump that far to reach a conclusion since... well, since someone brought up the idea that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions come to think of it. At least you are consistent in your beliefs Dougie.

If all we want is to eradicate religion, then how come all the other Christians out there aren't on your side?

Satan
05-17-2000, 07:44 PM
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion.[/quuote]

AHHH! I'm slipping!! Down a slope!!

Hell, it ain't even true! Get over your persecution complex, please. Religion is fine. Killing your kids is not.

[quote]Your facade is as opaque as fresh air.
Hey, look what eradication of religion did in the Soviet Union and China; ask the Dalai Lama and Josef Cardinal Mindszenty.

While I did not necessarily think that the challenge you got was very relevant to the issue (odd hypotheticals always are a bit extreme), I fail to see any argument stated here which says we should "eradicate religion."

Either debate the issue without fallacies or pack your stuff and go home. Your call...

__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, one day, 21 hours, 45 minutes and 17 seconds.
1556 cigarettes not smoked, saving $194.53.
Life saved: 5 days, 9 hours, 40 minutes.

David B
05-19-2000, 08:08 AM
Ah, well, I see that Dougie_Monty has moved on from his repeated false accusations about us supposedly wanting to control adults to a new false accusation:
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religionIt must be nice to live in such a fantasy world. A world where medicine is evil. Where everybody who disagrees it out to get you. A world where only you are right and everybody else is wrong. A world where there is no need to actually think.

And he is welcome to live in that world, as scary as I think it is.

But he is not welcome to murder children just because he lives in that world. And I wonder if we will ever get that point through to him...

Flymaster
05-19-2000, 11:56 PM
I did not reply on this until now. I don't have a computer at home and with my work I had not had access to one.


First, I know this is a lie. I've seen you post since my reply.

I don't know, Flymaster...why don't you see what it gets you? I'd be interested to hear what you tell the judge.
It's also clear to me that those who oppose me on this matter have an ulterior motive--the eradication of religion


Time out, time out, time out. Go right ahead....kill yourself if you have brown eyes. That doesn't bother me in the least. You're free to beleive whatever you want. But you CANNOT force those beliefs on someone else, whether that someone else is related to you or not. And by denying children a transfusion, you are forcing your beliefs on them.

And as for the "tell it to the judge" argument, that's exactly what I'm saying. YOU (in the general hypothetical if you denied a transfusion to a kid and he died sense of "you", not "you" as in D_M) should be forced to answer to a judge for your actions, as well.

dougie_monty
05-20-2000, 05:15 PM
While I did not necessarily think that the challenge you got was very relevant to the issue (odd hypotheticals always are a bit extreme), I fail to see any argument stated here which says we should "eradicate religion." Either debate the issue without fallacies or pack your stuff and go home. Your call...
My call, eh?
Let me put it this way: Either you accept the Bible as dispensation from God Almighty or you don't. You seem to have made it clear to me that you don't. I do.
Furthermore, you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. Accept it all or reject it all. And Remember what Jesus said about 'the two greatest commandments.'
And if you reject it all, what do you have? Emmanual Kant or Thomas Hobbes, perhaps?
As for children, I seem no acceptable reason to entrust the care--including discretion as to medical treatment--to anyone other than the parents. In Ashley Montagu's Prevalence of Nonsense, he says there are cultures in which the people "would rather die than eat pig." Any objections to that mode of martyrdom?
In one meeting at a Kingdom Hall a 5-year-old kid--in a skit written for a specific message about following the Bible, was on stage and there was this exchange:
ADULT: Do you salute the flag?
KID: No.
ADULT: Why not?
KID: Because it breaks God's law.
Would you care to furnish statistics on the outcome of cases in which Witnesses' children did or did not survive after getting a transfusion--or not getting one? Remember, the last sentence in the Jerusalem governing body's statement was "Good health to you!"
Your call.

David B
05-20-2000, 05:22 PM
Dougie_monty, still defending his right to murder children, said:
Let me put it this way: Either you accept the Bible as dispensation from God Almighty or you don't. You seem to have made it clear to me that you don't. I do. No. You accept what somebody else has told you the Bible says. As others have already explained to you (and you have conveniently ignored), eating blood has nothing to do with getting a transfusion.
Furthermore, you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. Accept it all or reject it all.All of it? So you follow kosher laws? You believe the Earth is flat? Etc.
As for children, I seem no acceptable reason to entrust the care--including discretion as to medical treatment--to anyone other than the parents. Other than those times when the parents are going to murder their children, I would tend to agree.
In Ashley Montagu's Prevalence of Nonsense, he says there are cultures in which the people "would rather die than eat pig." Any objections to that mode of martyrdom? If pig is the only available food, and somebody refuses to let their child eat it, and their child will die of hunger otherwise, hell yes I object! But that's a lot less likely than the need for a blood transfusion.

DoctorJ
05-20-2000, 05:56 PM
Let me put it this way: Either you accept the Bible as dispensation from God Almighty or you don't. You seem to have made it clear to me that you don't. I do.
What do you say to the vast, vast majority of Christians out there who do accept the Bible as dispensation from God, but interpret this passage differently than you do?

Furthermore, you can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept. Accept it all or reject it all. And Remember what Jesus said about 'the two greatest commandments.'I would say that by allowing your child to die rather than having a transfusion, you are rejecting "Thou shalt not kill" in favor of your interpretation of a passage about eating blood. It just isn't as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.

Also, I can't remember where it is (Numbers, I think), but there is a verse that some people interpret as a command from God to kill doctors who perform abortions. (I have interacted with such people over at the LBMB.) As you say, you can accept it all or reject it all.

And what's more, since I don't accept the Bible as the literal, inerrant, uncensored and uncut word of God, I can too pick and choose which parts I accept. I sure as hell don't have to accept your interpretation.

And if you reject it all, what do you have? Emmanual Kant or Thomas Hobbes, perhaps?How about common sense?

As for children, I seem no acceptable reason to entrust the care--including discretion as to medical treatment--to anyone other than the parents. I agree, as long as those parents are acting in the best interests of the child.

Of course, we disagree on what the best interests of the child are. You say that the child should be kept pleasing in the eyes of God. I say that the child should be allowed to live, grow up, and come to his own conclusions about God. Tell me this--what kind of God would punish a child for a sound medical decision made by his parents? Not one that I would want to be associated with.

Also, let's say that the doctors tell the parents, "If the child gets this treatment, there is a 99.9% chance he will be just fine, but a 0.1% chance he will die of an adverse reaction. On the other hand, if we don't give it to him, there is a 90% chance he will die." If there is no religious objection to the treatment, are the parents justified in not allowing it? What if the treatment costs $50, and the parents have $50, but would rather let the kid die and spend the money on beer?

In Ashley Montagu's Prevalence of Nonsense, he says there are cultures in which the people "would rather die than eat pig." Any objections to that mode of martyrdom?None whatsoever. I would object, though, to "I will allow my child to die before I will allow him to eat pig." It's a silly analogy, since it would rarely come down to a choice between bacon or death. It can, however, come down to transfusion or death.

In one meeting at a Kingdom Hall a 5-year-old kid--in a skit written for a specific message about following the Bible, was on stage and there was this exchange:
ADULT: Do you salute the flag?
KID: No.
ADULT: Why not?
KID: Because it breaks God's law.
What's your point? That kids are able to spout the religious views they've been taught?

Remember, the last sentence in the Jerusalem governing body's statement was "Good health to you!""Unless, of course, you're bleeding out--in that case, see ya in the Great Beyond."

Dr. J

David B
05-21-2000, 09:10 AM
DoctorJ asked of dougie_monty:
What do you say to the vast, vast majority of Christians out there who do accept the Bible as dispensation from God, but interpret this passage differently than you do? "They're wrong" would be my guess. But don't you understand, Doc, it's not an "interpretation" -- it's 100% correct. His masters told him so!

Ptahlis
05-21-2000, 12:28 PM
"They're wrong" would be my guess. But don't you understand, Doc, it's not an "interpretation" -- it's 100% correct. His masters told him so!


We've already been over the "interpretation" bit with DM. He claims it "sickens" him when people interpret the Bible. Apparently he is of the opinion that his cult receives the meaning directly and inerrantly, while "interpretation" is left to everyone else. (Read: interpretation=twisting meaning)

Satan
05-22-2000, 03:12 AM
If pig is the only available food, and somebody refuses to let their child eat it, and their child will die of hunger otherwise, hell yes I object!

Actually, every Jewish person I've spoken to about this told me that if you would die unless you broke some tenent that you should follow - say, starvation or have a BLT, or freeze to death unless you put on this garment mixing wool and polyester - that God totally understands you choosing to live.

I would ask cmkeller if the othodox view mirrors this, but I do know that all of the remormers I've met have taken this view.

It's a darn shame that the sects that have a problem with blood transfusions can't look at it this way.

Reminds me of the joke about the guy in a flood who refused help from the sherrif, a boat and a hellacopter, constantly saying "The Lord will save me," before he finally drowned. He asks God why He didn't save him, and God says, "What? I sent the sheriff, the boat, the hellacopter..."

__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
One month, one week, six days, 5 hours, 12 minutes and 34 seconds.
1728 cigarettes not smoked, saving $216.08.
Life saved: 6 days, 0 minutes.

David B
05-22-2000, 10:45 PM
Satan said:
Actually, every Jewish person I've spoken to about this told me that if you would die unless you broke some tenent that you should follow - say, starvation or have a BLT, or freeze to death unless you put on this garment mixing wool and polyester - that God totally understands you choosing to live. I always was taught that, for example, if you were sick and needed to take medicine or eat to maintain strength on a day of fasting, you should do so. Like you said, any reasonable God would understand.

avalongod
05-22-2000, 11:36 PM
throwing in my $.02

I am not a subscriber to anything resembling a "treatment through prayer not science" approach. However, I do believe in a parent's rights to raise a child in the manner of their choice. I do recognize there is a grey area here...where do we draw the line. Say a parent believes in incest or prostituting their child (and believe it or not there are actually organized groups that advocate such things) are they still within their rights? Obviously not. But then again, these sorts of things (incest) clearly lead to negative psychological outcomes, so the victimization is pretty clear. Christian Science, or other such religions so not have such negative outcomes (unless the kid actually dies from their illness of course)but you know what I mean.

Probably the issue is the child's inability to choose for themselves...but again I defer to the parents on such issues. Ultimately I would not want someone coming into my home because someone felt the way I raised my children inteferred with their sensibilities.

Holly
05-23-2000, 03:31 AM
avalongod: Christian Science, or other such religions so not have such negative outcomes (unless the kid actually dies from their illness of course)but you know what I mean.Kids do actually die because their parents' religious beliefs do not allow them to receive treatment. Others are merely damaged and disabled as a result.

Probably the issue is the child's inability to choose for themselves...but again I defer to the parents on such issues. Ultimately I would not want someone coming into my home because someone felt the way I raised my children inteferred with their sensibilities.
You have every right to practice whatever religion you choose, as long as you're not damaging other people in the process. Just because the people you harm are your own children does not make the crime any less repugnant.

If you belong to a cult that sincerely believes that eating dead babies is the only way to salvation, fine. Believe it, preach it, whatever. But you can't actually kill babies; your religious freedom ends when you attempt to cause another person harm.

Beadalin
05-23-2000, 05:04 PM
So what do you guys think is a good course of action, particularly for Christian Scientist or J.W. parents? I have been thinking about this quite a bit lately-- I'll be getting married in September to a man who isn't a Christan Scientist, and we've been talking about things like vaccinations and check-ups for our hypothetical children. Although the idea of both makes me very uncomfortable, I've agreed for my fiance to handle getting the imaginary kid (we call it Baby Magic) vaccinated and so on, as long as I don't have to participate. After that, Baby Magic gets to go to the same Sunday School that I did. Eventually, when the kid is old enough, s/he can choose what course to follow.

We reached this decision only after months and months of debate and talking, with some rather high emotions on both sides. While I do not like the idea of the state interfering with Christian Science parents, I don't know where to draw the line. Certainly I don't think it's fair to ban the practice of Christian Science (maybe because I have only had and seen good experiences), but I can also respect those of you who are adamantly against it because of the deaths that have occurred. So what do you honestly see as a fair approach to this?

No religious waivers for vaccinations? Mandatory physicals? An age of consent? How do parents who believe in prayer as the only moral alternative raise their children without sending a hypocritical message?

What will become of Baby Magic?

David B
05-23-2000, 10:43 PM
Beadalin said:
Although the idea of both makes me very uncomfortable, I've agreed for my fiance to handle getting the imaginary kid (we call it Baby Magic) vaccinated and so on, as long as I don't have to participate. After that, Baby Magic gets to go to the same Sunday School that I did. Eventually, when the kid is old enough, s/he can choose what course to follow. I think that is a very wise decision.
So what do you honestly see as a fair approach to this?

No religious waivers for vaccinations? Mandatory physicals? An age of consent? How do parents who believe in prayer as the only moral alternative raise their children without sending a hypocritical message? I would say no waivers for vaccinations, but those vaccinations are only required if you attend a public school (as far as I recall, anyway). So if you don't want to vaccinate, don't send your kid to a public school. I still don't like the idea, but it's not as bad as refusing a blood transfusion.

Mandatory physicals is definitely going too far. I'd say that the line is drawn at about the same place it's drawn for non-religious abuse -- endangerment of the child.

So, if you want to pray for your child instead of giving him something for his stuffy nose, fine. The cold will last 7 days with prayer and a week without. But if you want to pray over your child while his appendix bursts, then we have a serious problem.

h_thur
05-24-2000, 12:05 PM
I have to jump in here.

I am a Christian, though not a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Scientist. Here is my situation:

My son is 6 months old. He has terrible food and environmental allergies. I breastfeed him and he is allergic to the "hypoallergenic" formulas. One thing that he is allergic to is milk protein, casein. This allergy includes cow milk protein and goat milk protein that I know of.

I recently started taking him to a woman who keeps her two children and three other children (including my son). He just goes 1-2 days a week, but not every week. The caregiver wants his vaccination schedule. My son has not been vaccinated (since his 2 month shots; we discovered his allergies at 2.5 months).

We live in Texas. Texas does not have a philosphical exemption for vaccinations. Texas does allow for medical and religious exemptions. I talked to my son's pediatrician about a medical exemption. Though he supports my decision to postpone my son's vaccinations, he didn't want to write a medical exemption for such a "healthy-looking boy". The whole vaccination issue is a hot one here in Texas. The pediatrician said that if he "[had] to" he would write the exemption.

I have researched the vaccinations that are administered to babies my son's age. The DTP (or DPaT) shot has casein in it. It is swine casein, but if my son is allergic to cow and goat casein, he would very likely be allergic to swine casein as well. I also have known allergies to some of the ingredients in these vaccinations as well.

I feel that I should have to right to postpone these vaccinations in the interest of my son's health and safety. To do so, I have to provide my son's caretaker with a religious exemption. Otherwise, I have to vacinate and hope that my son doesn't have an adverse reaction from the shot and possibly become crippled or die. (I knew a child that did die from a vaccination.)

I have researched the subject fully, and I feel that as a parent, I can make the best decision for my son. I have talked to several pediatricians who are unaware of ingredients in vaccinations and also have no clue that the MMR shot is supposed to be administered after 15 months of age, according to the vaccine insert unless there is an epidemic. The vaccination schedule in my state calls for this vaccination at 12 months, regardless of what the vaccination package insert reads. Many pediatricians give shots when children are ill or soon after they have had a fever, runny nose, or infection. The package inserts clearly state that the vaccinations should not be administered to sick children or within a specified amount of time after the child has recovered (I don't have the info in front of me here) from the illness. Given that many pediatricians in my area don't know that much about vaccinations other than that if they don't push them or (heaven forbid) provide a medical exemption, they may be liable or may take some heat from the State, I think the decision to vaccinate/not vaccinate and when to do it, should be mine.

My take on the vaccination spin.

Ptahlis
05-24-2000, 12:55 PM
h-thur, I am a little confused by your post. Your pediatrician has pretty much said that he would give you the waiver (even though he is reluctant, and you said also that you could get a religios exemption. It sounds like the decision is in your hands.

I will say, though, that you make a case for your beliefs based on evidence, which is refreshing.

h_thur
05-24-2000, 02:08 PM
h-thur, I am a little confused by your post. Your pediatrician has pretty much said that he would give you the waiver (even though he is reluctant, and you said also that you could get a religios exemption. It sounds like the decision is in your hands.


He wanted me to try the religious exemption first. Texas is pro vaccination to the point of including all new vaccines (soon to be included is the new ear infection vaccine made by the same manufacturers that brought us the now banned Rotavirus vaccine) in the vaccination requirement for school children/daycare attendees/college students. If my daycare provider will not accept the religious exemption, I can take her to court, as she would be violating State Codes. The same would apply if she had refused a medical exemption. My son's pediatrician doesn't want to get involved by providing the medical exemption if I can get by with a religious exemption.

I would rather get the medical exemption, as the daycare provider is less likely to have a problem with it. However, I cannot force my son's pediatrician to write the exemption. I explained to him that she would be least likely to put up a fuss about the medical exemption. He still wanted me to try the religious exemption first, as he doesn't want to call attention to himself for granting a medical exemption to a "healthy-looking boy".

Does that make more sense? I asked my son's previous physician to provide a medical exemption and he flat out refused. In fact, he was pushing me to vaccinate my son even though he had fever and diarrhea two days prior to his "well baby" check-up. A physician that supports my decision is hard to come by here, so I am happy with my son's new pediatrician.

dougie_monty
05-24-2000, 04:14 PM
"They're wrong" would be my guess. But don't you understand, Doc, it's not an "interpretation" -- it's 100% correct. His masters told him so!
"Masters" indeed! I resent being compared to a dog fetching a newspaper..
All right..I'll bite...regarding the passages at Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, the 15th Chapter of Acts, what "interpretation" (I'm getting to sense that there is a broken record somewhere) do you put on it?
And while you're at it, since you have set up the term "interpret" and its variations as an obstacle, give me an "interpretation" to Job 26:7. :)
I know that, in centuries past, the Bible was inaccessible to most people since it was kept in a dead lanuage--Latin--and most of the common people were illiterate anyway. And translators faced the penalty of being burned at the stake, with their translations tied around their necks! :(
With the "free exercise" clause in the Bill of Rights, and similar enlightenment in other parts of the Western world, the aforementioned barbarous suppression of Bible translation has, out of necessity, disappeared. More recently, however, there has been a much more insidious attack on the Bible: "intellectuals" who assert that the Bible is useless and meaningless unless they tell us what it means ("interpretation.") If any Dopoer asks, or e-mails me, I will furnish documentation--no, the Watchtower Society is not the source--to show that the learned expositor standing between ordinary people and an understanding of the Bible's message is "just another attack on the Bible."

Holly
05-24-2000, 09:09 PM
h_thur, I also live in Texas, and I understand how persnickety daycare is about the vaccination records.

My sister-in-law (who is a registered daycare provider, incidentally) took her kids to Dallas to a doctor who would fraudulently validate the vaccination records so she could avoid having them actually vaccinated. Her church teaches (but not officially) that vaccinations invariably cause mental retardation. If she was able to get her kids okayed for no legitimate reason, I'm sure you can find a way. It sounds like you have a very good basis for your case; if your pediatrician won't give you a waiver, you should be able to find one who can. Legitimately.

dougie: "Masters" indeed! I resent being compared to a dog fetching a newspaper...
Then don't act like one.

If any Dopoer asks, or e-mails me, I will furnish documentation--no, the Watchtower Society is not the source... The Watchtower is not the source? Do they know you're frequenting this message board? Don't you know you can be disfellowshipped for that?

Of the Bible quotes you mentioned, the first two prohibit the eating of blood, so they do not apply. (Do you really think a blood transfusion is eating blood?) Acts is referring to what the gentile converts needed to do to make themselves acceptable to Jewish Christians. They did not need to follow every rule laid out in the old testament, but in order to be accepted they needed to abstain from eating blood, among other things. They did not need to be circumcised. This is a political concession.

If Jehovah really probits eating blood, he should prohibit breastfeeding (which the Watchtower allows) as well, because breast milk contains many white blood cells. The Watchtower Society would also forbid the consumption of any kind of meat, because even if bled "properly", meat contains some blood. If Jehovah really prohibits eating blood, and receiving blood components intravenously is eating blood, then the Watchtower Society should not allow hemophiliacs to receive Factor VIII.

avalongod
05-25-2000, 12:42 AM
Holly:

The one thing in your post I would disagree with is that the parents in these situations are seeking to damage these children. from their perspective quite to opposite they are doing quite the opposite...rather saving their souls.

Now for the record, I personally agree with you that these situations are sad and shocking, but ultimately I find it presumptuous and arrogant to intervene. I guess this just reflects my personal bent that it is better to uphold personal/religious freedom, even at the costs of lives.

Holly
05-25-2000, 04:28 AM
avalongod: I guess this just reflects my personal bent that it is better to uphold personal/religious freedom, even at the costs of lives.
Yes, but the kids who are compelled to give up their lives have no religious freedom. They're kids, too young to choose their own faiths or make their own decisions. They're dying for their parents' religion.

This is why I don't believe that freedom of religion extends to the freedom to endanger your child's life, no matter how good your intentions. A child is a human being, not property.

I do understand that the parents do not intend to harm their kids and in fact are seeking to do what's right. The parents at Jonestown were doing the same thing when they gave their kids the special Kool-Aid.

dougie_monty
05-27-2000, 08:45 PM
dougie: quote:
"Masters" indeed! I resent being compared to a dog fetching a newspaper. Then don't act like one.
If I understand your point aright, you are chiding me severely for not acting or thinking independently. Well, La-dee-dah! Do you believe any of the faithful prophets or others (Old Testament) or Jesus or the apostles or other disciples (New Testament) 'acted independently?' I sure don't, if you mean, Acting independently of the will of God on earth. In Isaiah (28:8) God said that Israel's tables were full of vomit. This could be atply applied to the Jewish priests of the first century, who were certainly acting independently--look what it got them. (Cf. the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, or the murderous cultivators.) The fundamentalists, at one end of the spectrum, and the "modern" churches, at the other--have veered grossly from the message of the Bible. The Witnesses have not.

Ptahlis
05-27-2000, 11:28 PM
Even a non-theist like me can see that there might be the tiniest difference between doubting Jesus and doubting the leaders of your little sect dougie. It must be refreshing to be told exactly what one must think. All that saved brainpower!

Flymaster
05-29-2000, 01:26 AM
The fundamentalists, at one end of the spectrum, and the "modern" churches, at the other--have veered grossly from the message of the Bible. The Witnesses have not.


The message of the bible is "don't eat blood?" (assuming your interpretation of "transfusion" and "eat" is right, which, IMO, it is not)???????

I think not. The message of the bible is "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Read it as fiction. It becomes a much more useful tool if you don't get so caught up in details.

David B
05-29-2000, 10:39 PM
D_M said:
"Masters" indeed! I resent being compared to a dog fetching a newspaper.. Holly already took my response, but, really, if you act like somebody who acts without thinking, well, what else can we say? Besides, I wasn't talking about dogs with masters, but slaves. You are a slave to the Biblical interpretations handed down by your masters. You don't think about it, but rather rely on what they tell you -- even to the point of being willing to murder your own child!

Oh, and if you don't want to be compared to a dog, don't object and then, with the very next words, say:
All right..I'll bite...:)

Holly
05-30-2000, 03:33 AM
That is funny, David. I wish I'd caught it.

GaWd
05-30-2000, 05:28 AM
I can certainly Identify with your plight. Me, being the victim of the DPT shot in it's infancy will certainly not be vaccinating my children with it. I was not allergic to anything until the shot...then it all went wrong. The P{pertussis) in DPT is a verified neurotoxin(there are options available today, E.G. the D_T shot which does not contain the pertussis component and I would probably consider giving it to my kids but I'd still lean toward not vaccinating with it), and there have been many bad lots.

I was lucky, I was just learning disabled with epilepsy and various allergies. The others who were affected are chairbound. It's very sad. My brother was opted out under California law with a waiver.

That being said...

I would say no waivers for vaccinations, but those vaccinations are only required if you attend a public school (as far as I recall, anyway). So if you don't want to vaccinate, don't send your kid to a public school.

David, I don't think waivers should be pulled at all. It is the parent's right to not have their child immunized, especially when one of their children had to suffer an adverse reaction to a shot.

Please note, there is a huge difference between immunizations and transfusions. Immunizations are pre-emptive and transfusions are required in life and death situations. I would never question a transfusion, but I would definitely question a harmful shot.

And in California, you're not required to be immunized if there is a waiver filed.

h_thur: Keep it up if you wish to not immunize, it's your right. I've heard many stories about Texas and their immunization programs. If you need resources to aid you in fighting this, please contact me at my E-mail address and I have a few great resources that might be of some help.

-Sam

David B
05-30-2000, 08:05 AM
GaWd said:
David, I don't think waivers should be pulled at all. It is the parent's right to not have their child immunized, especially when one of their children had to suffer an adverse reaction to a shot. If one child has already suffered an adverse reaction, and it's the type that may be hereditary, I'd agree. But we must remember that correlation is not causation -- in other words, we must make sure it really was an adverse reaction, not just a coincidence on the order of "He had a shot; he got allergies; therefore the shot must have caused them."

GaWd
05-30-2000, 08:40 AM
But we must remember that correlation is not causation -- in other words, we must make sure it really was an adverse reaction, not just a coincidence on the order of "He had a shot; he got allergies; therefore the shot must have caused them."


I must agree and disagree with you David.

Having gone through the whole process myself, I can say that the verification of a vaccine reaction takes years. I had my reaction in 1978, and my brother was born that same year. To get a physician to concede to a vaccine reaction is impossible.

It was my mothers' responsibility to find the proper people who'd had children that were adversely reacted, and physicians that would agree that DPT can kill/maim. Since my brother was born so close to me, it was only right to opt out. It was probably a bad lot that got to me and not a familial disposition to react to the vaccine, however would you want your child subjected to the "Game of chance", if you knew there was a possibility of another adverse reaction?

It took until the late 90's for the US government to concede to the vaccine damage and for me and my family to be compensated under the omnibus health bill and childhood vaccination compensation fund(thanks, Mom, for your hard work in bargaining with congress and the president :)). That took the efforts of a full legal team(representing many children who were adversely affected), and hundreds of tests(MRI, EEG, fractal X, IQ tests, bloodwork, family histories, Etc...), costing thousands of dollars and taking over 12 years to be completed.

And David, as far as correlation not equalling causation, if you take a healthy child for an immunization and they experience screaming fits, high fever, rashes and 18 hours later he/she experiences a non-febrile seizure...chances are pretty great that it was the cause.

-Sam

P.S.-- Sorry for the hijack...

GaWd
05-30-2000, 08:59 AM
I wanted to also note that I'm one of only 2 children with a verified adverse reaction to be lucid, aware, functional adults who don't need to be in a chair or wear a crash helmet.

How's that for odds?

-Sam

h_thur
05-30-2000, 11:31 AM
I wanted to also note that I'm one of only 2 children with a verified adverse reaction to be lucid, aware, functional adults who don't need to be in a chair or wear a crash helmet.


Sam, you are very lucky indeed. Your mom has done a great service to those injured by vaccines. The sad thing is, to get compensation for vaccine damage, the damage has to be apparent within a specified amount of time and match the NVIC'c strict definitions. Even the NVIC's definition for encephalopathy is contradictory. They even state "high-pitched and unusual screaming, persistent inconsolable crying, and bulging fontanelle...do not demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either mental status or level of consciousness." The previous quote can be found here (http://www.hrsa.dhhs.gov/bhpr/vicp/table.htm). Even though many of the children that experience those symptoms die within 72 hours of receiving a vaccine, they are not considered encephalopathic and would not receive compensation because they would fall within condition C., which reads, "C. Any acute complication or sequela (including death) of an illness, disability, injury, or condition referred to above which illness, disability, injury or condition arose within the time period prescribed". Sad, huh?

Not my child.

Also, with the new research on stealth viruses (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Autism, etc.) many fingers are now pointing at vaccines as the cause. See this link (http://www.sonic.net/~melissk/stealth.html) for information on stealth viruses related to the polio vaccine and more links (one to the CCID). I don't want monkey cells that may have a simian virus in them that may cause cancer (SV-40) or a stealth virus injected into my son.

Anyway, I'm glad that I am not the only person out there who has researched vaccination and is worried about the consequences of vaccinating. Knowing that my son has an allergy to the vaccine (which might have been spurred by the vaccination he received at his 2 month well baby visit) makes me even more wary of vaccination. I just wish more parents would research the issue rather than blindly following their (misguided) pediatrician. After they research the subject, then they can make and informed choice, whether it be to vaccinate, not to vaccinate, or to vaccinate selectively. I respect an informed choice over a blind decision any day.

Sam, I have PROVE's (http://www.vaccineinfo.net/) website information, and I used it to claim an exemption for my son to attend daycare a few times a month. I found out that his daycare provider really didn't want to vaccinate her children, but she didn't realize that she could use an exemption. Now she is going to try and exempt her children too.

David B
05-30-2000, 07:35 PM
GaWd: Under the circumstances you described, I probably wouldn't risk vaccinating another of my children either. And I didn't mean to imply that in your specific case, it might not be causation, but too many people continue to assume that if A happens and then B happens, A must have caused B, and that simply isn't true.

GaWd
05-30-2000, 07:50 PM
In the case of vaccines, who am I to question the parent? Don't they know what's best for their child? A shot is pre-emptive and in this day and age offers limited protection anyway.

Whether a child in the family was affected by a shot or not, I stand by the right of the parent to opt her child out and not give the shot to them.

On the other hand, a parent who denies a child a life-saving blood transfusion is a cold-blooded killer. I don't care if it's your religions' interpretation of the bible or not, it's murder. Well-thought out, pre-meditated murder.

-Sam

Scylla
05-30-2000, 08:15 PM
My daughter's seven months old. She's been vaccinated, but not with "live virus." I am told that this significantly reduces the risks. Neither my wife, nor I have any known allergies.

Gawd:

I think your standpoint is reasonable, and I fully support your choice based on your circumstances.

I look at it this way.

Polio is nearly eradicated. Children don't die of it in this country. Millions of lives have been saved because of these innoculations.

The fact that nearly every child in this country is innoculated keeps the disease at bay, and helps prevent resistant mutations from forming.

It also builds up enough of a safety margin that we can occasionally afford to exempt children with legitimate health concerns from these innoculations without exposing them or society to significant risk.

If everybody just decides they want ot be exempt, the situation breaks down, and we could very easily have an epidemic of Polio or another disease.

In some 3rd world countries Polio has made a deadly resurgence.

The vaccine is also not 100% effective. If enough people decide on an arbitrary basis not to innoculate their children, that puts your child at greater risk of catching the disease. It also puts my child at risk.

I certainly don't respect the right of another parent to arbitrarily put my child at risk, and agree that those without a medical waiver shouldn't be allowed in public schools.

GaWd
05-30-2000, 08:43 PM
I certainly don't respect the right of another parent to arbitrarily put my child at risk, and agree that those without a medical waiver shouldn't be allowed in public schools.


Does this mean that you think a child on waivers is ok, but one without is not? If so, I certainly agree that almost all children should be immunized...just not mine when I have them!

As far as live cell/dead cell, I had the only vaccine that was available at the time. I've recently read some reports that say that the core neurotoxin is still in the vaccine as well(I think I can find a cite if you give the some time).

-Sam

David B
05-30-2000, 09:15 PM
GaWd said:
In the case of vaccines, who am I to question the parent? Don't they know what's best for their child?Not necessarily, no.
A shot is pre-emptive and in this day and age offers limited protection anyway. Limited protection? How so?
Whether a child in the family was affected by a shot or not, I stand by the right of the parent to opt her child out and not give the shot to them. If they have a reason, I agree. If they won't be sending their kids to public schools, I guess that's their choice (not sure -- may vary by state). But otherwise, I don't want a bunch of unvaccinated kids going to school with my child just because their parents were against needles.
On the other hand, a parent who denies a child a life-saving blood transfusion is a cold-blooded killer. I don't care if it's your religions' interpretation of the bible or not, it's murder. Well-thought out, pre-meditated murder. And what if the child of a person who doesn't like vaccination somehow ends up with one of the deadly diseases? Isn't that similar?

Scylla
05-30-2000, 09:20 PM
Gawd:

Absolutely. A child with a medical waiver should be welcome to attend public school. He/she should not be penalized because it would be medically unwise to vaccinate them.

Making sure that all children for whom it is sound medical practice to innoculate recieve these vaccinations serves to protect not only those who should not be vaccinated, but the community at large from the return of catastrophic diseases.

If a parent chooses not to innoculate their child for no sound medical reason, and/or without a medical waiver, I can see no reason why such dangerous and unreasonable behavior should be allowed to put other children at risk, and particularly not in a public school.

DoctorJ
05-30-2000, 09:55 PM
I hate to tell you, but one of the benefits of the live polio vaccine is "herd immunity"--that is, it retains its infectivity even though it's been stripped of its virulence. That way, other people who haven't had the shot "catch" the vaccination. I know you probably think that sounds awful, but it probably has a lot to do with the practical eradication of polio in the US. There aren't many adverse events with either virus, really, and I think they're going completely to the killed vaccine soon.

When you're looking at vaccines, you need to look not only at the potential adverse effects, but at the risk-benefit ratio. That is, compare the risk of the adverse effects and their severity to the risk of getting the disease if you don't get vaccinated and its severity. Generally, we don't use a vaccine in the general population unless that comes out in the vaccine's favor.

I've known people who wouldn't wear their seat belt because they heard of people getting trapped in their burning cars. They fail to understand that the seat belt is a hell of a lot more likely to prevent your death than contribute to it. This is the attitude of a lot of the anti-vaccine crowd (although certainly not the ones on this thread, who have legitimate concerns and are quite reasonable.)

I would encourage you to educate yourself as much as possible and to get the most qualified medical opinion you can. At the same time, always consider your sources and try to give the medical profession some credit.

Dr. J

GaWd
05-30-2000, 11:26 PM
GaWd said:
In the case of vaccines, who am I to question the parent? Don't they know what's best for their child?Not necessarily, no. How's that David?

A shot is pre-emptive and in this day and age offers limited protection anyway. Limited protection? How so? David, in this day and age, we've eradicated most highly epidemic/endemic illnesses in this country. Consequently, the virii and microbes we used to fight have changed. Some of them are poly-penicillin resistant. Our vaccinations today do not prevent these strains from affecting the public at large, they only prevent the base microbe from infecting us.

Whether a child in the family was affected by a shot or not, I stand by the right of the parent to opt her child out and not give the shot to them. If they have a reason, I agree. If they won't be sending their kids to public schools, I guess that's their choice (not sure -- may vary by state). But otherwise, I don't want a bunch of unvaccinated kids going to school with my child just because their parents were against needles. I hardly believe that their are very many parents who are against "needles", who will opt their child out(I will add that I am certainly against a family who would). I'm talking about a waiver of philosophical difference, not even a medical waiver(they didn't exist at the time of my illness). Even though I don't have children, and won't be able to get a medical waiver, I will certainly waive the hell out of my kids when I have them(blame me?).

On the other hand, a parent who denies a child a life-saving blood transfusion is a cold-blooded killer. I don't care if it's your religions' interpretation of the bible or not, it's murder. Well-thought out, pre-meditated murder. And what if the child of a person who doesn't like vaccination somehow ends up with one of the deadly diseases? Isn't that similar? David, if a child gets a disease today that we immunize against today, it is treatable(save Polio, and I think that's a needle in a haystack right there). Pertussis(whooping cough), is readily treatable, and I've never heard of a case of antibiotic-resistant pertussis.




I guess the only other thing I could add to this is that I'm ONLY against the pertussis component of the DPT shot. I don't have a problem with the D, or the T, just the P. I don't have a problem with MMR or any of the other vaccinations, but I certainly wouldn't have a problem with a parent who had differences concerning vaccinations.

Oh, and DocJ...my mom gave the medical profession credit, and let them do their job...what did it get her?

-Sam

dougie_monty
05-31-2000, 07:35 PM
Do you mean that I stand to be disfellowshipped if I dare to do independent research?!? La-dee-dah again!! I have been doing research for various reasons, on my own, since I was in grade school (the late 1950s), and I continue to do so now, as a legal intern. And I used to do legal and historical research for an older woman I knew--I went to high school with her daughter--until the mother's health failed and she died, about 3 years ago. :(
The point is that I am wholly unfettered by the Watchtower Society, let alone by the Teeming Millions, or anyone else, in the matter of research, where it concerns what sources I will or will not use. And if some of the items I already quoted in this thread were published in magazines or books the Witnesses use, so what? I don't car what McLuhan said, or even if it's germane here: The medium is not the message. My quotes and sources must be appraised on their merits, not on any third party, such as the Watchtower Society, and their hypothetical ulterior motives. I have in fact found research materials, with a message opposing the Witnesses' position, on any topic; and some of these have certainly been disquieting.
I notice that I have brought up a few Scriptures, not dealing with the matter of blood, and I have asked you, Holly, or others to "interpret" them, inasmuch as your ilk seems to have a fetish about the catchall term "interpret." It may be too much to ask of you to answer a civil question like this; perhaps it's beyond your ken?

Holly
06-01-2000, 03:39 AM
All right..I'll bite...regarding the passages at Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, the 15th Chapter of Acts, what "interpretation" (I'm getting to sense that there is a broken record somewhere) do you put on it?
And while you're at it, since you have set up the term "interpret" and its variations as an obstacle, give me an "interpretation" to Job 26:7.
~~sigh~~ Please refer to my long rant on 4/14 at 8:56pm for my "interpretation". (Apparently you didn't read that post; you didn't address the hypocrisy of JW mothers being allowed to breastfeed, or the hypocrisy of JWs being allowed to eat meat.)

I don't understand why you wish me to interpret passages not dealing with the blood issue.

Do you not understand that different brands of Christianity interpret different scriptures in different ways? Naturally, you'll believe your own church's interpretation is correct or more accurate. This does not negate the fact that scriptures can be interpreted in different ways. If this were not so, the hundreds of denominations of Christianity would not exist: there would be exactly one Christian church.

Do you mean that I stand to be disfellowshipped if I dare to do independent research?!? La-dee-dah again!!What do you mean by "La-dee-dah"? This may be "interpreted" to mean, "so what!", or "I couldn't care less". At least, that's the intent behind the expression every time I've heard it used. I find it hard to believe that a JW could be so nonchalant about disfellowshipping, though, so I must have "misinterpreted" you.

The point is that I am wholly unfettered by the Watchtower Society, let alone by the Teeming Millions, or anyone else, in the matter of research, where it concerns what sources I will or will not use. I wouldn't say that too loudly in mixed company, if I were you. The Watchtower frowns on using some materials for research. It is preferred that you use only Watchtower-approved materials, to prevent you from being misled. Doing otherwise could raise some red flags.
I have in fact found research materials, with a message opposing the Witnesses' position, on any topic; and some of these have certainly been disquieting.That's why you're not supposed to read them.

David B
06-01-2000, 07:55 AM
D_M, for a guy who claims to have been doing research for so long, you've been stunningly unable to back up your contentions that there is a valid reason, in general, to refuse transfusions. You'd be better off just admitting that you're doing it purely for religious reasons than trying to rationalize it to a bunch of people who can see right through that bogus claim. At least then you'd be thought of as an honest advocate of child murder.

slick_willie
06-01-2000, 09:30 AM
Holly, your information is inaccurate and poorly collected. You claim that JW's accept organ transplants, but they don't, or at least they don't reccomend it. And you say that they brain wash, hypnotize, etc. the list goes on and on. But why have you centered your intolerance and hate on one specific religion? Might I bring to your attention the Faith Healers. They accept no medical treatment what so ever, where as all JW's don't accept is blood and organ transplants. It sounds like to me that Faith Healer standards are far "worse" than JW's. But you are one tracked. You have to pick on the different religion, simply because they don't salute the flag(even though they stand up in respect.), or that they go door to door preaching what they beleive. You, my friend,(i use that term loosly) are ignorant to what was written over 200 years ago. It's called the Decleration of Independence. In it, it gives everyone the right to religion, speech, etc. and it also mentions certain unalienable rights, god given if you will, one of those being religion. Why not be tolorant of everyones religion? And ever heard the bible verse,"Don not judge lest ye yourself be judged?" Why not let god do the judging in the end, as to whether they are right or wrong in refusing medical treatment for their children? And I guess that they're religion is also wrong because it forbids homosexuality, or that they assmble peacfully for their meetings. World leaders have in fact noted that JW's are one of the most peacfullest religions in the world. As for you're mentioning that they have a "guard" beside the bed 24 hours a day, I again recommend that you not make assumptions without first gaining accurate facts. Some of them will even take blood parts,(platelets, white blood cells, etc.) on their own will. You call that brainwashed?? And you also said that people were insane and used religion to hide it. If that is the case, Hindu's and Buddhists are insane for not eating meat, jews are insane for not saluting the flag, yada, yada, yada. You need to learn tolerance of people's religion, even if you disagree with it.

Holly
06-01-2000, 06:37 PM
slick_willie: You claim that JW's accept organ transplants, but they don't, or at least they don't reccomend it. In the past, organ transplants were forbidden by the Watchtower Society; now they are allowed.
And you say that they brain wash, hypnotize, etc. the list goes on and on. I don't remember stating that JW's are "brainwashed", but I concede I may have. However, I don't remember stating the JW's are "hypnotized". Perhaps you could quote where I said that?
But why have you centered your intolerance and hate on one specific religion? Might I bring to your attention the Faith Healers. They accept no medical treatment what so ever, where as all JW's don't accept is blood and organ transplants.Again, JW's are free to accept organ transplants now. I have no intolerance for JW's, except when JW parents refuse their children blood transfusions. I certainly don't have any hatred for JW's or for anyone else. I've stated here several times that I respect the JWs' right to refuse transfusion, except when the patient is a minor child. I have, on several occasions, assisted JW patients in refusing blood transfusions when that was their wish. Truthfully, I believe the Watchtower Society is "wrong"; that is, I don't accept their beliefs as my own. I do respect the right to hold those beliefs.

I've done quite a bit of research on JW's, both because I find the religion to be fascinating and also to help me assist JW patients better when I care for them. I've not researched faith healing except on the most casual basis, so I feel unqualified to say much about them. Since, as you pointed out, faith healers avoid medical treatment altogether, I'm unlikely to come across them in my line of work.

You have to pick on the different religion, simply because they don't salute the flag(even though they stand up in respect.), or that they go door to door preaching what they beleive.
Again, would you mind pointing out to me where I said I "pick on" JW's because they don't salute the flag, or because they preach door-to-door?
You, my friend,(i use that term loosly) are ignorant to what was written over 200 years ago. It's called the Decleration of Independence. In it, it gives everyone the right to religion, speech, etc. and it also mentions certain unalienable rights, god given if you will, one of those being religion. Why not be tolorant of everyones religion?I'm familiar with the Declaration of Independence, and I fully support freedom of religion. As I said in an earlier post, JW parents who deny their children blood transfusions are infringing on their children's rights to religion and often to life, as well.
Why not let god do the judging in the end, as to whether they are right or wrong in refusing medical treatment for their children? Because I happen to believe that children are human beings with inalienable rights.
As for you're mentioning that they have a "guard" beside the bed 24 hours a day, I again recommend that you not make assumptions without first gaining accurate facts.I guess I must have hallucinated the people sent to guard the bedsides of my critically ill JW patients. I also must have been hallucinating when I read JW literature that specifically recommends having a JW elder guard the patient's bedside.
Some of them will even take blood parts,(platelets, white blood cells, etc.) on their own will. You call that brainwashed?? JW's who accept platelets or white blood cells do so at the risk of being disfellowshipped. If they accept these components, they must do so in secrecy because they will be disfellowshipped at once. Some blood components, for no logical reason, are allowed; JW's may accept them with a free conscience.
And you also said that people were insane and used religion to hide it.Please quote where I said this.

David B
06-01-2000, 11:15 PM
Slick_willie said to Holly:
But why have you centered your intolerance and hate on one specific religion? Gosh, maybe because that is the topic of this discussion! I love people who come into a discussion and say, "Oh, yeah, well you ought to be talking about this too!" Well, I'm sorry, but we're not. You want to talk about something else, open up a new thread. But don't complain that we're not talking about every topic in the world here.

You have to pick on the different religion, simply because they don't salute the flag(even though they stand up in respect.), or that they go door to door preaching what they beleive. What the hell are you talking about? Let me tell you, Willie, this is not a good way to go about introducing yourself to the rest of the message board -- by making unfounded accusations with no bearing on the discussion at hand.
You, my friend,(i use that term loosly) are ignorant to what was written over 200 years ago. It's called the Decleration of Independence. In it, it gives everyone the right to religion, speech, etc. and it also mentions certain unalienable rights, god given if you will, one of those being religion.Is life one of those rights? If so, don't you think it's the most important? I do. And we're talking about a belief system that throws away that life.

Oh, and I don't think the Declaration mentions freedom of religion and speech. You might want to check up on your historical documents -- I think you'll find that in the First Amendment to the Constitution...
Why not be tolorant of everyones religion? Sure! Let people who want to have human sacrifices do that, too! Let anybody do anything they want in the name of religion!

Did you bother to read any of this thread before posting? We've gone over most of this already.
And ever heard the bible verse,"Don not judge lest ye yourself be judged?" Why not let god do the judging in the end, as to whether they are right or wrong in refusing medical treatment for their children? What if there is no God? Then who will judge? By this piece of illogic, we should do away with the court system, and just let some random deity mete out justice. You murdered someone? Hell with it, we'll let God decide what to do with you. Now go home and be a good boy 'til you die and God has a talk with you!
And I guess that they're religion is also wrong because it forbids homosexuality, or that they assmble peacfully for their meetings.Again, what the hell are you talking about?
You need to learn tolerance of people's religion, even if you disagree with it.You need to learn not to jump into a discussion when you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about...

Scylla
06-01-2000, 11:33 PM
Hey CB, how've you been?

Steve-o
06-01-2000, 11:46 PM
Wow! Look at that ratio of "Replies" to "Views" on this thread. Just before I cam in here, it was 190 replies to 211 views. Impressive!

dougie_monty
06-03-2000, 04:41 PM
I intend to stand by my comments on independent research, even if you were so bold and influential that you could assemble all the officers of the Watchtower Society in front of me and say, "He does independent research!" or download for them anything I have ever posted on the Straight Dope Message Board. Compare the statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." In public school I learned, like everyone else, to use such things as the Reader's Guide to Periodical Research--an invaluable guide, incidentally, when it comes to research in magazines, as I have found it to be for about 40 years. Anyone care to document the notion that the Watchtower Society doesn't want Witnesses to do independent research? Or perhaps a Bible verse that says such a thing?
It is immaterial to me whether Holly or anyone else among the Teeming Millions opposes the practice of Witness parents not allowing their children to have blood transfusions. As at least one person (other than myself) has recently pointed out :), freedom of religion is sanctioned in the United States' body of law--though it is, as was also pointed out, in the First Amendment of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. In short, freedom of religion depends on the individual's understanding of his own rights--not the understanding of a third party such as a physician (or a judge, for that matter). Furthermore, minor children do not have "unalienable rights" even though they are United States citizens. I sense that the prevailing opinion here is that Witnesses should not have children; if they do the chgildren will be taken away by the State. Are you listening, Big Brother? :(
I will tell all the posters on this thread, right now, that I am not posting straight lines in this thread nor do I appreciate being made a "foil" for those with a smart-aleck sense of humor. When I said "I'll bite" I was inviting other posters to give a specific interpretation--since that was what they had been harping on all along--of certain Bible verses. I was not inviting anyone to give me an insulting remark alluding to the equally insulting comparison of me to a dog (subervient).
I note that at least one poster here has urged me to regard the Bible as "fiction." Why? Perhaps this poster will also regard as "fiction" any law he doesn't like, but may be hard put to defend this position when a judge, citing him for reckless driving or DUI, for example, demands to know why he, the judge, should not revoke the defendant's drver's license. Oh, maybe it's because the Bible is so ancient; we need "modern" writings for a "modern" world. Well, I can't help you there. --Joshua 24:15.

David B
06-03-2000, 11:27 PM
d_m said:
I sense that the prevailing opinion here is that Witnesses should not have children; if they do the chgildren will be taken away by the State. You know, you keep saying things like this, and people keep correcting you, and then you keep saying them. It gets a little frustrating after a while.

Nobody has said anything of this sort. If you guys want to have children, fine, have at it. All we are asking is that you take proper care of them, which means not killing them because of your interpretation of a Bible statement. And if you insist on trying to kill your child, I wouldn't ask that the state take your child away -- just that they step in and make sure the child's interests are properly looked after, with the main interest being "staying alive." If you disagree with that, well, tough shit. You have freedom of religion, but you don't have freedom to murder children. As the famous saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. In this case, your right to practice your religion ends when it means killing a child.

Sneevil
06-03-2000, 11:58 PM
Anyone so brainwashed by their warped interpretation of God's word that they would deny their child medical treatment needs to be prosecuted criminally. Exercise of religious freedom does not mean you can take leave of common sense. It is unconscienable that a parent could allow a sick child to suffer and die.

I am reminded of a story about a so-called 'believer' who was caught in a terrible flood. First he climbed to the second story of his house, and prayed. A boat floated by the window, and the people said "save yourself, climb out the window, and get in the boat with us!". The believer said "No, God will save me." Then the flood waters rose higher, and the believer climbed to the roof. Another boat came by, and the rescuers pleaded "get in the boat and save yourself!" "No", said the believer, "God will save me." The flood waters rose higher, and the believer climbed to the top of the chimney. A helicopter came by and dropped a rope ladder. "Climb up the ladder and save yourself" the bullhorn announced from the helicopter. "No, God will save me." Whereupon the flood waters rose even higher and the believer drowned. He arrived in heaven, really pissed off, demanding to speak with God. "All my life I've been a believer. You promised to answer prayer, and you did not."
"Well", said God, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

God gave us brains to use.

Ptahlis
06-04-2000, 12:04 AM
freedom of religion is sanctioned in the United States' body of law--though it is, as was also pointed out, in the First Amendment of the Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. In short, freedom of religion depends on the individual's understanding of his own rights--not the understanding of a third party such as a physician (or a judge, for that matter).


As every other right you care to name, freedom of religion is limited. Your freedom of religion does not permit you to allow a child to die. That is the law dougie, as has been pointed out to you time and again. It seems that while preaching the understanding of your rights you utterly fail to understand that they are not absolute. Your religion, no matter what it says, does not give you the right to harm a child (and yes, preventing someone from saving your child's life is indeed harming them, in case you aren't clear on this.)


Furthermore, minor children do not have "unalienable rights" even though they are United States citizens. I sense that the prevailing opinion here is that Witnesses should not have children; if they do the chgildren will be taken away by the State.


Children do indeed have the right to life, even if they are unfortunate enough to be born to JW parents who try to use a book to deny this right. I do not hold the opinion that no JW's should have children (well, maybe one I can think of) just that they shouldn't be allowed to kill them.


I am not posting straight lines in this thread nor do I appreciate being made a "foil" for those with a smart-aleck sense of humor.


dougie, you are acting the perfect straight man. Your posts beg people to make fun of you because you refuse to address the content of people who reply to you. You said:


When I said "I'll bite" I was inviting other posters to give a specific interpretation--since that was what they had been harping on all along--of certain Bible verses.


Yet when people gave you those interpretations, and when I called you on yours, you railed against the whole notion of interpreting the Bible, as if the meaning you derive from it was made of golden nuggets from God's own mouth while everyone else's interpretation was garbage. I could look for the exact quote if you like, but I believe you basically said that "whenever anyone talks about 'interpreting' the Bible it makes me sick." You want people to take you seriously? Then you'll have to answer their posts seriously, and drop the doubletalk.

You wanted objections to your interpretation and got them. You got other people's interpretations, which you failed to counter. You tried claiming scientific backing for your notions about transfusions and the weight of the evidence came down clearly on the other side. Yet you continue to try to debate your views without supporting them or addressing the posts that challenge yours most effectively. If you want to claim that you believe what you believe out of pure faith, then make that claim. Just don't expect to do well in a debate where you are expected to support those beliefs.

I'll tell you straight out, in plain language: Your interpretation of those passages is entirely unreasonable, and your notion of children's welfare being wholly under parents' jurisdiction even unto death is not only amoral but entirely repugnant. I do indeed hope that should you breed your child never needs a blood transfusion. I also hope fervently that such a child would grow up to reject the ugly notions above rather than perpetuate them.

Holly
06-04-2000, 11:17 AM
Anyone care to document the notion that the Watchtower Society doesn't want Witnesses to do independent research?
The Watchtower, 1/15/83 page 22. (Talking about ways to stay on the straight-and-narrow.) "Avoid independent thinking."

The Watchtower, 7/1/94 pages 12-13. "As loyal servants of Jehovah, why would we even want to peek at the propaganda put out by rejecters of Jehovah's table?"

The Watchtower also states that all literature published by any other religion "intends to deceive".

The Watchtower prohibits its followers to read certain books, including Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz. He was a honcho at the Watchtower's main office in Brooklyn for many years. This book is an expose of what life in the Watchtower Society is really like.

Other books forbidden to JW's include the Elder Manual (unless, of course, you're a JW elder) entitled "Pay Attention to Yourself and to All of the Flock". This book delineates the procedures for monitoring behavior and how to deal with transgressions. Forbidden to all JW's except the top JW official in each country (the "coordinator") is the Branch Office Procedure book, which shows how the organization is run.

The point is that I am wholly unfettered by the Watchtower Society, let alone by the Teeming Millions, or anyone else, in the matter of research, where it concerns what sources I will or will not use.
Unless you're reading something that is specifically forbidden by the WTS, it's unlikely you'd get disfellowshipped unless the elders told you to stop and you persisted. However, holding a belief contrary to that allowed by the WTS will get you disfellowshipped. For example, if you think it's okay for a person to accept red blood cells for his child who is bleeding to death, or if you believe it's okay for a husband and wife to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home, etc. you're liable to end up in front of the judicial committee and then disfellowshipped if you don't repent of your apostate views.

FWI, many JW's have been disfellowshipped for the apostate view that it's okay to read a Bible translation not published by the WTS, or that it's okay to read the Bible without using the Watchtower or Awake as reading guides.

Holly
06-05-2000, 03:12 AM
Of course, nothing in my last post was relevant to the issue of denying kids medical treatment. Parents can raise their children in any faith they choose; they just can't serve the kids the special kool-aid.

Also, in rereading the Declaration of Independence, I'm having a hard time finding the part that says kids don't have inalienable rights. Perhaps they meant that everyone's created equal, but your rights don't kick in until you reach age 18.

slick_willie
06-06-2000, 11:21 PM
Now holly, you had to go and make me slap ya with the book. You said that JW's now accept organ transplants, but your wrong. I can tell you from personal experience. My parents are JW's and I frequently read their materials. THEY DO NOT PERMIT ORGAN TRANSPLANTS!!! Let me ask you something, assuming that you are a doctor. If god would permit transplants, why is it then that when a transplant occurs, you have to take medicines to supress your immune system from attacking the organ. If god wanted them to occur, why wouldn't he make all organs compatible with everyone elses? Just think about that. And as for you not picking on the JW's, it's clearly evident that you have centered them as your discussion topic. Again I ask why you don't mention Faith Healers? As for rights to children's health, that would go to the parents or legal guardians, not you. You have no say so in how they live their lives or how they guard their childrens lives. So, if you're operating on a JW child, be that much more careful, because if you ask me, their lives are in your hands when it all comes down to it.

David B
06-07-2000, 08:32 AM
If you're going to slap her with the book, how about some actual references, rather than "I read it so it's true"?

Also, I see you managed to completely ignore my response explaining what this discussion is about. Good show!

As to your ridiculous statement about how God must be against organ transplants because people have to take drugs to suppress immune response, that's quite an illogical leap you've made there. By that illogic, God must be in favor of bacterial infections, because people have to take antibiotics to fight them. And he must want folks to have asthma, because you have to use medicine to be able to breathe.

All praise the God of ear infections, strep throat and asthma! Sing Hallelujah!

Ptahlis
06-07-2000, 11:35 AM
If god would permit transplants, why is it then that when a transplant occurs, you have to take medicines to supress your immune system from attacking the organ. If god wanted them to occur, why wouldn't he make all organs compatible with everyone elses? Just think about that.


If God is against organ transplants, then why are those immunosuppressive drugs effective? If God didn't want them to occur, then why do people recover and live longer lives when the organ transplants are received? As long as you are second guessing God's motives, why do you assume he would make everything easy?


And as for you not picking on the JW's, it's clearly evident that you have centered them as your discussion topic. Again I ask why you don't mention Faith Healers?


Look, if you want to see a debate on faith healers, then go start a thread about them. That's not what this thread is about.


As for rights to children's health, that would go to the parents or legal guardians, not you. You have no say so in how they live their lives or how they guard their childrens lives.


*Sigh* Have you at least tried to read this thread? As has been pointed out many times, the law has provisions to allow the state as well as medical professionals to override a parent's rights when it is deemed necessary and proper. A child is not property. Parents have the rights of guardianship, not ownership.



So, if you're operating on a JW child, be that much more careful, because if you ask me, their lives are in your hands when it all comes down to it.


Of course. Just as they do when operating on any person at all, regardless of their faith or age. What's your point?

dougie_monty
06-07-2000, 06:14 PM
I confess that I have not thoroughly read the postings on this thread. But I come by it honestly: I do not own a home computer and my use of a public computer is limited by time and money: I am keying this in at the Kinko's in Torrance, CA, and for use of this computer I must pay 20 cents a minute, or $12 per hour; so I tend not to take enough time.
I would appreciate it, furthermore, if the posters who have answered my request for their "interpretations" of certain verses (and a basis for such interpretation) would give me a citation for them--username, date, and time of day, or at least the proper page of this thread, so I can refer back to them promptly. Thanks. :)
That said, I stand by my assertion about independent research. Again, I don't possess at home something necessary for this--volumes of the Watchtower, in this instance--for quick reference, concerning your comments that the Watchtower Society allegedly opposes such research. As a paralegal I do so much independent research it's second nature. Besides, in 1970 the Watchtower Society published a book titled "Make Sure of All Things...", the verse, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, I mentioned in an earlier post. This volume--I've had my own copy of it since 1970--cites mostly Bible verses, but also uses quite a few non-Bibilical sources, and, believe it or not, quotes from other Bible versions, including the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, Douay, and Moffatt. Your turn.

kinoons
06-08-2000, 12:15 AM
[QUOTE]
*Sigh* Have you at least tried to read this thread? As has been pointed out many times, the law has provisions to allow the state as well as medical professionals to override a parent's rights when it is deemed necessary and proper. A child is not property. Parents have the rights of guardianship, [b]not ownership.

[quote][b]

Those laws are different from state to state -- for example, in new mexico a parent as exclusive right to decide treatment for his or her child -- as an EMT I can come to a scene, see a child lying in the street bleeding profusely, and if the parent says for me to not touch her child, the I cant. The only exception is that if I can deem the parent mentally incompent for some reasion.

Holly
06-08-2000, 04:00 AM
Now holly, you had to go and make me slap ya with the book. You said that JW's now accept organ transplants, but your wrong. I can tell you from personal experience. My parents are JW's and I frequently read their materials. THEY DO NOT PERMIT ORGAN TRANSPLANTS!!!
Organ transplants were first mentioned in the August, 1961 issue of The Watchtower. At that time, the practice was not forbidden. "If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, he can make such a provision and no one else should criticize him for doing so."

In the Nov 15, 1967 issue, organ transplants were condemned as cannibalism. At no time was the ban backed up by scripture; instead, the WTS used some wild and unscientific claims to bolster their position. For example, in the Sept 1, 1975 issue, the Watchtower claims that having a heart transplant is the same as having a personality transplant because the heart is the seat of emotions. They tossed in a few weird anecdotes from time to time; for example, a middle-aged man who received a heart transplant from a 20 year old suddenly announced he was going to celebrate his 20th birthday. Etc.

The Watchtower reversed its position on transplants in the March 15, 1980 issue. "Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

Awake! had an article on May 22, 1994 describing a little girl (child of JWs) who was fortunate enough to successfully undergo a heart transplant using "bloodless surgery". Awake! would certainly not have published an article showing acceptance of organ transplant if the practice was still forbidden.
Your folks need to toss out their old Watchtowers and Awakes. You can get disfellowshipped for believing some of the stuff that was taught in those magazines in the past. Must keep up with the changing regs.
Let me ask you something, assuming that you are a doctor.You assume wrong. I'm a nurse.

If god would permit transplants, why is it then that when a transplant occurs, you have to take medicines to supress your immune system from attacking the organ. If god wanted them to occur, why wouldn't he make all organs compatible with everyone elses? Just think about that.[quote]If god didn't want people to eat blood, why did he design the human body so that breastfeeding babies receive large quantities of white blood cells in their mothers' milk? Just think about that. Actually, you're quite free to use your individual conscience to refuse an organ transplant. Just please understand that this is not the Watchtower Society's present doctrine on the matter.

[quote]Again I ask why you don't mention Faith Healers?Again I ask why you don't read my response to this question which I posted in a timely manner when you asked me the first time?
As for rights to children's health, that would go to the parents or legal guardians, not you.As I have stated time and again, I do believe society has an obligation to step in to prevent serious harm or death to a child when his parents will not do so. In my nursing school pediatric rotation, I had as a patient a girl about 5 years old. She was mildly retarded, sickly, and cute as a bug. She'd been admitted for rectal bleeding. The doctor who did her colonoscopy discovered that the last foot of her intestine was thoroughly destroyed, sphincters and all, because her own daddy had been raping her anally for who-knows-how-long. I suppose that's his right, isn't it? Since his daughter is his property?

David B
06-08-2000, 07:55 AM
Kinoons said:
as an EMT I can come to a scene, see a child lying in the street bleeding profusely, and if the parent says for me to not touch her child, the I cant. The only exception is that if I can deem the parent mentally incompent for some reasion. Well, if I saw a parent allowing his/her child to bleed in the street, I'd pretty much automatically assume mental incompetence and let the courts hash it out later -- after I saved the child.

kinoons
06-10-2000, 12:45 AM
David,

I wish it was that easy. Personally, I'd have every desire to assist the child. Have I ever personally been confronted with the situation? No, I havent. Therefor I dont know how I would react. I can say that it would lead to one wonderful lawsute, most likely ending in the revoking of my license. Isint breucroacy a wonderful thing?

Flymaster
06-10-2000, 01:14 AM
If you value your job and reputation above the life of an innocent child, I would suggest you go into another line of work.

kinoons
06-10-2000, 01:59 AM
I didnt say that I valued my job and reputation over that of the life of a child. I said that in the state I work the parent has the right to refuse treatment for their child. I do respect the right of the child, but, at the same time, I have to respect the rights of the parents. Its one of the worst parts of being in the medical field. If a parent says do not touch my child, I am legally obliged to comply

I'll again state that I've never been in that situation so I dont know what I would do.

David B
06-10-2000, 09:50 AM
Well, I have no doubt as to what I'd do, and I've already said it above. If there is a lawsuit, I can't believe a jury would go against somebody for saving the life of a child.

Flymaster
06-10-2000, 02:44 PM
I didn't mean to imply that you did. I was saying "you" in the sense of "sombody." Sorry for the confusion.

dougie_monty
06-10-2000, 06:57 PM
I believe it is necessary to call attention to a major point sustained in this thread: If a person has a blood transfusion, he/she will live; if he/she does not, he/she will die. (Cf. Arthur Ashe.)
Have I missed an explanation of this point? If I understand aright all other sub-points on this thread have been appended to this premise. And without compelling evidence--medical, mind you--I am not prepared to make such an assumption. If it has already been discussed here, tell me which page it's on and by all means I will go back and peruse it. But please, no more name-calling. It's not worthy of the Teeming Millions.

David B
06-11-2000, 09:58 AM
As you've done throughout this thread, you've oversimplified again in saying:
I believe it is necessary to call attention to a major point sustained in this thread: If a person has a blood transfusion, he/she will live; if he/she does not, he/she will die. No. If a person needs a blood transfusion and gets one, the chances are better than he will live. If a person needs a blood transfusion and doesn't get one, the chances are much greater that he will die.

Holly
06-12-2000, 08:27 PM
Say a person comes into the hospital after a car wreck with a hemothorax: blood is pooling around a lung, causing the lung to collapse. The patient's heart rate shoots up, he becomes very short of breath, he begins to turn blue, his blood pressure drops and he becomes unresponsive. Standard procedure would be for a doctor to immediately insert a chest tube to remove the pooled blood and thus reinflate the lung.

Can a patient with a hemothorax survive without a chest tube? It depends. It depends on how large the hemothorax is, how extensive are the patient's other injuries, how sick or healthy he was before the accident, how well his lungs work normally. Taking all these factors into account, some patients can survive without a chest tube; others will surely die. On the other hand, having a chest tube is not a guarantee that the patient will live. Depending on all those other factors, he might die no matter what the doctor does.

Blood transfusion works the same way. A transfusion can't guarantee survival. There are certainly cases where withholding a transfusion will result in death.

The JW ban on transfusion, though, has nothing to do with medical efficacy. If transfusion was a certain cure for every ailment from blood loss to migraines to cancer to the common cold, JW doctrine would (presumably) still prohibit it.

dougie_monty
06-29-2000, 06:59 PM
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, a medical columnist, commented that he was "not surprised" by a letter from a heart-surgery patient who got a transfusion and afterward developed hepatitis because of it; he said further,
"In some major medical centers, [a] rather significant number of open-heart operations using blood substitutes have been performed with good results on Jehovah's Witness patients who reject human blood transfusions...Perhaps all of us who need surgery that appears to require blood transfusions should ask our surgeons if they are familiar with these scientific reports. Perhaps this can give all of us the same lower incidence of post-transfusion hepatitis and other advantages now enjoyed exclusively by the Witnesses."--The Idaho Statesman, Feb. 15, 1978, p. 8C.
One Dr. D. Goldstein wrote: "No matter how certain he is that the therapy he recommends is the only one that will preserve life, no physician has the moral right to over-ride a patient's religious scruple." (Emphasis mine.) A comment followed this, from Pediatrics magazine of December, 1977, p. 919:
"Our decision to abide by their requests to limit our therapy by withholding the use of transfusions was based on two factors. First, each of these children had a potentially fatal disease, and we could not predict a successful outcome without significant doubt. Second, we acknowlendged that at the time of life-threatening illnes, the patient's need for an unshaken faith is magnified." (Emphasis mine again.)
In June 1973 I got a finger on my left hand nicked by the blade of a power mower, when I accidentally poked it under the housing while the mower was running. (I had adjusted power mowers while they were running a number of times before this.) The gardener I was working with took me to a local doctor's office and I was treated. My mother, who has never accepted my ideas about religion, later told me sharply, "You know that if you had to have a transfusion you would have accepted it." I knew and know nothing of the kind.

Ptahlis
06-29-2000, 08:02 PM
One Dr. D. Goldstein wrote: "No matter how certain he is that the therapy he recommends is the only one that will preserve life, no physician has the moral right to over-ride a patient's religious scruple." (Emphasis mine.) A comment followed this, from Pediatrics magazine of December, 1977, p. 919:
"Our decision to abide by their requests to limit our therapy by withholding the use of transfusions was based on two factors. First, each of these children had a potentially fatal disease, and we could not predict a successful outcome without significant doubt. Second, we acknowlendged that at the time of life-threatening illnes, the patient's need for an unshaken faith is magnified." (Emphasis mine again.)


So, blood substitutes don't carry the risk of donor infections? DUH! The day that a good blood replacement becomes widely available rather than merely experimental, physicians will jump for joy and wholeheartedly abandon human blood because of it.

As far as the material quoted above, the Doctor Goldstein seems to agree with you (although he doesn't specifically mention children.) Yippy-Skippy! We side with you too, so long as you don't force such a choice on children who know no better than to parrot your teachings. Even if Goldstein does believe as you do, he is one of a tiny minority who judge your ethics in this situation to be adequate.

I notice that the doctors in the comment above could not really say whether or not the children would benefit from a transfusion in your second quote, and deferred to their wishes in that situation. That is hardly the same thing as allowing them to refuse treatment when a transfusion is warranted.

If this is the best you can do after three weeks, then I'm afraid your evidentiary foundation is pretty poor.

slick_willie
06-30-2000, 11:52 AM
So, Phtallis, are you saying that a young child isn't allowed to believe in his/her god? If i'm not mistaken, the Constitution provides parents with the right to choose their childs religion.(saw it in library book. I'll find it and give you name.) Now when they turn 15 they can throw a royal fit like i did and quit going. But one thing I remember from childhood is that my mom and dad talked to me about the whole blood thing and asked me what i wanted. I assume that most jw parents talk to their children as my mom and dad did.

Ptahlis
06-30-2000, 12:24 PM
Of course parents can teach their children to follow whatever faith they choose, be it the JW's or something else. However, children are judged by the law as being essentially unable to fully question these beliefs. Deep philosophical musings on the logical implications and contradicitions inherent in a belief system are truly beyond the capabilitites of most 10 year olds. (Heck, experience on this board has shown me that it is beyond the capabilities of some adults to question what they have been taught.)

In any case, while parents have the right to refuse treatment, despite the vast bulk of scientific evidence to the contrary, the law assumes informed choice based on faith. When a child makes this choice, the law assumes his choice is uninformed. Even if a child understands the basics of the science, he is rarely, if ever, capable of evaluating for himself the truth behind the religious beliefs he has been taught.

Parents have enormous authority over the rights of their children in many areas. One area they do not have authority in is a child's basic right to life. In other words, the choice to forego receiving a life-saving treatment on religious grounds is fine, but you be capable of making that choice in an informed manner, and you must make it for yourself.

Satan
06-30-2000, 12:44 PM
slick_willie:

It's a far cry from saying you have to go to church than it is not allowing your child to get the medical care which can save his or her life, don't you think?

As for where the line should be drawn - Well, that's simple. Endangering is endangering. If I heard of a family who was into the whole snake-handing thing that had their severn year olds taking part, I would consider them unfit to parent and if their child died from this, I would charge them for murder.

__________________
Yer putz,
Satan :wally

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, three weeks, 14 hours, 46 minutes and 22 seconds.
3304 cigarettes not smoked, saving $413.08.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes.

Annie-Xmas
06-30-2000, 04:19 PM
The quotes doug used were from the early 1970's!
This is a common Jehovah Witness Practice: find
a quote that agrees with your belief and use it.
Some of their books use "scientific" quotes
from the 1920's!

Can you give me a quote newer than say 1995?

Holly
06-30-2000, 05:38 PM
dougie_monty: In some major medical centers, [a] rather significant number of open-heart operations using blood substitutes have been performed with good results on Jehovah's Witness patients who reject human blood transfusions...
Problem is, there is no blood substitute (yet). I assume the guy's talking about medications like Hespan (a volume expander that's commonly used; problems include the fact that it can't carry oxygen, the patient can only receive one liter in a 24 hour period, and fatal adverse reactions such as severe blood dyscrasias can occur) and IV fluids like normal saline or lactated ringer's (which also can't carry oxygen and are actually harmful in large amounts in cases of severe blood loss because they dilute the blood, impeding its oxygen-carrying function).

It would be fabulous if a good blood substitute was available. Someday, hopefully soon, one will be. Think about it: why in the world would physicians continue to use blood if a safe and effective blood substitute was available? Satanic influence, perhaps? Right now, there is no substitute for blood in cases of severe hemorrhage.

One Dr. D. Goldstein wrote: "No matter how certain he is that the therapy he recommends is the only one that will preserve life, no physician has the moral right to over-ride a patient's religious scruple."

I agree. I also believe that the physician certainly does have the right to override the patient's parent's religious scruples if he must do so to save a minor child's life.

"Our decision to abide by their requests to limit our therapy by withholding the use of transfusions was based on two factors. First, each of these children had a potentially fatal disease, and we could not predict a successful outcome without significant doubt. Second, we acknowlendged that at the time of life-threatening illnes, the patient's need for an unshaken faith is magnified."

What the doctors are saying here is that the children were so desperately ill that they were going to die with or without a blood transfusion; therefore giving a transfusion wouldn't be worth the effort. Since the kids were going to die shortly, might as well let them cling to their faith because they were past the point where medicine could help them.

dougie_monty
07-10-2000, 07:22 PM
In some major medical centers, [a] rather significant number of open-heart operations using blood substitutes have been performed with good results on
Jehovah's Witness patients who reject human blood transfusions...
Problem is, there is no blood substitute (yet). I assume the guy's talking about medications like Hespan (a volume expander that's commonly used; problems include the fact that it can't carry oxygen, the patient can only receive one liter in a 24 hour period, and fatal adverse reactions such as severe blood dyscrasias can occur) and IV fluids like normal saline or lactated ringer's (which also can't carry oxygen and are actually harmful in large amounts in cases of severe blood loss because they dilute the blood, impeding its oxygen-carrying function).
Have I missed something here? Unless I have, it seems that you are squarely contradicting a statement in my quoted paragraph you used. Specifically, "[A] rather significant number of open-heart operations using blood substitutes have been performed [my emphasis]..."
Doesn't this say plainly that operations using blood substitutes have (already) been performed? On this basis, how on earth can you say, in the next paragraph, that 'there are no blood substitutes'? How can this be when the verb form that is used in the paragraph is "have been performed"--in the present-perfect tense, as they say in Spanish?
Unless there's a passage in the quoted paragraph that I have overlooked, you, Holly, are flying straight in the face of someone else's quoted fact--a physician or medical writer, mind you, not a Jehovah's Witness.

Holly
07-11-2000, 03:27 AM
Okay, let me clarify. Yes, there are blood substitutes. Hespan, normal saline, pondwater, or any other liquid substance can be used in place of blood. IV fluids can perform a few of the functions of blood.

Open heart surgery can be done without blood transfusion. I have not personally seen a Jehovah's Witness survive for long after having heart surgery without transfusion, but I accept that it's possible and has occurred.

My point is this: though there are some substances that are used as blood substitutes, there is no adequate substitute for blood at this time. There is no artificial version of blood that can do all the life-sustaining duties of blood. IV fluid can expand blood volume by dilution, but it cannot carry oxygen. It's not like you can give a person who is bleeding to death a few liters of IV fluid and expect that to fix the problem.

If there existed a good blood substitute, doctors would not use blood, ever.

capacitor
08-10-2000, 02:53 AM
Hey, what if a JW's child is forced into a transfusion, and the child sinds up with hepatitis-c or AIDS? What remedy do the parents have?

capacitor
08-10-2000, 02:55 AM
winds up with...

Satan
08-10-2000, 11:13 AM
capacitor: What exactly is your point here?

Nobody is saying that you see a doctor and *poof* everything is hunky dory. Things happen.

In your example, if it is malpractice, the dorctors will pay via a law suit and damage to reputation. If not, it is unfortunate, but we did all we could.

However, what others suggest result in: "We did NOT do all we could. In fact, we did nothing."
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, one day, 13 hours, 12 minutes and 41 seconds.
4942 cigarettes not smoked, saving $617.75.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 3 hours, 50 minutes.

"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
Thanks for the ringing endorsement, honey![/i]

capacitor
08-10-2000, 04:15 PM
My point is maybe JW's wish to have their children avoid such "unfortunate" side-effects as a result of a forced operation. I believe that it is quite a legitimate reason to avoid blood transfusions if possible. it has only been in vogue since WWII, and many doctors are searching alternatives to blood because the safety of screening cannot be 100%.

Ptahlis
08-10-2000, 04:32 PM
That seems a wholly disingenuous argument though capacitor. "There's a 75% chance you're child will live with the transfusion, but a 0.01% chance that he will contract a blood-bourne disease. On the other hand, he has a 100% chance of not contracting the disease without the transfusion, but only a 30% chance to live." Are you trying to accuse the JW's of not even understanding basic math?

capacitor
08-10-2000, 05:11 PM
They understand the risks involved in taking the stance they take. It is also a 100% certainty that they may feel that they let their God down when a blood transfusion has been successfully forced upon them or their children.

LadyBear
08-10-2000, 06:04 PM
But I think the argument being made is that the parents are infringing on the child's right to life by refusing potentially life-saving procedures?

I may just be stewing after having read the whole thread in one sitting, but it seems like plain abuse to me to do that to a child. There may be arguments about the parents' rights to raise their child however they want, but 'however' has some pretty hazy boundaries as has been pointed out.

The reluctance to allow transfusions isn't originally based on concern for blood-borne diseases, it's based on a passage in the Bible concerning consumption of blood. A passage I always kinda took (when I was even nominally Christian) to have something to do with idolatry and drinking blood as part of religious observance. Again, this could be way wrong.

There are also passages in the Bible telling you to break other commandments under extraordinary circumstances. Such as the one telling you that if you come upon a creature in distress on the Sabbath it's okay to break Sabbath in order to assist said creature. I would assume this goes for people also.

Does this mean, perhaps, that breaking other 'rules' is okay in order to assist and perhaps save a human being's life?

Personally, do whatever you as an adult want for yourself. Don't force that sort of thing on a child. Let the kid grow up and decide right and wrong for him or herself.

Morals are a choice not a fact.

Just my own little rant.

capacitor
08-11-2000, 02:17 AM
How about this: what if the situation occured in a foreign country, where the local blood supply is not nearly as thoroughly screened as it is in the US. In fact here is a guide (http://www.armchair.com/info/bloodtrf.html) for travellers that essentially say to avoid whole blood in a foreign country as much as possible. If you visited Britain for at least six months since 1980, your blood is refused (http://www.onhealth.com/conditions/briefs/item,93793.asp), because of the risk of mad cow disease. So under these circumstances, would such a stance by a JW against blood be more feasable? I would think so.

Satan
08-11-2000, 11:58 AM
capacitor:

It is one thing to ay "I don't want a transfusion because I think it's more likely to hurt me than help me" (though I still think a doctor knows more about this than a layman).

It is quite another to say, "I am not getting a transfusion because God says drinking blood is bad in the Bible."

Is this such a difficult distinction to comprehend?
__________________
Yer pal,
Satan

I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Four months, two days, 13 hours, 57 minutes and 52 seconds.
4983 cigarettes not smoked, saving $622.91.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 3 days, 7 hours, 15 minutes.
ATHENA HAD AN EROTIC DREAM ABOUT ME!

capacitor
08-12-2000, 12:30 AM
Then why are they not allowed to make both arguments?

Nocturne
08-12-2000, 01:43 AM
This is just personal opinion, but:
I'm Christian, yet I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with getting a blood transfusion or organ transplant or anything like that.
One of God's names is "The Great Physician". If we're "in God's image", wouldn't it follow that some of us would be called to the medical field?
I think it's rather fishy that the Watchtower Society finally agreed to organ transplants. I've found in most hierarchies (be them political, social, or religious), the "rulers" will enforce ridiculous interpretations of laws until these laws conflict with something they want/need. It's happened with every church, though, I'm not attacking JWs.
I think it's cruelty to let a child suffer...they're not adults, they're going through vast amounts of pain most of the time, but all in all, they still have a voice.
I think it's negligent homicide, pure and simple, but I suppose everyone's got to have their choice.
But the kids aren't getting an unbiased choice.

capacitor
08-18-2000, 02:24 AM
It is not fishy. It is an adjustment to positions based on medical advances. The original reason to object to organ transplants was that there was massive bleeding and that occurs during the operation. The blood was replaced by transfusion. Now operations are made with much less bloodshed and many times no blood is needed to be replaced, either by blood products or by substitution.

Here is another question: if you claim that blood is an organ transplant, should we force children to undergo other organ transplants by court decision as well?

BTW, the situation in Britain (http://php.indiana.edu/~lzambeni/ukbloodban.html), I believe, makes the JW position look better and better all of the time. You probably haven't heard about this in conventional news.

Holly
08-18-2000, 03:27 AM
The original reason to object to organ transplants was that there was massive bleeding and that occurs during the operation.
No; the original reasons The Watchtower objected to transplants were because they considered it to be cannibalism, and because they believed that transplants (especially heart transplants) would alter the personality and character of the recipient. Similarly, the Watchtower used to forbid the use of aluminum cookware because it was believed that aluminum cookware was the cause of severe health problems, from mental illness to cancer. Once it became clear that aluminum cookware was not the deadly threat the Watchtower believed it to be, the ban was quietly dropped.

BTW, the situation in Britain, I believe, makes the JW position look better and better all of the time. You probably haven't heard about this in conventional news.
Actually, I think the situation in Britain goes to show that there is at this time no good synthetic blood substitute, but if there was one, no one would ever get a transfusion. Yes, transfusion carries risks. Ideally it would never be necessary, but when a child is facing immediate death from hemorrhage, the doctor will not say, "Well, a transfusion would save his life, but we'd better not do it because we'll be placing him at risk of contracting CJD".

Holly
08-18-2000, 03:53 AM
Of course I forgot to mention that the Watchtower does NOT forbid the use of albumin, which can carry CJD, so JW's are not protected from contracting the disease. They are also allowed to get vaccinations, which may be infected with CJD. (Ironically, long before CJD was a real threat, JW's were not allowed to be vaccinated.)

capacitor
08-19-2000, 11:23 PM
They lifted that ban in 1952. You shoud give them credit for adjusting their positions in the face of to medical and scientific advances as quickly as they did. Not too many religions in history have ever done that. They wrote that Galileo was right about the earth not being in the center of the universe before the Catholic Church did.

Holly
08-20-2000, 03:27 AM
The JW ban on blood is supposed to be Biblical. It really shouldn't matter how healthful or dangerous blood transfusions are since presumably JW's would reject transfusion even if it could be proved without a doubt that all transfusions are completely safe or that transfusion is a miraculous cure for everything from sinus pressure to bowel cancer.

The Watchtower Society has never been a supporter of scientific advancement. They will happily quote snippets of studies that appear to support their agenda. They seem to adore statistics, especially the sort of statistics that claim hepatitis is growing at suchandsuch alarming rate or that so many Europeans don't pray. They routinely run short educational articles, written in a style that is easily understood by fourth graders everywhere, and generally concluding that such and such South African spider is proof of how fantastic and loving Jehovah is.

The WTS has repeatedly discouraged its followers from pursuing college education. After all, if this world is going to end any day now, wouldn't it make far more sense to spend every precious moment witnessing? What use will a college degree be after this world passes away? Besides, going to college is dangerous. Too many worldly influences.

The WTS has a long history of opposition to science. The WTS has openly clung to quackery. To claim that the WTS is honestly concerned with the advancement of science would be ludicrous.

If the Biblical warnings to avoid eating blood are so clear, it's curious how the JW position on blood has wavered over the years. That is, the individual components of blood are almost randomly assigned as "acceptable" or "not acceptable", and some of the blood components switch from one list to the other from time to time. Why, if the Biblical basis for the belief is so clear, does the WTS change its mind? Why are some components allowed, but others not?

Mr2001
08-20-2000, 03:39 AM
You shoud give them credit for adjusting their positions in the face of to medical and scientific advances as quickly as they did.
So when will they adjust their position on blood transfusions, given the huge body of evidence supporting them?

capacitor
08-21-2000, 01:51 AM
They have, Mr2001. Whole blood is rarely used anymore, but several parts of blood instead. JW's go into detail about what blood products are allowed and what are not, in adjusting to science, as discussed before.

Mr2001, blood transfusions is not a cure-all, and doctors are actively finding alternatives to using blood. As discussed before, they have developed replenishing fluids that can be applied to anyone who needs it, and these fluids are without the devastating side-effects associated with organ transplants, or the terminal side-effects peculiarly linked to blood trnsfusions. Doctors are looking to eliminate the need for transfusion in the future.

Another question: should we force children to undergo other transplants?

Ptahlis
08-21-2000, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by capacitor
...blood transfusions is not a cure-all, and doctors are actively finding alternatives to using blood. As discussed before, they have developed replenishing fluids that can be applied to anyone who needs it, and these fluids are without the devastating side-effects associated with organ transplants, or the terminal side-effects peculiarly linked to blood trnsfusions. Doctors are looking to eliminate the need for transfusion in the future.



Of course transfusions are not a cure-all. They have the potential to be deadly even. However, when warranted, they are the best that we have to offer, and their benefits overwhelmingly outwiegh the risks.

There are three main reasons that a substitute for whole blood is being sought after. First, elimination of that small percentage of blood that carries harmful pathogens, second, the shortage of blood that the Red Cross is forever fighting against, and third, the limited shelf life of whole blood.

However, your suggestion that JW's are being cautious because of the science is simply ludicrous. Transfusions have been accepted medical practice for many years, and the JW's have resisted scientific evidence during that time because of their religious beliefs. They have however, latched on to any item that notes any of the dangers to try and make their Biblical interpretation seem reasonable in scientific terms, while simultaneously ignoring as pointedly as possible the evidence that supports transfusions.

If they wish to have a Biblically based ban on transfusions, that is an argument open only to theological counters. However, they keep trying to use science to bolster their religious sentiments, and it simply doesn't do that job very well. It's exactly like Creation "Scientists" fighting to make science support a literal interpretation of Genesis. The evidence doesn't support the argument.