GaWd said:
Not necessarily, no.
Limited protection? How so?
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
That’s why you’re not supposed to read them.
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.
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.
slick_willie:
In the past, organ transplants were forbidden by the Watchtower Society; now they are allowed.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Because I happen to believe that children are human beings with inalienable rights.
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.
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.
Please quote where I said this.
Slick_willie said to Holly:
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.
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.
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…
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.
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!
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
You need to learn not to jump into a discussion when you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about…
Hey CB, how’ve you been?
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!
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.
d_m said:
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.
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.
**
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.)
**
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.
**
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:
**
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!