Yeah, cause God forbid we should allow any goddamn freedom of religious expression. That would be terrible.
As a jew it always scares the living shit out of me when someone says that the government should intervene in someone’s life due to religion. Even to the point of advising that a man’s children be taken away? Perhaps you’d like to indoctrinate them into something more mainstream. Can’t have any dissenting ideas and belief patterns, can we?
I swear to God that people disgust me sometimes.
Yes. While there’s no problem in Jewish law with transfusions at all, even something that might otherwise be prohibited is allowed if it’s done to save a life, as long as it doesn’t involve one of the Big Three transgressions (murder, idolatry, or adultery). For example, one is allowed to drive to the hospital on the Sabbath for a medical emergency, or eat on Yom Kippur if it would be dangerous to fast (e.g. a diabetic.)
What a painful, horrible situation. Where did this happen? I’m assuming she was a minor - how old was she? If she’s old enough to hold down a job and she’s able to articulate her wishes to receive treatment, I’m aghast that the health care / legal systems would allow an individual to die under those circumstances.
Y’know, that is interesting!
**Wallet ** doesn’t say how old his/her friend was, but if the young lady was a minor (say, maybe she was a high-schooler working an after-school job), then the mother would probably have automatic medical power of attorney (note: IANAlawyer).
I’m thinking, though, that perhaps the young lady had fallen unconscious before it became obvious that she’d need a transfusion, in which case, despite her age, maybe the mother would still have POA?
Even then, though, if the young lady was an adult (and unconscious, thus unable to voice her preferences), I’d think that, absent legal documentation–and regardless of *anyone’s * status as POA–the hospital would take any potentially life-saving measures that were available to them.
It’ll be interesting to see what information **Wallet ** can provide, if he/she wishes to.
At any rate, Wallet, my condolences on the loss of your friend. May peace be upon her memory.
It is really unnerving to see the amount of nastiness in this thread, especially from a group of people who consider themselves so progressive and open-minded.
I certainly don’t agree with the woman. I think it’s foolish to lose your life and tear your family apart, but it isn’t my decision to make.
For some people, their religion is something that defines them as a person and controls most decisions in their lives. Do we really want doctors forcing their beliefs (or what the “majority” of people believe) on an adult who is capable of making their own decisions?
And when it amounts to refusing perfectly safe medical treatment in a life threatening situation its called “danger to self”.
There are people who refuse different treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation therapy and instead opt to die in peace. Naturally I realize these are more complicated procedures, but still safe. Refusing that treatment can be labeled as being a danger to self. The problem is, where do you end up drawing the line?
As someone who has worked in trauma units, I don’t want to see patients losing their right to choose. If it can be demonstrated that the patient is truly not capable of making a sound decision, it is a different story. Just because you (the general you) find their religious beliefs questionable doesn’t count.
I wonder if that’s how god thinks?
We can still laugh at and ridicule those beliefs though… right?
Naturally!
Agreed.
I find this story rather horrifying, but the cure is worse than the disease.
People do and should have the right to their own bodies.
A lot of people who do have that right do some pretty stupid stuff with them.
I have to say that Shoshana and Lil Pluck raise a point, but one I’m willing to argue with. On the one hand we revile the Congressmen who intervened to keep Terry Schiavo alive and on the other we revile those who would let a Jehovah’s Witness die for lack of medical care because of her religious belief. I think the argument has to be something other than “government intervention because government knows best”. We don’t know what was on the poor woman’s mind as she lay dying, knowing she’d never raise her children, knowing she could have raised them if she’d believed differently. Perhaps she really did want to live, but was prevented from voicing her desire to live by her husband, family and church officials. Did she have second thoughts as she succumbed, in those last moments of lucidity? We’ll never know.
What we do know is that fighting such ignorance and insanity with government intervention is a no-win situation. A few lives may be saved, but it won’t persuade anyone that some zealot’s mis-interpretation of ancient Jewish dietary laws is amateurish theology at best and needs to be abandoned. Only when the JWs have more to gain by giving up a belief (as the Mormons did when they traded bigamy for statehood) will they turn their backs on this 19th century anomaly.
Until the, the rest of us just shake our heads, and Richard Dawkins chalks up another sad statistic.
As a doctor, I have to believe that this woman has every right to refuse treatment. I am NOT talking about minors here, only a woman of legal age who should have the right to accept or refuse treatment as she sees fit. Many many times, I find it hard to step back and let the patient decide, but I have to. If we start thinking that doctors know better than patients, then where does it end. I personally know physicians that feel that as long as life support is available, it should be used, even if there is absolutely no brain activity. Can I force an otherwise healthy 85 year old woman to have a mammogram and potential surgery for breast cancer if she declines? She might live 5 years without it, 8 years with aggressive treatment. Who decides what those extra years are worth to her? It’s tragic when a woman refuses a potentially lifesaving transfusion; just as it’s tragic when a teenage diabetic goes out drinking and forgets to take his insulin and heaven knows, I’ve seen enough of those. Should we force every diabetic to be labelled, so that bars can check them at the door and refuse to serve them? Better yet, can we refuse them desserts at restaurants? There has to be a limit to external involvement and a point where the individual has a right to potentially self-destructive behavior.
IMHO, immediate intervention care for acute situations, like death forecasted within the next 30 min unless treatment is administered. Chemo, radiation, etc, are much longer acting concepts that can go on for months and in many cases do far too little good.
FTR: I am an ex-EMT
I find any “belief” based in profound medical ignorance to be questionable at best. I consider it irrelevant that its because of religion, peer pressure, one too many “ask your doctor if NopukeiXL is right for you,” Commercials, whatever.
This woman was a couple units of packed red cells away from going on to live a normal happy life. But Nooooo, the big Woo says "transfusions bad". AFAIAC she basically committed suicide. We as a profession and society hold a rather dim view of such solutions.Are you speaking for the entire medical profession as a whole, or just ex-EMTs? At least one doctor and one nurse (me) in this thread seem to prefer that you don’t speak for us.
Do you propose that doctors should have forced her to have the procedure?
Ok, that came out a lot harsher than I intended. My apologies
I certainly don’t advocate government intervention in cases like this. We must respect the woman’s right to practice her religion and her right to refuse treatment. I agree that intervention would be the greater of two evils. However, I insist that this woman be judged by the decision she made.
A parent has the moral obligation to care for his/her children; I doubt anyone will dispute that claim. Part of this obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure that you survive long enough to see your children to adulthood. If you allow yourself to die while you have children to raise, you’d better have a damned good reason. This woman clearly believed that she had a moral obligation to die before accepting a blood transfusion, but did it really outweigh her obligation to be a mother to her children? I’d figure that a technicality of an obscure dietary law would take a back seat to her maternal instincts. Did she take time to weigh these two obligations against one another? Did she put an ounce of thought into it? Barring that, did she open her heart to what she perceives as God’s plan for her and her family? It appears that no, she didn’t. She made a knee-jerk decision and now her family is left to sort things out. She effectively committed suicide despite her parental responsibilities. She did not die a righteous woman.
Looks like there’s a 21st-century version of Godwin’s Law just waiting to be drawn up. :rolleyes:
You’re new here, aren’t you? “Yay, go Darwin, rah rah rah!”. It’s pitiable, but it’s not as rare as you’d like to think.
I really don’t think you’ve thought this through.
Would you support Satanists sacrificing children to their Deity?
If a religion announces that people must be killed because that religion has been offended, you don’t want the Government to act?