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?
**
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.
**
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.
Of course. Just as they do when operating on any person at all, regardless of their faith or age. What’s your point?
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.
[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, not ownership.
[quote]
**
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.
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.
You assume wrong. I’m a nurse.
[quote]
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.
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
As you’ve done throughout this thread, you’ve oversimplified again in saying:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
