Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,802 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

    My point/question once again is simply to ask that when two people present with unsubstantiated delusions.... why is it we react differently to one, and not the other..... simply because we call one "religion" and the other not

    I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision. A religious person is not necessarily mentally unfit, in the same way as someone who supports homeopathy is not. And you can continue to expand that line of thinking to include those who are just not interested in continuing with medical treatment etc etc. just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not their decision to make.


  • Options
    #123
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision.

    But on what basis? Ì fear that rather than answer my question you have become something of an example of what I mean. The only information I have given you on either hypothetical person is that both of them are operating under an ENTIRELY unsubstantiated truth claim. So why is one more mentally fit or unfit than the other? What is the actual difference between the two people I suggested?
    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not their decision to make.

    Then it is quite fortunate I never made any such claim, is it not?


  • Options
    #124
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    I think the basis of your point is unfounded. We don't react differently because one is religion. We react differently because the other is a 'decision' made by a person who is mentally unfit to make such a decision. A religious person is not necessarily mentally unfit, in the same way as someone who supports homeopathy is not. And you can continue to expand that line of thinking to include those who are just not interested in continuing with medical treatment etc etc. just because you do not agree with someone's decision does not mean it is not thei mer decision to make.

    But, the thing is, those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge for the, at best, well-intentioned but badly uninformed opinion of people who did'nt have the first clue about medicine. And, you can see the mental capacity issue turing up with the modern religions, for example in Scientology most participants are considered brainwashed (even in legal settings) and thus incapable.mentally of making an imformed decision.

    The other issue is that these decisions rarely affect only those making them. Take the religiously inspired anti-vaccination drives, if you live in an area with too low a vaccination take up even if you do the right thing and get your kids vaccinated it may not workbecause of the way herd immunity works. Take also the exasserbation of STIs (mainly AIDS) due to reigious bans on cindom use in Africa.

    Frankly, when you make your choices not on the best info available to you, buton Iron-Age creation myths or the lies of swindling hucksters, logically you should be deemed mentally incapable to make decisions.


  • Options
    #125
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    But, the thing is, those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge for the, at best, well-intentioned but badly uninformed opinion of people who did'nt have the first clue about medicine. And, you can see the mental capacity issue turing up with the modern religions, for example in Scientology most participants are considered brainwashed (even in legal settings) and thus incapable.mentally of making an imformed decision..

    Has a scientologist been delared legally incapable to make a decision based upon their beliefs alone? I would be very interested to see that.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Frankly, when you make your choices not on the best info available to you, buton Iron-Age creation myths or the lies of swindling hucksters, logically you should be deemed mentally incapable to make decisions.

    I absolutely agree that those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge, medical best practice and every bit of common sense that i can see. That may be stupid, irresponsible and foolhardy. But it doesnt mean they have no legal decision making capacity.

    Are you really suggesting that those who make decisions based on anything other than best medical evidence (ie. based on a hunch, or superstition, or upon religous beliefs) should have their decisions ignored and that the state should decide their medical, financial and social decisions for them?


  • Options
    #126
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    drkpower wrote: »
    Has a scientologist been delared legally incapable to make a decision based upon their beliefs alone? I would be very interested to see that.



    I absolutely agree that those who refuse medical treatment because of religion are ignoring modern knowledge, medical best practice and every bit of common sense that i can see. That may be stupid, irresponsible and foolhardy. But it doesnt mean they have no legal decision making capacity.

    Are you really suggesting that those who make decisions based on anything other than best medical evidence (ie. based on a hunch, or superstition, or upon religous beliefs) should have their decisions ignored and that the state should decide their medical, financial and social decisions for them?
    By right these same incompetent people should be sectioned and be locked up as they must surely be an immediate danger to themselves and to others.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They would start off with broadly the same influences, but where they go from there is up to them individually.



    No but (a) I never said that I did and (b) it's irrelevant anyway. There is nothing whatsoever hypocritical or contradictory about finding oneself in agreement with some values of one's family/religion/society while rejecting others. In as much as their actions are not to the detriment of others, nobody has to justify their values or beliefs to anyone else except themselves.

    I'm not looking for a fight with you I wasn't calling you a hypocrite because you share beliefs with your parent (you're not) I'm saying that she got her from value system from her parents and her peers and she was not going to betray them, it was a sincerely held belief and she kept to it.

    I'm just saying people have different beliefs because of different circumstances in their lives and it does not make them wrong. When it comes down to it there is no right and wrong you may think they are delusional for believing in a god because you can see their delusion.

    But that probably means we are all delusional, in our own way.


  • Options
    #128
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,938 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    sheesh wrote: »
    When it comes down to it there is no right and wrong you may think they are delusional for believing in a god because you can see their delusion.

    But that probably means we are all delusional, in our own way.

    Being willing to refuse a very successful and safe treatment and leave her husband a widower and her child an orphan because of a fringe* interpretation of a religious text is perhaps taking one's principles a little far though, no?

    As I said in the previous post it's fine to believe whatever you want provided it doesn't have an adverse effect on other people. A young mother dying needlessly certainly falls into that category.


    * OK so technically this is argumentum ad populum, but if the vast majority of your (broad) co-religionists think your interpretation is nuts, it might give some pause for thought??

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #129
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Being willing to refuse a very successful and safe treatment and leave her husband a widower and her child an orphan because of a fringe* interpretation of a religious text is perhaps taking one's principles a little far though, no?

    As I said in the previous post it's fine to believe whatever you want provided it doesn't have an adverse effect on other people. A young mother dying needlessly certainly falls into that category.


    * OK so technically this is argumentum ad populum, but if the vast majority of your (broad) co-religionists think your interpretation is nuts, it might give some pause for thought??

    Oh your not wrong clearly she should have taken the transfusion and just said "ah feck it I want grow old with my husband and watch my kid grow up!"

    I wonder if there had been more time to look at the options would she have made a more pragmatic decision. I suppose she thought she was doing the right thing.


  • Options
    #130
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    But in Canada, a court rejected doctors' wishes to treat a child for lukaemia because the kid concerned is "aboriginal" and her parents have a constitutional right to have the child treated by "traditional medicine" and this right has been judged more important than the conflicting right of the child to remain alive:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/treating-a-childs-cancer-is-not-an-abuse/article21614519/
    Makayla Sault, the 11-year old girl at the center of a different, but very similar case in Canada, has died:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/01/20/makayla-sault-the-child-who-refused-chemotherapy-in-favor-of-faith-based-alternatives-has-died/

    The parents released a statement blaming her death on chemotherapy and not their withdrawal of medical care.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/19/makayla-sault-who-refused-chemotherapy-for-leukaemia-in-favour-of-alternative-treatments-has-died/

    According to the National Post, the decision to withdraw care was prompted in part by Makayla’s claim that Jesus had visited her and told her that she was free of leukaemia:
    National Post wrote:
    “I have asked my mom and dad to take me off the treatment because I don’t want to go this way any more,” Makayla said in a recorded statement last spring. “I asked him, ‘Can you heal me,’ and he said, ‘You are already healed,’ and he held out his hands to me and I saw the holes in his hands and I knew that it was Jesus. And he told me, ‘Do not be afraid.’”


  • Options
    #131
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    robindch wrote: »
    Makayla Sault, the 11-year old girl at the center of a different, but very similar case in Canada, has died:

    The parents released a statement blaming her death on chemotherapy and not their withdrawal of medical care.

    It's enough to make ones blood boil, the parents are directly responsible for their daughters death yet they have the gall to blame chemo for it. They are obviously massive amounts of denial going on in the parent's heads, it's almost like a form of brainwashing.

    If there wasn't this ridiculous constitutional ruling in their favour I wonder would the parents be subject to negligent homicide or manslaughter proceedings?
    robindch wrote: »
    According to the National Post, the decision to withdraw care was prompted in part by Makayla’s claim that Jesus had visited her and told her that she was free of leukaemia:

    Interesting, I wasn't aware that Jesus was a part of Native American folklore, unless the Mormons were right and Jesus a comeback tour of America after his retirement concert in Jerusalem :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    aidan24326
    Registered Users Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    So child says 'jesus visited me and told me I'm healed' - parent's response is 'grand so, we'll take you off the medication'. The mind boggles. There seems to be no limit to the level of stupidity you can get away with once it falls under the protected label of religious belief.


  • Options
    #133
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Wish I had thought of it when I was younger. Jesus just came and says I REALLY need more pocket money and computer games.

    Maybe I will try it if I ever crash my car. Jesus told me I do not actually need my glasses to drive any more. How was I to know??


  • Options
    #134
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mmmmm, trees.

    http://www.earthporm.com/woman-spent-last-14-years-photographing-worlds-oldest-trees/


Advertisement