Refusing Medical Treatment : Religious Freedom or Negligent Homicide?

Great Debates
121

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: in·ter·pret
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

  • in·ter·pret·abil·i·ty /-"t&r-pr&-t&-'bi-l&-tE, -p&-t&-/ noun
  • in·ter·pret·able /-'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.
122

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?

123

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!!

124

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.

125

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

126

dougie_monty:

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.

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.

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.

127

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.

128

d_m said:

Wrong

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.

129

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?

130

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.

131

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.

132

Care to give documentation (including your interpretation of the “context”?)

133

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 says:

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

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.

134

d_m said:

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?

135

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?

136

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.

137

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?

138

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.

139

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.

140

Holly said:

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.

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.