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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

2

Comments

  • #52
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Orion wrote: »
    It was her own choice - this is Darwinian survival of the fittest imo.

    How can it possibly be Darwinian? She has a child who survived. :rolleyes:

    I note you didn't respond to my point on the general ethical shakey ground that some blood products lie on. Are you convinced they are all perfectly fine for use? No matter how they are obtained? JW's communities are active in some extremely impoverished areas remember, where blood products are considerably less safe than here. I understand the risk is low, but what if this woman had a transfusion forced upon her, and ended up with HIV? Which she then passed to her husband and child.


    Whatever you read on the JW website is indeed the origin for the modern belief, but like all religious artifacts, it is generally used as a basis for current moral discussion. The JW's I've met are perfectly reasonable people, who are well able to discuss this, and other differences we have.


    I would see refusal to use blood products as an ethical decision, based on religion, but with some small amount of merit... even if I don't agree with it myself. Just as vegan ideology has some merit, even though I don't follow it myself.


    Assigning all people who subscribe to this choice as being mentally ill, or unreasonable is patronising.


  • #53
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    hdowney wrote: »
    What I don't get about the JW refusals, based on the above quotes - the quotes mention EATING the blood. Blood transfusion is NOT eating!!!

    See, your mistake is thinking logically - someone who's following an edict based on religious beliefs is under no such obligation.


  • #54
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Then all you are doing is repeating my point back at me because this is what I am saying too. "The courts" in my view are simply wrong in this and I my question remains unanswered in two posts on this thread as to why we would actively treat the two delusions differently. Given they have both got the same substantiation going for them, and both lead to the patient making the same decision.

    The difference is that typical medical issues that cause legal incapacity stem from a dysfunction/malfunctioning of the mind (the mind is not capable of working properly). With religously (or belief system) motivated decisions, the mind is fully capable of working properly, even though it comes to what most people consider to be an irrational decision (ie. i wont accpet a blood transfusion because god told me not to/god told me i would get better without one).

    The courts feel that it is not their job to qualitatively assess the decision making of others. If people - who are fully capable of making a decision -choose to disregard medical evidence in favour of a decision based on a 'hunch' or unsubstantiated superstition, it is not for the courts to protect them against their own foolishness. The courts - instead - choose to protect those whose minds are not capable of working, as the latter are in need of protection. They fear - rightly - that if they get drawn into qualitatively assessing the decision making of those who make 'crazy' decisions based on religous reasons, they will logically have to do likewise for those who make 'crazy' decisions for other reasons.

    There are a myriad of other associated reasons why the courts take this approach, but that is the key one.

    If the courts accepted your argument that a religous belief is a delusion, just like any other delusion, they would likely come to a different judgment. However, they do not consider religious beliefs to be delusional (in all but the most unususal of cases), mainly because that case has not yet been put to them (presumably because the preponderance of psychiatric evidence would not support that view).

    I can see why it is tempting for you to conflate religous delusions and other delusions, but the courts dont see it the way you do, im afraid.


  • #55
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Cabaal wrote: »
    So you think Ireland is now torturing people then?
    Yes. I am in agreement with the United Nations Human Rights Council that force-feeding is torture.

    “The desire of the inmates not to eat must be respected for as long as it is clear that they are making that choice voluntarily. Even if it is intended for the benefit of the detainees, feeding induced by threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints are tantamount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment,” - See more at: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14770&LangID=E#sthash.Np8HCzRs.dpuf

    Watch this (graphic) and tell me if you disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ACE-BBPRs
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Considering that a Irish judge ruled yesterday that a women suffering from anorexia could be force fed in order to stop her dieing. Perhaps you'd rather she die?
    What a disgusting strawman argument to make!
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Anorexia is a disorder by the way, it's not a person's free will.
    So you are saying that all anorexics are incompotent? Unworthy to make their own decisions and should be denied individual rights afforded to the majority?

    In any case you are arguing against yourself here. Unless you think that being a Jehovas Witness is also a "disorder" to the point of being pscychcotic. Do you?
    Cabaal wrote: »
    Perhaps you should report Ireland to the UN for its crime and get the feeding stopped, you can then sit smug and safe in the knowledge that you let a women die from her disorder. It'll make you feel all warm and cuddly inside I'm sure
    It goes without saying that nobody wants anyone to die. So if you could drop this horribly disingenious line? Perhaps you could revert back to the actual questions I've asked you before? Do you actually think that forced medication of competent individuals is a "good" thing? Do you support the force-feeding of all anorexics?


  • #56
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    pwurple wrote: »

    Whatever you read on the JW website is indeed the origin for the modern belief, but like all religious artifacts, it is generally used as a basis for current moral discussion. The JW's I've met are perfectly reasonable people, who are well able to discuss this, and other differences we have.


    I would see refusal to use blood products as an ethical decision, based on religion, but with some small amount of merit... even if I don't agree with it myself. Just as vegan ideology has some merit, even though I don't follow it myself.
    .

    There are undoubtedly negatives to blood transfusions (like any medical interventioin) and they shouldnt be used lightly. However, if you read the JW literature on blood transfusions (and i have !) you would be amazed (or maybe not) at the amount of incredibly inaccurate and misleading information on blood therapies and the 'success' of non-blood treatments, particularly when it comes to treatment of patients with life threatening emergencies such as acute severe haemmorhage. I dont think that anyone looking at the matter objectively could make the arguments they make from a medical perspective.

    It is absolutely clear that the JW view on blood comes from their interpretation of scripture and that thereafter they attempt to fit the medical evidence to that scriptural view.


  • #57
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    lazygal wrote: »
    What's the two wrongs?
    1. Forcing a pregnant woman to carry to term
    2. Forcing food into a persons body against their will.


  • #58
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    The difference is that typical medical issues that cause legal incapacity

    But I am not referring to medical issues so you are somewhat talking past me. I am referring to two people being under an unsubstantiated delusion.... the result of both are the same.... yet our treatment of them both are different. And I can see no reason why this might be other than the special privilege we give to "religion".
    drkpower wrote: »
    The courts feel that it is not their job to qualitatively assess the decision making of others.

    In my view that is unfortunate I guess given it is actually relevant. So they are making decisions that are affected by such things, but refusing to asses such things. Even those people who are not lawyers but enjoy pretending to be one must feel uncomfortable with that.

    All my point here is: As I said the response we have to someone refusing medical intervention by claiming that god will influence the quality of their after life.... gets a very different reaction and response.... than if that same person was refusing medical intervention by claiming that the doctors were human skin wearing alien lizards who were subjugating the populace by injecting mind altering drugs.

    And quite simply this bothers me given that the substance of both claims is not just slightly but _exactly_ the same.
    drkpower wrote: »
    However, they do not consider religious beliefs to be delusional (in all but the most unususal of cases)

    Which is, as I suggested just above, a problem. if two ideas are equally and entirely unsubstantiated, then I would be agog to evaluate the methodology they are applying in order to evaluate one as delusion and the other not.

    On the face of it the Lizard Aliens in Human Suits delusion seems comical and ridiculous to us.... relative to claiming there is a god.... but one must ask why this might be. They are both equally unsubstantiated in every way.
    drkpower wrote: »
    I can see why it is tempting for you to conflate religous delusions and other delusions, but the courts dont see it the way you do, im afraid.

    Which would be relevant to me if I cared what they think. I am more interested in the basis for disagreement, not who is doing the disagreeing. Especially given "the courts" are not here posting on the thread. I am more interested in the views and rebuttals of people on the thread, not second hand reported opinions of people who are not.


  • #59
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    pwurple wrote: »
    I note you didn't respond to my point on the general ethical shakey ground that some blood products lie on. Are you convinced they are all perfectly fine for use? No matter how they are obtained? JW's communities are active in some extremely impoverished areas remember, where blood products are considerably less safe than here. I understand the risk is low, but what if this woman had a transfusion forced upon her, and ended up with HIV? Which she then passed to her husband and child.


    Whatever you read on the JW website is indeed the origin for the modern belief, but like all religious artifacts, it is generally used as a basis for current moral discussion. The JW's I've met are perfectly reasonable people, who are well able to discuss this, and other differences we have.


    I would see refusal to use blood products as an ethical decision, based on religion, but with some small amount of merit... even if I don't agree with it myself. Just as vegan ideology has some merit, even though I don't follow it myself.


    Assigning all people who subscribe to this choice as being mentally ill, or unreasonable is patronising.

    I didn't respond to it directly because it's not relevant to JW teachings. The JW stance on blood is nothing to do with safety of blood products it's purely based on their (unreasonable imo) interpretation of scripture. Personally I think that basing a life or death decision - against a medical professional's advice - on such nonsense reasoning is unreasonable and would question such a person's mental capacity. If you consider that patronising so be it - it's my opinion and I'm happy with it.

    That said if it's their own life they're endangering leave them at it. I do believe that if a parent tries to stop lifesaving treatment for a child based on such "logic" then that child should automatically be made a ward of the court and given the treatment irrespective of the parents' wishes.


  • #60
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Orion wrote: »
    I didn't respond to it directly because it's not relevant to JW teachings. The JW stance on blood is nothing to do with safety of blood products it's purely based on their (unreasonable imo) interpretation of scripture.

    The scripture they are interpreting is based on the safety of blood products, that's why it is relevant.

    I obviously agree, their use here is a great thing, and some exceptions should certainly be made for life and death situations. The UK has had it's share of blood scandal though.

    However, I can also see that encouraging blood product use in one country, and not in others could be problematic in fitting in with a general ethos. Especially when there are crack addicts queuing up to sell their blood, and ebola survivors being drained of their blood against their wishes. There are wide impacts to blood product use, it's not all as clearcut as you are assuming.


    Plenty of people choose not to use certain products because of the impact beyond their own sphere. That's not mental illness.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    pwurple wrote: »
    The scripture they are interpreting is based on the safety of blood products, that's why it is relevant.
    Yes. The safety of blood products, where that safety is, or was, assessed by Bronze Age goat headers. Awesome.

    MrP


  • #62
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    All my point here is: As I said the response we have to someone refusing medical intervention by claiming that god will influence the quality of their after life.... gets a very different reaction and response.... than if that same person was refusing medical intervention by claiming that the doctors were human skin wearing alien lizards who were subjugating the populace by injecting mind altering drugs.

    Strange as it may seem, the (court's) response may actually not be that different (in terms of their ultimate decision). A person can hold the view that doctors or politicians or corporate CEOs are lizards in disguise, acting to their detriment, (and other equally bonkers beliefs) yet maintain the legal capacity to make a decision. For instance, David Icke would not be declared as lacking decision making capacity (from what i know of him!).

    The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed) is whether the person is capable of making a decision. If not, the courts offer protection. If they are capable of making a decision, but make a crazy one, the court doesnt offer protection. It is about process, not outcome. That distinction is a sensible place to draw the line, and these matters have been considered over decades by courts, doctors and ethicists all over the world, and all have come to a broadly similar view.

    Take a little time to step back from the position that you undoubtedly and genuinely hold, to think about and consider the distinction that is made, why and then consider the potential ramifications if the courts chose to substitute their decisions for the decisions of those who are capable of making a decision, but who choose to do so in a 'crazy' way.


  • #63
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    Strange as it may seem, the (court's) response may actually not be that different (in terms of their ultimate decision).

    I am making the point in general though. You appear to want to keep talking about "the courts". My point is not limited to legal entities. I am lamenting that our species in general, not in any way limited to "the courts" who's opinion you like to give us second hand in place of your own, tend to have a diverse reaction to these things.

    Again: If someone was refusing medical intervention because they claim the doctors were Lizard aliens in human guise my feeling at least is the majority of people would deem them insane deluded or worse.

    If that self same person refuses medical intervention based on the opinion of a god and what that god wants for them.... nah they are just religious.

    And it is that difference I refer to. Not this vague entity "the courts".
    drkpower wrote: »
    The crux of the matter (and the bit you havent addressed)

    Shocking isnt it, that someone might fail to address a point they never made, or entered the thread espousing. That someone might walk in, talk past you, and you stick to your own points rather than the ones the other person sees somewhere in the distance over your shoulder.


  • #64
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am making the point in general though. You appear to want to keep talking about "the courts". My point is not limited to legal entities. I am lamenting that our species in general, not in any way limited to "the courts" who's opinion you like to give us second hand in place of your own, tend to have a diverse reaction to these things..

    The 'courts' simply means the law, given they decide and interpret it (in this area). I think the actual legal position is an important facet of this discussion. I happen to agree with the courts position on the matter (as well as the medical professions'), but that doesnt mean i have substituted their opinion for my own (no more than your sharing another person's view does not mean that you have simply substituted thier judgment for yours).

    If you want to focus on what our view as a species is, that's fine and interesting but there is probably no need to reply to me on it.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again: If someone was refusing medical intervention because they claim the doctors were Lizard aliens in human guise my feeling at least is the majority of people would deem them insane deluded or worse..
    Your 'feeling', or what the majority might think, is actually not that important. What matters is what that person's doctor, and the courts, think because fundamentally this is medical and legal question. The way you phrase your comment actually demonstrates that you have missed the crucial point. It is about the process of decision making, not the outcome. The former is important, not the latter.

    I genuinely think you should complete the exercise i set for you: Take a little time to think about and consider the distinction and then consider the potential ramifications if the courts chose to substitute their decisions for the decisions of those who are capable of making a decision, but who choose to do so in a 'crazy' way.


  • #65
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    The 'courts' simply means the law, given they decide and interpret it (in this area).

    And as I said this is therefore talking past me because that is not really what I am discussing. And I have seen in the past the disaster that comes from trying to talk with you while you talk past me. Not to take away from your points in any way, but it is a dance I have no interest in.

    As I said all my point is, is that we as a species in general seem to react differently to different delusions, despite there being no objective or notable difference between them. Both delusions have exactly the same (none) substantiation for them, yet we would call the espousal of one insanity, but the other merely "religion" and I see this as a problem.
    drkpower wrote: »
    If you want to focus on what our view as a species is, that's fine and interesting but there is probably no need to reply to me on it.

    You will find it was you who replied to me.
    drkpower wrote: »
    The way you phrase your comment actually demonstrates that you have missed the crucial point. It is about the process of decision making, not the outcome. The former is important, not the latter.

    Then perhaps it is you missing the point because I see importance in both. If you wish to focus on one that is fine, but both would be important in my evaluation of the matter.
    drkpower wrote: »
    Your 'feeling', or what the majority might think, is actually not that important.

    It is if it is accurate and seemingly it is because the reality is that in a world of unsubstantiated nonsense, all equally unsubstantiated, we call some such delusions "insane" while we call others "religion".
    drkpower wrote: »
    I genuinely think you should complete the exercise i set for you

    Do not assume that I have not considered such things, or that I require you to prompt me to do so. I have not discussed them because they were not relevant to the point I entered the thread making. Not discussing them does not imply I have not considered them.


  • #66
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    pwurple wrote: »
    The scripture they are interpreting is based on the safety of blood products, that's why it is relevant.

    No it's not.

    See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92995272&postcount=38
    Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh
    the life of every sort of flesh is its blood, because the life is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites: “You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is its blood
    to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality

    None of this is about safety of blood products. This is from the bible - there were no blood transfusions back then. This is pure religious sh!te just like not eating meat on a Friday or not wearing clothes made of mixed fibres (Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19)


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As I said all my point is, is that we as a species in general seem to react differently to different delusions, despite there being no objective or notable difference between them. Both delusions have exactly the same (none) substantiation for them, yet we would call the espousal of one insanity, but the other merely "religion" and I see this as a problem.


    Well it depends on the overall attitude in society towards certain concepts - society generally doesn't view religious beliefs as harmful to an individual, but belief in aliens who want to take over the world?

    There's no equivalence scale for these things, just what we as a society seem acceptable, and what we don't, so while religious beliefs may seem unreasonable to you as an individual, they're not unreasonable to the vast majority in society.


  • #68
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Do not assume that I have not considered such things, or that I require you to prompt me to do so. I have not discussed them because they were not relevant to the point I entered the thread making. Not discussing them does not imply I have not considered them.
    Your own words make it obvious you havent to be honest!

    In any case, you asked whether a particular argument has ever been made. I took the time out to advise you that it has been made before the courts (and medical professions) on many occasions and was rejected. I explained why it was rejected. I explained the reason the courts have made such a distinction.

    That you dont seem to welcome that point of information nor want to discuss what seems to be a direct answer to your own query is a matter for you. Dont feel the need to reply to this unless you want to actually discuss the central issue.


  • #69
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    Your own words make it obvious you havent to be honest!

    Nope. Not so. Again the point is I do not tend to discuss things that do not have a bearing on the point I am actually making. If you want to draw from my non-discussion of something that I have never considered that something.... that is your assumption to leap to. I can not stop you. It will simply be wrong. You can be wrong when and as you please. It is not the first time in your discussions with me.
    drkpower wrote: »
    Dont feel the need to reply to this unless you want to actually discuss the central issue.

    Dont feel the need to influence what I do or do not reply to. This is the second time you have done it in as many posts. Worry about what you reply to, not what I reply to.


  • #70
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well it depends on the overall attitude in society towards certain concepts - society generally doesn't view religious beliefs as harmful to an individual, but belief in aliens who want to take over the world?

    Which makes my point for me. Both are unsubstantiated notions and neither should be harmful really. In both cases however the patient might be refusing treatment due to their unsubstantiated nonsense and that IS harmful.

    So why is one viewed harmful when the other is not? Especially given religious belief has caused much more harm in our society than belief in aliens. Yet somehow the wording of your rhetorical question about is suggestive that you think the reverse is true, that the former is not harmful and the latter is? That would take some explaining.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    There's no equivalence scale for these things, just what we as a society seem acceptable

    Again this is just making my point for me. They are both equally unsubstantiated nonsense. In my example they are both causing a patient to die due to refusal of treatment. Yet one is considered insanity and the other just "religion" on what basis exactly? Arbitrary social acceptance. Nothing more.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    while religious beliefs may seem unreasonable to you as an individual, they're not unreasonable to the vast majority in society.

    Irrelevant. I do not care who it seems reasonable to. I care if there is anything upon which to establish one reasonable and the other not. And the answer is:No.

    They BOTH have exactly the same substantiation going for them. That is to say: None. And, comically, given the data set we DO have.... the aliens one is at least an iota more credible.

    They may "seem" reasonable to some number of people but that does not mean one is and the other is not. They, at this time, objectively have an equal footing in substantiation. None.


  • #71
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,203 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Arbitrary social acceptance. Nothing more.


    And with that one line, you've answered your own question in a nutshell. That's exactly all it boils down to.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Thats what it seems alright. Yet as we have seen there are people out there, in places of power, who think there is a more useful distinction to make there some how.


  • #73
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    Ultimately. But how many people are indoctrinated into religious beliefs from childhood? And how many take years or even decades to shake off such? I'm sure there are plenty on this forum who had they been brought up JW instead of Catholic and needed a transfusion earlier in life would have refused.

    Her decision was influenced by her belief that a transfussion would be morally wrong or a sin. Something she didn't pluck out of thin air. And as such others must shoulder some of the blame.

    We are all indoctrinated in to some sort of belief system, it is normally from our parents and society in which we live. You did not come up with your own value system. no more than this woman did.


  • #74
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    sheesh wrote: »
    We are all indoctrinated in to some sort of belief system, it is normally from our parents and society in which we live. You did not come up with your own value system. no more than this woman did.
    It is worth bearing in mind that the consequences for someone of JW faith to disregard the teaching on blood may be far more serious than one of us disregarding the tenets of christianity (or whetver faith we may have been brought up in). Not as serious as refusing the transfusion mind...!

    What is also perhaps surprising is that a substantial number of faithful JW adherents actually do accept blood transfusions, even in elective scenarios where there is no imminent or acute threat to their lives. There are some studies done in the US (small sample but illustrative nonetheless) that suggest that 10% of practising JWs will accept whole blood transfusions in an elective setting.


  • #75
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    drkpower wrote: »
    It is worth bearing in mind that the consequences for someone of JW faith to disregard the teaching on blood may be far more serious than one of us disregarding the tenets of christianity (or whetver faith we may have been brought up in). Not as serious as refusing the transfusion mind...!

    What is also perhaps surprising is that a substantial number of faithful JW adherents actually do accept blood transfusions, even in elective scenarios where there is no imminent or acute threat to their lives. There are some studies done in the US (small sample but illustrative nonetheless) that suggest that 10% of practising JWs will accept whole blood transfusions in an elective setting.

    many of them have their own blood stored in case it is needed too I read somewhere.


  • #76
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    sheesh wrote: »
    many of them have their own blood stored in case it is needed too I read somewhere.
    Yes, I hear that some do. Although I think standard JW teaching is that blood removed from their body should be disposed of.

    Which is strange of course because most JWs will accept other interventions whereby blood is technically removed from the body such as haemo dialysis, and cell salvage techniques (where blood lost during an operation is immediately saved, and re transfused).


  • #77
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    drkpower wrote: »
    Yes, I hear that some do. Although I think standard JW teaching is that blood removed from their body should be disposed of.

    Which is strange of course because most JWs will accept other interventions whereby blood is technically removed from the body such as haemo dialysis, and cell salvage techniques (where blood lost during an operation is immediately saved, and re transfused).
    Is the issue only with whole blood? Storing whole blood would be fairly pointless, I guess, as it has such a short shelf life... If they are preserving 'blood' then it must be processed in some way, no?

    MrP


  • #78
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Is the issue only with whole blood? Storing whole blood would be fairly pointless, I guess, as it has such a short shelf life... If they are preserving 'blood' then it must be processed in some way, no?

    MrP

    It applies to the constituents of whole blood also (red cells, white cells, plasma, platelets).

    I suppose where storing whole blood might come in handy (if it is 'permitted' at all) is where a JW is undergoing elective surgery where haemorrhage is obviously a potential risk. They could store it a few weeks in advance, giving their bodies a chance to regenerate red cells, and the they could use it in the event they haemorrhage interoperatovely. I haven't looked at it but can whole blood be stored for that length of time?

    Although, as I said, I think standard teaching is that storage outside the body isn't permissible at all.


  • #79
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    sheesh wrote: »
    We are all indoctrinated in to some sort of belief system, it is normally from our parents and society in which we live. You did not come up with your own value system. no more than this woman did.

    Yes to the first part and no to the second. I was indoctrinated into Catholicism from birth up until I had my own independent thoughts. Since then I did come up with my own value system that doesn't require a god or supreme being or deity or basically anything outside of myself. You can shake off indoctrination - it just requires a desire to do so.

    As an aside I find it curious that you would say such a thing in this forum when even a cursory search of it would show you many people who have left their initial indoctrination behind and found their own path.


  • #80
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,498 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    sheesh wrote: »
    We are all indoctrinated in to some sort of belief system, it is normally from our parents and society in which we live. You did not come up with your own value system. no more than this woman did.

    Oddly enough the values I hold are very much at odds with those of my parents and the society I grew up in. One can choose to accept what one is told is right, or one can choose to evaluate for oneself.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #81
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    or one can choose to evaluate for oneself.

    Yet you'd deny this right afforded to you to Jehovas Witnesses?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yet you'd deny this right afforded to you to Jehovas Witnesses?

    Nobody is denying them that right. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them.


  • #83
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Orion wrote: »
    Nobody is denying them that right. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

    In fairness, some on this thread are suggesting that JWs, by virtue of their beliefs, should be deemed incapable of making a decision and that accordingly others should make decisions for them.

    So, yes, some do want to deny them that right (I'm not sure if that is hotblacks view).


  • #84
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Orion wrote: »
    Nobody is denying them that right. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

    And they don't have to agree with you and we can all get on with our lives (or deaths) protected by equal right for all. Right?


  • #85
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    how different is it to a catholic who would disagree with an abortion to save the life of the woman?

    in this instance it was that woman's decision to make and she choose to die rather than go against her religion's teaching.
    hard for outsiders to understand but that's the way it is.


  • #86
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    drkpower wrote: »
    In fairness, some on this thread are suggesting that JWs, by virtue of their beliefs, should be deemed incapable of making a decision and that accordingly others should make decisions for them.

    So, yes, some do want to deny them that right (I'm not sure if that is hotblacks view).

    The way I see it is if people are deemed incompetent to make decisions for themselves that relate to their own body by virtue of their personal religious beliefs body then the floodgates can opened. Religious belief would be a reasonable grounds for discrimination in the workplace, a reasonable grounds to have social services take their children from them etc.


  • #87
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Oddly enough the values I hold are very much at odds with those of my parents and the society I grew up in. One can choose to accept what one is told is right, or one can choose to evaluate for oneself.

    and does this happen often do you think?


  • #88
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    sheesh wrote: »
    and does this happen often do you think?

    More often than you think. How else would you explain those with no religion growing from less than 5% to over 20% in the most recent census. In "Catholic Ireland" "None" is the second highest religious grouping now.


  • #89
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,498 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    sheesh wrote: »
    and does this happen often do you think?

    It does in this forum :)

    Only 21 years ago, male homosexual acts were still illegal in Ireland, and wide social acceptance has only really arrived within the last ten years or so, wide agreement with marriage equality later still, so anyone who grew up in a climate that homosexuality was unacceptable/wrong/a 'sin' and who doesn't hold that view today has rejected that value of the society (And probably family) they grew up in.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #90
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Orion wrote: »
    More often than you think. How else would you explain those with no religion growing from less than 5% to over 20% in the most recent census. In "Catholic Ireland" "None" is the second highest religious grouping now.

    Interesting that you consider no religion a religious grouping. Nevertheless you have your figures completely wrong.

    What i would like to see fr.o.m. Both you and hotblack, self-proclaimed freethinkers Both, is a list of the opinions you hold that aren't consensus views in your respektive societies.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    The way I see it is if people are deemed incompetent to make decisions for themselves that relate to their own body by virtue of their personal religious beliefs body then the floodgates can opened. Religious belief would be a reasonable grounds for discrimination in the workplace, a reasonable grounds to have social services take their children from them etc.

    (Just to bring things slightly up back on topic!)

    Precisely. Were religious beliefs to be considered (medically, legally or socially) to be a delusion, interference with medical decisions would be merely the tip of the iceberg.

    The reality is that no one credibly believes that religious beliefs amount to a delusion (medically, legally or socially). Nor does anyone credibly argue that a religious person should have their medical, financial and social decisions and circumstances interfered with as a consequence of their religious beliefs (which is the natural consequence of holding the former position).

    It's easy (and lazy) to spout 'delusion' over the internet, but those who do run away very quickly when it comes to elaborating on the policy consequences of such a position.


  • #92
    branie2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,305 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    We're not vampires!


  • #93
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Interesting that you consider no religion a religious grouping. Nevertheless you have your figures completely wrong.

    What i would like to see fr.o.m. Both you and hotblack, self-proclaimed freethinkers Both, is a list of the opinions you hold that aren't consensus views in your respektive societies.
    It's classed as a religious grouping by the CSO and where exactly are my figures wrong?

    I never proclaimed myself a freethinker. I'm an atheist if you feel the need to label me.


  • #94
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    branie2 wrote: »
    We're not vampires!

    speak for yourself! vampire2.gif


  • #95
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    here's more of it, except much worse imho as a parent (and a judge) are preventing the child from receiving proven, effective medical care, essentially sentencing the poor girl to death. :(

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/16/with-judges-ruling-in-favor-of-traditional-healing-a-child-may-soon-fall-victim-to-faith-based-treatment/


  • #96
    sheesh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭sheesh


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    It does in this forum :)

    Only 21 years ago, male homosexual acts were still illegal in Ireland, and wide social acceptance has only really arrived within the last ten years or so, wide agreement with marriage equality later still, so anyone who grew up in a climate that homosexuality was unacceptable/wrong/a 'sin' and who doesn't hold that view today has rejected that value of the society (And probably family) they grew up in.

    In general though, do you think people have similar - I am not saying exactly the same - values to the people that they grew up with.
    Just because you rejected you parents views on homosexuality does not mean you rejected their views on stealing, killing, obeying rules, charity etc. you didn't reject every value they taught you, you still shower, are polite to people. You did not come up with every single set of values you have right now by yourself and 'by magic' fit into Irish society.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    lorenzo87
    Registered Users Posts: 698 ✭✭✭lorenzo87


    Jehovah's eh, funny lot.


  • #98
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    vibe666 wrote: »
    here's more of it, except much worse imho as a parent (and a judge) are preventing the child from receiving proven, effective medical care, essentially sentencing the poor girl to death. :(

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/11/16/with-judges-ruling-in-favor-of-traditional-healing-a-child-may-soon-fall-victim-to-faith-based-treatment/

    When the child dies the parents should be charged with murder.


  • #99
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    When the child dies the parents should be charged with murder.
    Definitely.

    Again, I'm all for people over the age of 18 doing what they want. You want to do drugs? Off you go. You want to follow some stupid religion that could kill you if you need a blood transfusion? Go right ahead. It's your life, you're entitled to do what you want with it as long as it doesn't harm others. However, anyone under the age of 18 should be under the care of the state (i.e. all the under-age laws we currently have) and that includes receiving life-saving treatment regardless of whether the family consent or not.


  • #100
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Religious belief would be a reasonable grounds for discrimination in the workplace, a reasonable grounds to have social services take their children from them etc.

    And so it should be, depending as I said on what the beliefs are, how they are applied, and what the effects. If for example the parents are of that type, that we have seen in the media before, that watch their children die slowly and painfully of perfectly treatable conditions.... solely because they think medical intervention is a religious sin...... then damn right we should be taking their children off them on religious grounds. Try and stop me.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yet you'd deny this right afforded to you to Jehovas Witnesses?

    You know disagreeing with people and denying people rights are two entirely different things right? Because it does not seem you do from how you write.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And they don't have to agree with you and we can all get on with our lives (or deaths) protected by equal right for all. Right?

    Depends what it is they believe, how they are applying that belief in reality, and what the effects are. You are not going to get a straight answer to this bait and switch question. The answer is clearly to be contextual each and every time.
    drkpower wrote: »
    It's easy (and lazy) to spout 'delusion' over the internet, but those who do run away very quickly when it comes to elaborating on the policy consequences of such a position.

    That, or the political implications of it were never the point they were making, so they simply refused to be dragged off on a tangent. Let us never confuse refusal to be derailed as a retreat.

    As I said earlier in the thread it is merely an interesting question to explore as to why, when two people present with unsubstantiated nonsense, that we react to each of them differently just because what one of them has is called "religion" and the other not.

    And if there are implications and "tips of icebergs" for exploring such a question then so be it, that is a different conversation. But we as a society should bring it on and not retreat from "ooooo implications".

    When you say for example "some on this thread are suggesting that JWs, by virtue of their beliefs, should be deemed incapable of making a decision" that might be accurate for some, but for others like me I simply strongly suggest we would do well to explore WHY when two people present with unsubstantiated delusions that we react to those two people differently, just because ONE of those delusions is called "religion" and the other not.

    To me it is simply an interesting question, indicative of the special privilege religion has managed to carve out for itself. And speaking of people running away, in my experience the ones who run away are the ones who simply have no answer for why we treat two entirely unsubstantiated delusions differently when substantially they are the same in every way. While other people run away when they step in, try to steer someones conversation away from where they have it.... and simply fail.


  • #101
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As I said earlier in the thread it is merely an interesting question to explore as to why, when two people present with unsubstantiated nonsense, that we react to each of them differently just because what one of them has is called "religion" and the other not.
    It certainly is an interesting question, and the distinction (at least the one accepted by law and medicine) boils down to 'process' versus 'outcome' (see above for further detail). Now, dont get me wrong, there is a debate as to whether and why that distinction applies, but i havent seen you join it (which seems unusual for someone who claims he wants to explore the matter). As i said earlier, if you do have something to add on that point, i'm all ears, but otherwise im just wasting my time on you.

    Of course, while it is interesting to discuss whether a religous belief amounts to a genuine psychiatric 'delusion', it is effectively pointless without also considering the policy consequences of an affirmative answer. Even if you are right, what becomes of that position? Do you genuinely believe that those with delusional religous beliefs should have their medical, financial and social decision making interfered with by the courts or the state? (because that - or something like it - is the natural consequence of your holding such a position).

    If you fail to address the second question, you are really just the kid who runs up to a religious person, points, laughs and calls them 'crazy' or 'delusional', and runs off again giggling. It may be good for kicks, but it doesnt achieve anything!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement