José Mestre & Jehovah Witness beliefs

Dostoevsky

I never heard of José Mestre until tonight. This is him when he was a child. This (Warning: it's disturbingly ugly) is him recently. He's now a 55-year-old Portuguese man and in November 2010 he was undergoing a massive operation in the US to remove the by now 5.5kg tumour from his face.

When he was young a tumour was identified in his face and he was told he needed a blood transfusion asap. However, his mother was a Jehovah Witness and insisted that he could not receive a blood transfusion. Discovery recently made a programme about him in the My Shocking Story series entitled 'The Man with no face'.

How on earth are parents in a liberal democracy allowed to use "religious belief" as grounds to prevent a blood transfusion that would have prevented this horror story? Why is this not viewed as the child abuse which it is? We don't have to go to Islamic countries to find the evil consequences of religious fundamentalism.

TeddyTedson

Agree with you that's awful.
There are times when common sense really should prevail over religion.

we'llallhavetea_old

Dostoevsky wrote: »

(Warning: it's disturbingly ugly)

is it bad that i'm lol'in at this? anyone else?

starbelgrade

Dostoevsky wrote: »

We don't have to go to Islamic countries to find the evil consequences of religious fundamentalism.

No - we don't even have to leave the country for that.

TeddyTedson

.

bronte

These lovely people came around to my door recently trying to "convert" me from my godless ways. They asked me to read a magazine with the headline "militant atheists are trying to convert you" What in the world were they trying to do to me on my doorstep?!?


I worry that a belief like that would prevent much needed medical treatment.

amacachi

Redirect to the Atheism forum anyone?

Pdfile

is it just me or does he have biffo lips ?

Canis Lupus

TeddyTedson wrote: »

There are times when common sense really should prevail over religion.

*chuckles*

Biggins

TeddyTedson wrote: »

...There are times when common sense really should prevail over religion.

Yea - ALL the time!
(I know... wishful thinking!)

Truley

Jose's dream is to live a long and normal life. Following the showing of the Discovery documentary he continues to adhere to his 'no blood transfusion' religious principles. But he has agreed to go back to the London hospital in 2008, when doctors hope to carry out specialist surgery to begin removing parts of his tumor, without the need for blood transfusions.

As horrific the story is, the article seems to indicate it was his own decision not to be treated. At the end of the day the decision only affects himself, so in my opinion he has the freedom to refuse and he shouldn't be coerced either way.

In incidence where a parent is making a medical decision for a child I think there could be cause for intervention. But not across the board. Only where the child's life or wellbeing are being seriously compromised.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Good christ! How does he eat/give head??

orourkeda

Truley wrote: »

As horrific the story is, the article seems to indicate it was his own decision not to be treated. At the end of the day the decision only affects himself, so in my opinion he has the freedom to refuse and he shouldn't be coerced either way.

In incidence where a parent is making a medical decision for a child I think there could be cause for intervention. But not across the board. Only where the child's life or wellbeing are being seriously compromised.

True enough.

I know it's stating the obvious that the consequences of his actions are quite serious but I'm sure he's fully aware of these consequences. He's the one who has to live with this decision.

orourkeda

Wasn't there a court case in Ireland fairly recently concerning a minor whose parents turned down a blood transfusion on the basis of religious beliefs also.

I can't remember the exact details but I'm pretty sure it involved Jehovahs Witness who did not want their child to receive a transfusion although it was quite a serious situation

derfderf

Please don't kill the brundle

Cookie_Monster

TeddyTedson wrote: »

There are times when common sense really should prevail over religion.

are there ever times where it should not?

Biggins

orourkeda wrote: »

Wasn't there a court case in Ireland fairly recently concerning a minor whose parents turned down a blood transfusion on the basis of religious beliefs also.

I can't remember the exact details but I'm pretty sure it involved Jehovahs Witness who did not want their child to receive a transfusion although it was quite a serious situation

Yea, I remember something about that too.
The courts ruled against the parents and in favour of the doctors and the transfusion, if memory serves me right.

(...And rightly so)

FatherLen

yeah that would certainly suck balls.

Dostoevsky

Fortunately an Irish court last week refused an objection to a blood transfusion for a baby boy from his Jehovah Witness parents:

---

Jehovah parents lose transfusion ruling

A baby boy was given a life saving blood transfusion under court order after his parents, who are Jehovah Witnesses, objected on religious grounds.

A baby boy was given a life saving blood transfusion under court order after his parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, objected on religious grounds.
The order was made after a late night court sitting in the home of a High Court judge on 27 December. The written judgment was published today.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the courts had the jurisdiction and the duty to override the religious beliefs of parents where a threat to the life and welfare of a child was concerned.
The baby, who became unwell on Christmas Day, was given the transfusion shortly after the hearing concluded before Mr Justice Gerard Hogan in the early hours of the morning on 27 December.
The child's condition has improved since and he is no longer critically ill, the court heard.
Mr Justice Hogan today outlined his reasons for granting the Children's University Hospital at Temple Street, Dublin, an order allowing the transfusion.
He also made orders preventing identification of the child.
While conscious of the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public, he said a public hearing was impossible in the circumstances of this case, but he was delivering judgment in open court.
The baby boy was born in autumn 2010, but his twin sister died.
He became unwell due to acute bronchiolitis on Christmas Day. His condition deteriorated further that day and at one point he stopped breathing and had to be resuscitated.
He also had a hypoxic episode - a period of low oxygenation - which had 'potentially ominous implications'.
The boy had been transferred from another hospital to Temple Street on 26 December, and his condition was critical that evening.
He suffered a drop in haemoglobin levels, affecting his ability to deliver oxygen to his vital organs and to maintain brain function.
The judge said the usual trigger for a blood transfusion is where haemoglobin levels drop below a certain point.
By 9pm on 26 December, a transfusion was 'absolutely necessary'.
Mr Justice Hogan said while the child's parents were clearly anxious for his welfare and sought the best medical care, as committed Jehovah Witnesses they completely opposed a transfusion.
They had consented to the use of certain blood products earlier that day.
The hospital sought a court order allowing it administer a transfusion.
The emergency hearing took place in the judge's house at 1am on 27 December and lasted an hour and a half.
Doctors told the judge the baby's life was in danger and there was no medical alternative to a transfusion.
The parents told him they wanted the best for their child but, on religious grounds, could not consent to a transfusion.
The court had previously sanctioned a transfusion for another of the couple's children, and they seemed resigned it would order one, the judge noted.
The parents struck him as 'wholesome and upright' and most anxious for their child's welfare yet steadfast in their religious beliefs, the judge said.
An abhorrence of the administration of blood products was integral to those beliefs.
He said the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and the free practice of religion.
It also gives parents the right to raise their children by reference to their own religious and philosophical views but that right was not absolute.
The State has a vital interest in ensuring that children are protected and that interest can prevail even in the face of express and fundamental constitutional rights, he said.
There was absolutely no doubt the court can intervene in a case where the child's life, general welfare and other vital interests are at stake, he said.
He said it was 'incontestable' the court had jurisdiction, 'and indeed a duty', to override the religious objections of the parents where adherence to these beliefs would threaten the life and general welfare of their child, he ruled.
On that basis, it was lawful for the hospital to administer a transfusion and other blood products to this baby.

---

Story here

gcgirl

Seriously how can a parent deny their child of life saving transfusion/operation it's verging on child abuse and frankly any one who uses religious belief should not be allowed have kids

KeithAFC

I don't understand the whole point of people doing this. Refusing medical help because of their religious beliefs. If god does exist, why would he be happy to see people come to him 'early' and not lived their life to the full?

Pdfile

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't understand the whole point of people doing this. Refusing medical help because of their religious beliefs. If god does exist, why would he be happy to see people come to him 'early' and not lived their life to the full?

if hitler was a witness, then maybe WWII might not of happened, religon is EVERYTHING in this world. :pac: