Jehovah parents lose transfusion ruling

axer

Jehovah parents lose transfusion ruling
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.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

:mad: Jehovahs again. It is crazy that religious beliefs can have such a profound affect on a person that they would watch their own child die when there are simple treatments (by todays standards) there to save lives.

Does anyone know what happens to the child next? I mean is he unclean in the Jehovah's eyes? Is he an outcast before he even really starts his life?

Busi_Girl08

"Wholesome and upright" my hole.

I wonder what these children think, once they grow up, when they find out that their parents would have let them die so they don't upset the Elders, only to be intervened by well meaning doctors and judges.

All the more reason that there should be a license/screening process for parents.

Marcus.Aurelius

axer wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html

:mad: Jehovahs again. It is crazy that religious beliefs can have such a profound affect on a person that they would watch their own child die when there are simple treatments (by todays standards) there to save lives.

If you're going to pass credible comment, at least get the nomenclature correct. It's the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Witnesses or the JWs. You might as well be saying the Paul's or the Peter's.

At any rate, the Witnesses are a cult organisation correspondingly ticking all the boxes of Lifton's eight points of mind-control. It is not hard to point out the ridiculous nature of the blood doctrine as taught by their spiritual masters in Brooklyn.

To be honest, as a former JW, I just feel sorry for them and their children. They're brainwashed, and too lazy or stupid to figure it out yet. And that's just plain sad, even ignoring the fact that much of their doctrine flip-flops and changes every few years. The blood doctrine is the most dangerous after the piss-poor child protection policies.

If you want better info, check out any of these:

www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com
www.jehovahs-witness.net
www.silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
www.jwfacts.com

A quick search will get you buckets of information, there's no excuse for any JDub to ignore the real world anymore, but sadly they're discouraged from finding out the truth.

Does anyone know what happens to the child next? I mean is he unclean in the Jehovah's eyes? Is he an outcast before he even really starts his life?

He will be treated as a baby, not guilty of anything. And No and No to the other two. The parents did what they could as far as the organisation is concerned, and that will be deemed sufficient.

I'm off to throw up now.

deeproot

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors. It is my spiritual belief that our spiritual purity is maintained in our blood and therefore I have chosen a vegan lifestyle and would die rather than accept blood from a carnivour or any other human. There are other safer and acceptable options to human blood products but these options are not as profitable for the members of the so called medical proffession. Mr JUSTICE HOGAN is incorrect when he states that his decision to overide the parents spiritual decision is lawful, His decision is only legal. He compounds his error by claiming that the constitution grants rights. The constitution sets limits on the scope of inalienable rights "for the common good" as anyone who has read the constitution would know. (Read Art,43, of the 1937 constitution). Members of the legal profession are attempting to erode our inalienable rights and replace them with statutary rights the scope of which will be decided by their courts. Wise up and resist this corporate takeover of living breathing humanity.
deeproot

Rodin

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors. It is my spiritual belief that our spiritual purity is maintained in our blood and therefore I have chosen a vegan lifestyle and would die rather than accept blood from a carnivour or any other human. There are other safer and acceptable options to human blood products but these options are not as profitable for the members of the so called medical proffession. Mr JUSTICE HOGAN is incorrect when he states that his decision to overide the parents spiritual decision is lawful, His decision is only legal. He compounds his error by claiming that the constitution grants rights. The constitution sets limits on the scope of inalienable rights "for the common good" as anyone who has read the constitution would know. (Read Art,43, of the 1937 constitution). Members of the legal profession are attempting to erode our inalienable rights and replace them with statutary rights the scope of which will be decided by their courts. Wise up and resist this corporate takeover of living breathing humanity.
deeproot

What other and safer options would you use to correct a haemoglobin of 4?

Bloody Nipples

deeproot wrote: »

Mr JUSTICE HOGAN is incorrect when he states that his decision to overide the parents spiritual decision is lawful, His decision is only legal.

I despair for you if you would sit there and watch a child die for the sake of doctrine.

MrPudding

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

The parents did what they could as far as the organisation is concerned, and that will be deemed sufficient.

Did what they could? As in wasted a bunch of taxpayers money, wasted the time of a judge and a number of doctors as well almost killing their child. Yes, good work.

MrP

MrPudding

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors.

I don't believe there is any such prohibition, but I am open to correction. Just to check, I think you beliefs are idiotic. They deserve derision and ridicule and should be shown to have no place in a modern society at every possible opportunity.

deeproot wrote: »

It is my spiritual belief that our spiritual purity is maintained in our blood and therefore I have chosen a vegan lifestyle and would die rather than accept blood from a carnivour or any other human.

Awesome. Whatever floats your boat.

deeproot wrote: »

There are other safer and acceptable options to human blood products but these options are not as profitable for the members of the so called medical proffession.

Really? I don't know much about the medical side of things, but I am sure someone on this board will and can comment. I would have expected that whole blood, which is donated free of charge by filthy carnivores and vegans alike, would be cheaper than any manufactured alternative...

deeproot wrote: »

Mr JUSTICE HOGAN is incorrect when he states that his decision to overide the parents spiritual decision is lawful, His decision is only legal. He compounds his error by claiming that the constitution grants rights. The constitution sets limits on the scope of inalienable rights "for the common good" as anyone who has read the constitution would know. (Read Art,43, of the 1937 constitution).

I must admit my knowlegde of the constitution is somewhat limited. Is article 43 not about the ownership of property? Are you saying the child is the private property of the parents and therefore they can let it die if they wish? Perhaps you could point me to the section where a parent is given the right to allow their child to die because of a religious belief that the child does not hold... If you want to commit suicide by refusing treatment then go right ahead. Personally I think it is an idiotic thing to do. I do not respect your decision to do it nor I do not respect your right to do it, but as long as you are only killing youself I could not give a damn. But when your idiotic and irrational beliefs impact another person, then I have a problem.

deeproot wrote: »

Members of the legal profession are attempting to erode our inalienable rights and replace them with statutary rights the scope of which will be decided by their courts. Wise up and resist this corporate takeover of living breathing humanity.
deeproot

If the statues, or a judges interpretation, derogates a constitutional right then they will be challenged and overturned. I am not sure of the relevence of article 43 to this particular issue.

The courts are exactly the right place where decisions like this should be made. for the most part judges are very capable of cutting through the bullsh1t and working out what the correct answer to a particular legal problem is.

This was a good decision and I would hope and expect it to be confirmed as correct.

MrP

Rodin

Really? I don't know much about the medical side of things, but I am sure someone on this board will and can comment. I would have expected that whole blood, which is donated free of charge by filthy carnivores and vegans alike, would be cheaper than any manufactured alternative...


If blood were easily manufactured in a lab, it would most certainly be done, so we wouldnt have to have advertising campaigns for donors

the religious poster still hasn't told me how 'other and safer' methods would correct a haemoglobin of 4

brightspark

deeproot wrote: »

. It is my spiritual belief that our spiritual purity is maintained in our blood and therefore I have chosen a vegan lifestyle and would die rather than accept blood from a carnivour or any other human.
Members of the legal profession are attempting to erode our inalienable rights and replace them with statutary rights the scope of which will be decided by their courts. deeproot

It's my opinion that you are free to choose to die if you wish (though it could be considered a form of suicide? similar to choosing not to eat)

But what about the child's right to life!! isn't that one of the inalienable rights you refer to?

Marcus.Aurelius

Rodin wrote: »

What other and safer options would you use to correct a haemoglobin of 4?

Maybe a JW troll. Who should know better than to disregard the prohibition on accessing sites with dangerous apostates......like me.

Rawr.

Marcus.Aurelius

MrPudding wrote: »

Did what they could? As in wasted a bunch of taxpayers money, wasted the time of a judge and a number of doctors as well almost killing their child. Yes, good work.

MrP

Agreed. But any PR is good PR for fundamentalists, good PR is God's will and bad PR is persecution, which means God's will is being done.

Circular reasoning ftw!

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

I despair for you if you would sit there and watch a child die for the sake of doctrine.

I think the JW blood doctrine is the very epitome of the dangers inherent in blind Christan fundamentalist faith.

the_syco

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others

Your belief offends my belief beyond belief.

deeproot

Rodin wrote: »

What other and safer options would you use to correct a haemoglobin of 4?

If you really want to know what options exist just google or use your favourite search engine to search for "safe alternatives to human blood transfusions". you will find a host of sites with real alternatives and information regarding the hazzards associated with blood transfusion. In passing I would suggest that some of the other users of this site are like sheep and believe all the missinformation pap fed to them by the so called "professionals".
deeproot.

Marcus.Aurelius

Rodin wrote: »

the religious poster still hasn't told me how 'other and safer' methods would correct a haemoglobin of 4

The JWs are somewhat half-informed about alternatives, but lots of bullshit is included.

A hypovolemic condition may be temporarily remedied with saline or other expanders, but low haemo or TBC will essentially require a transusion. The Witlesses will tell you that medication can stimulate the production of RBCs, but in most cases the time factor will make this approach fruitless.

Wait for the junk science to be unleashed.

Marcus.Aurelius

deeproot wrote: »

If you really want to know what options exist just google or use your favourite search engine to search for "safe alternatives to human blood transfusions". you will find a host of sites with real alternatives and information regarding the hazzards associated with blood transfusion. In passing I would suggest that some of the other users of this site are like sheep and believe all the missinformation pap fed to them by the so called "professionals".
deeproot.

Hi Deeproot, are you an active JW? Why do you rally against professionals and their opinions on this topic?

Who has informed you of these alternatives if you are not a JW?

legspin

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors.

Good, you deserve it

brightspark

Isn't comparing us to sheep a derogatory remark?

Marcus.Aurelius

brightspark wrote: »

Isn't comparing us to sheep a derogatory remark?

Even funnier when the Witnesses' own magazine, the BotchedTower (Watchtower) says they are composed of two groups, both described as sheep.

Someone's mixing their metaphors :rolleyes:

Jumpy

brightspark wrote: »

Isn't comparing us to sheep a derogatory remark?

Only to ewe.

brightspark

Sorry deeproot, I didn't realise you were complimenting us by calling us sheep!

deeproot

no I am not a Jw nor would I follow any organised belief system which dictates that which you must believe. I am a practising Pagan. I use natural herbal remidies to maintain my own desired state of health. To date I have not found any good reason to trust the "professionals". I come from a generation where teachers beat pupils into submission rather than teach them politicians line their own pockets rather than ensure the welfare of the less talented in our society. The legal profession is designed to screw hard earned money out of inocent sheeple. etc. need I go on.
deeproot

Marcus.Aurelius

deeproot wrote: »

...need I go on.

No, I guess not. And I was hoping for a real JW to do battle with.

Ho hum.

Rodin

deeproot wrote: »

no I am not a Jw nor would I follow any organised belief system which dictates that which you must believe. I am a practising Pagan. I use natural herbal remidies to maintain my own desired state of health. To date I have not found any good reason to trust the "professionals". I come from a generation where teachers beat pupils into submission rather than teach them politicians line their own pockets rather than ensure the welfare of the less talented in our society. The legal profession is designed to screw hard earned money out of inocent sheeple. etc. need I go on.
deeproot

What natural herbal remedies would you use for a haemoglobin of 4?

brightspark

Originally Posted by deeproot

To date I have not found any good reason to trust the "professionals".

I have, try surviving a burst appendix without the 'professionals'

Tonyandthewhale

deeproot wrote: »

I come from a generation where teachers beat pupils into submission rather than teach them politicians line their own pockets rather than ensure the welfare of the less talented in our society. The legal profession is designed to screw hard earned money out of inocent sheeple. etc. need I go on.
deeproot

None of this has any relevance to the issue at hand. What have doctors who want to save a child's life got to do with greedy politicians and the way teachers used to behave? And who is the legal proffession screwing money out of in this instance?

Jumpy

deeproot wrote: »

sheeple.

THIS WORD MAKE JUMPY MAD.

Seriously? The old fastest way to gain instant dislike was to spike your hair, bleach the tips and pop your collar.

Now its using the word "sheeple".


Both make you a douchebag.

Dades

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors.

There is a prohibition about making derogatory remarks about other posters. We do not hold other people's beliefs on a pedestal, and they are all open to criticism, especially the ridiculous ones that endanger innocent children.

deeproot wrote: »

I use natural herbal remidies to maintain my own desired state of health. To date I have not found any good reason to trust the "professionals".

My Dad recently had cataract operations. They physically implanted new artificial lenses in his eyes (in less than an hour for each) and improved his failing sight to such a degree that he barely needs glasses. I suspect a natural remedy wouldn't quite be up to that.

Jumpy wrote: »

Both make you a douchebag.

This, however is prohibited by our charter. The next time, Jumpy, it'll be more than a warning.

The Mad Hatter

Jumpy wrote: »

THIS WORD MAKE JUMPY MAD.

Hopping mad?

robindch

deeproot wrote: »

It is my understanding that members of this site are prohibited from passing derogotary remarks and belitting the spiritual beliefs of others [...]

With the exception of two forums -- here and here -- posters on boards.ie are generally allowed freely to post their honest opinions about other people's beliefs. On this forum, the right to do so is considered sufficiently important that it's explicitly stated in the forum charter thread.

deeproot wrote: »

[...] therefore I take exception to the remarks of the previous two contribuitors.

Oh well!

deeproot

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident. I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems. The story attracted me because it is a classical case where our inalienable rights are ignored and the general population would accept this without question but obviously that is not what this site is about. So right on folks verbally bash and ridicule those Jehovah Witnesses their quaint beliefs are so dangerous for our society. Goodbye for now I will continue my search but who knows I may share a chain with you when we are all slaves.

Tin Foil Hat

deeproot wrote: »

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident. I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems. The story attracted me because it is a classical case where our inalienable rights are ignored and the general population would accept this without question but obviously that is not what this site is about. So right on folks verbally bash and ridicule those Jehovah Witnesses their quaint beliefs are so dangerous for our society. Goodbye for now I will continue my search but who knows I may share a chain with you when we are all slaves.

There is nothing 'quaint' about a belief that would allow a small baby to die for want of a standard medical procedure.
Personally, I believe that parents who would prefer to allow their child to die in such circumstances should have that child, and all their children, removed from them, by social services, and taken into care. They are unfit parents.

I don't believe in religious freedom.
I believe in an individuals freedom. But every individuals freedom must be weighed against the impact their decisions and actions have on other individual human beings, including on their own children.

legspin

Oh noes, did we make diddums cwy?

Good

Crasp

Life > all religious beliefs.

Dr. Loon

Come on now folks, deeproot has to be a troll!? Or an idiot.

Galvasean

brightspark wrote: »

I have, try surviving a burst appendix without the 'professionals'

Ad me to that list. I have yet to encounter a herbal remedie that fixes a burst appendix. Would have saved me a Christmas* trip too the hospital.

*for those thinking God was smiting me for my atheistic ways, back then I was a very obedient Christian child.

deeproot wrote: »

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident. I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems.

There is a Conspiracy Theories forum on boards.ie
I think you'll like it there.
Although based on the jibberish you're spouting... I am kinda glad I'm not a democratic US senator.

deeproot

deeproot wrote: »

To date I have not found any good reason to trust the "professionals".

So what differentiates the evil "professionals" and the "professionals" feeding you the nonsense and faff you're regurgitating?

And can your "professionals" do any of the following?
Organ Transplants?
Skin grafts for burn victims?
Re-constructive surgery?
Keeping premature babies alive?
In-vitro fertilisation?
Reattach severed limbs?
Any kind of emergency care or first aid?

But I suppose you've got "solving the odd unexplained twinge" at least.

Goduznt Xzst

Fine, I'll be the voice of nihilistic reason here.

Like I've previously mentioned, I have extended family that are/were JW's so I have perspective.

In regards to the blood issue. All of us here probably have a line we wouldn't cross to save our child.

e.g. kill your sisters child to get a vital organ needed for yours

JW's line just happens to be based around their belief that they will exist for eternity if they obey this rule about blood transfusions.

For perspective. Your child has an illness that causes them unimaginable agony. You have 2 choices:

A) Give them an anesthetic that will remove their pain, but as a side effect, will kill them due to an allergy they have to the drug.

Let them endure the pain as they will eventually get better

Option B right? Option A is insane and not even worth considering.

Well, this is the same scenario that JW's imagine they are faced with when it comes to blood transfusions. They can temporarily keep they child alive now, but their child might lose out on existing for eternity. Or they can let their child die and preserve their belief system, insuring the possibility that their child will exist forever.

If you believed what they did, the decision to refuse a blood transfusion for your child would be as easy a decision as the one outlined in the former scenario.

I've lost all faith in humanity, so the fact that JW's allow their children to die from blood transfusions is a drop in the pond. Parents are raping, killing, starving and sexually assaulting their children right now. People are morons, JW's are just one flavor of moron. In comparison, they are more agreeable than most.

irelandspurs

The following article was written by a non-Jehovah's Witness... it covers some very interesting information...

"Life saving blood transfusion?"
August 1, 10:18 PM<image001.gif>Phoenix Signs of the Times Examiner<image001.gif>Bill Underwood
The Associated Press reported this week that there is growing concern about blood stored for transfusions.
When we cut our finger, we see blood as a simple red liquid. It was perhaps that view that prompted doctors centuries ago to believe that blood that leaked out of one patient could simply be replaced by blood from another patient. Such is not the belief of doctors today. There is a growing school of thought among the best doctors today that transfusing blood is as fraught with complications as transplanting organs.
What doctors in the 1700's couldn't have known is that blood is a complex mix of red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma, and a myriad other small constituents. Likely you've heard blood being referred to as "type A," "type B, or "type O." These distinctions refer to antigens in the blood, and so far researchers have discovered 29 different "types." The antigens essentially make each person's blood unique; they do not play well with others. Mismatched blood was the reason for the death of nearly all early transfusion patients. Even with all the technology available today, it is estimated that about one in 12,000 units of blood transfused in the United States is given to the wrong person.
Your body creates red blood cells at the astonishing rate of 2 million to 3 million per second!
That's an amazing little factoid, but it makes you think: if your bone marrow is creating 2 million cells per second, it is doing so because 2 million blood cells are dying per second. Since a unit of blood, stored, waiting to be transfused, is about one tenth of a person's whole blood supply, that means that one tenth of that figure, about 200,000 red blood cells, are dying each second.
If blood is stored for just one hour, that's 72,000,000 dead cells. I'm not feeling real great about 2,000,000 dead anything being pumped into my body. What's the number of dead cells after a day? A week? How long before they begin to putrefy?
White blood cells come in many varieties. Some of them live for a year, but some die every 36 hours. So a unit of stored blood has millions of dead white cells in it also. Other blood constituents, such as antibodies and hormones, also begin to break down and die in stored blood.
In the normal course of things, these broken down and decaying blood constituents are filtered out by your liver and kidneys, and passed out of your body in your faeces and urine. When a unit of blood is drawn from someone, some of this pre-faeces-pre-urine material was on it's way to the donor's kidneys and liver, and got sidetracked into the IV needle, to be stored for someone's transfusion. If you're like me, you may be struggling to come to grips with how you would feel about having this quart of rotting material routed into your arteries. I think the word you're looking for is "eeeew."
But there's more. While blood is rushing around in your bloodstream, the motion generates a chemical called nitric oxide. Nitric oxide is vital to your blood's ability to carry oxygen. It helps dilate your smallest blood vessels to allow blood to squeeze through. If blood can't get to the smallest passageways, it can't offload its oxygen. And transporting oxygen to your cells is kind of the whole point of transfusing blood.
However, when blood is removed from a donor and sits still in a storage bag, it no longer generates nitric oxide, and it immediately begins losing whatever nitric oxide it contains. Some tests indicate that stored blood has lost most of its nitric oxide - hence most of its oxygen-carrying capacity - within three hours of being removed from a donor. Three hours!
For these and other reasons, many doctors are taking a long, hard look at blood transfusions.
Several studies have shown that patients that are treated without blood transfusions have shorter stays in the hospital, and fewer post-operative problems.
For example, it was reported this week that Dr Jimmy Chow of St. Luke's Medical Centre in Phoenix has developed a micro-invasive hip replacement procedure. Hip replacement is typically a bloody operation, but Chow claims that with his method the patient loses no more than 200 cc's - about 6 ounces - of blood.
Next time you read a story that uses the expression "life saving blood transfusion," you might want to forward this article to the writer of that story.

MrPudding

deeproot wrote: »

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident.

More like stupidity bashing. If you want to spout religious nonsense and have people just say "there there, aren't you great for having faith" then try one of the two forums that Robin pointed out in an earlier post. I hate to break this to you, but if you are looking for support for an irrational religious belief that almost cost the life of a child, then the A & A forum is not the correct place.

deeproot wrote: »

I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems.

Try the conspiracy forum.

deeproot wrote: »

The story attracted me because it is a classical case where our inalienable rights are ignored and the general population would accept this without question but obviously that is not what this site is about.

Can you please tell me which of out inalienable rights is being ignored?

deeproot wrote: »

So right on folks verbally bash and ridicule those Jehovah Witnesses their quaint beliefs are so dangerous for our society.

Quaint is living in a cottage and not having a TV. Watching your child die because you have an idiotic belief that blood transfusions are wrong is idiotic bordering on criminally negligent.

deeproot wrote: »

Goodbye for now I will continue my search but who knows I may share a chain with you when we are all slaves.

Aw, please don’t go.

MrP

magicbastarder

deeproot wrote: »

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident. I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems. The story attracted me because it is a classical case where our inalienable rights are ignored and the general population would accept this without question but obviously that is not what this site is about. So right on folks verbally bash and ridicule those Jehovah Witnesses their quaint beliefs are so dangerous for our society. Goodbye for now I will continue my search but who knows I may share a chain with you when we are all slaves.

jim corr! i didn't recognise you at first!

robindch

irelandspurs wrote: »

The following article was written by a non-Jehovah's Witness... it covers some very interesting information...

The article was written by a man named Bill Underwood who's listed on the website of the Phoenix Examiner as:

Phoenix Examiner wrote:

Bill is a telecommunications consultant, author, photographer, and columnist. He has been a student of biblical Greek for 25 years, and a student of how religion shapes our worldview for most of his life. He lives in Mesa, Arizona.

It's probably wiser to take medical advice from somebody who's actually seen the inside of a medical college.

magicbastarder

irelandspurs wrote: »

If blood is stored for just one hour, that's 72,000,000 dead cells. I'm not feeling real great about 2,000,000 dead anything being pumped into my body.

this raises more questions than it answers. even assuming he's right, why did he not even bother his arse to find out how many blood cells there are in one unit of blood?

the article stinks of a layman trying to come to terms with medicine after 15 minutes googling it.

FWIW, after a quick google, there are 30 trillion red blood cells in your body. 72m is 0.00024% of this total, so it's a negligible figure and not worth mentioning.

Penn

deeproot wrote: »

Oops I strayed onto this Jehovah Witness bashing site by accident. I was looking for a site where like minded humans could share ideas on how to resist the soulless corporation’s takeover of the resources of our planet and the enslavement of the living breathing humans by use of the financial, legal and political systems. The story attracted me because it is a classical case where our inalienable rights are ignored and the general population would accept this without question but obviously that is not what this site is about. So right on folks verbally bash and ridicule those Jehovah Witnesses their quaint beliefs are so dangerous for our society. Goodbye for now I will continue my search but who knows I may share a chain with you when we are all slaves.

So, you were looking for a site where everyone basically agrees with you? May I suggest a blog or starting your own site? Or here's a better idea, why not discuss things with people who disagree with you and see if your opinion stands up to others?

With every medical procedure, even the simplest ones, there is a risk. But I'd say that millions of people are alive right now thanks to blood transfusions. Will a better, safer option be found in the future? I hope so. But until then, let's leave the medical procedures to the professionals. Because unlike some articles you can find on Google, they actually know what the **** they're talking about.

Dades

irelandspurs wrote: »

The following article was written by a non-Jehovah's Witness... it covers some very interesting information...

I really hope you weren't swayed by this. You see enough of this stuff, you start to recognise the signs that what you're reading is junk. People don't get transfusions as an option - they get them as a necessity. The whole thing reminds me of the anti-seatbelt campaigners. They detail a bunch of situations where people were injured by seatbelts and ignore the vastly more common cases where seatbelts saved people's lives.

Take this for example:

Article wrote:

When a unit of blood is drawn from someone, some of this pre-faeces-pre-urine material was on it's way to the donor's kidneys and liver, and got sidetracked into the IV needle, to be stored for someone's transfusion. If you're like me, you may be struggling to come to grips with how you would feel about having this quart of rotting material routed into your arteries. I think the word you're looking for is "eeeew."

I mean honestly, does that strike you as a scientific approach to the question?

The only point I would agree with would be it is a good thing that people invent new procedures that doesn't involve people having to lose pints of blood to get it done.

gbee

axer wrote: »

:mad: RELIGIOUS again. It is crazy that religious beliefs can have such a profound affect on a person that they would watch their own child die when there are simple treatments ...

I fixed that for you. Other religions strap bombs to children and detonate them in crowded marketplaces.

cavedave

Bloody Nipples

Originally Posted by deeproot
Mr JUSTICE HOGAN is incorrect when he states that his decision to overide the parents spiritual decision is lawful, His decision is only legal.
I despair for you if you would sit there and watch a child die for the sake of doctrine.

We dont allow people to buy organs. In this case you could watch a kid die of not having a kidney for the sake of the doctrine that buying organs is wrong. There are many medical technologies that are not investigated for the sake of doctrine. Stem cells and genetic modification of the human germ line are two examples. Not doing live testing on death row inmates or on the braindead are others. People die because of religious doctrine or our ethical beliefs all the time. Why signle out the Jehovah's Witness'?

What happens to the next kid or pregnant woman needing treatment? Might Jehovah's Witness' decide that they cannot trust Irish medical and legal opinion? and because of this avoid doctors even when the treatment would not violate their beliefs? I might find the belief odd but people hold it and those people will likely die in greater numbers due to this ruling.

fatmammycat

cavedave wrote: »

We dont allow people to buy organs. In this case you could watch a kid die of not having a kidney for the sake of the doctrine that buying organs is wrong. There are many medical technologies that are not investigated for the sake of doctrine. Stem cells and genetic modification of the human germ line are two examples. Not doing live testing on death row inmates or on the braindead are others. People die because of religious doctrine or our ethical beliefs all the time. Why signle out the Jehovah's Witness'?

What happens to the next kid or pregnant woman needing treatment? Might Jehovah's Witness' decide that they cannot trust Irish medical and legal opinion? and because of this avoid doctors even when the treatment would not violate their beliefs? I might find the belief odd but people hold it and those people will likely die in greater numbers due to this ruling.

So let me see if I have this, you think it might be better to let this baby actually die on the balance that other people MIGHT die in the future?
People are stupid, if they want to followa nonsense belief to the grave let them, but this baby did NOT decide he'd rather die. I totally agree with the judge in this case, while I also accept your premis that we do all manner of thing based on various ethics.

seamus

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

That should be an article in the constitution TBQFH.

axer

cavedave wrote: »

We dont allow people to buy organs. In this case you could watch a kid die of not having a kidney for the sake of the doctrine that buying organs is wrong.

Buying organs is not wrong - it is the problem that is created by allowing the selling/buying of organs that is the issue. Who deals with the mess that this results in?

cavedave wrote: »

There are many medical technologies that are not investigated for the sake of doctrine. Stem cells and genetic modification of the human germ line are two examples.

I think that is mostly due to the influence of religion. I believe the USA started funding stem cell research again. I have no problem with it ethics-wise but it would have to be tightly controlled since the future of the human race could be impacted by it.

cavedave wrote: »

Not doing live testing on death row inmates or on the braindead are others. People die because of religious doctrine or our ethical beliefs all the time.

Why I would be against live testing on the brain dead is that I would not like it done to me - are we sure that the person is 100% not able to feel the pain? With death row inmates Im not sure about since I agree with punishment and they should be forced to give back to humanity because of what they have done. The only reason I would be unwilling to implement live testing on death row inmates is what happens if the person was not guilty - which has happened.

cavedave wrote: »

Why signle out the Jehovah's Witness'?

They are not being singled out. If I refused to give consent for any reason for a blood transfusion in a life/death situation then the court would over rule me too whether it was for religious reasons or otherwise. There is no good reason to refuse the blood transfusion when a life is seriously at risk.

cavedave wrote: »

What happens to the next kid or pregnant woman needing treatment? Might Jehovah's Witness' decide that they cannot trust Irish medical and legal opinion? and because of this avoid doctors even when the treatment would not violate their beliefs? I might find the belief odd but people hold it and those people will likely die in greater numbers due to this ruling.

I don't think we can look at it like that because the courts have to stand up for this child. This child is not a Jehovah's Witness - its too young to make that decision.

cavedave

fatmammycat
So let me see if I have this, you think it might be better to let this baby actually die on the balance that other people MIGHT die in the future?

We have many things where there is general agreement that it makes sense for the individual but are illegal on the grounds that they will harm the wider society. Very few people have problems with an individual gravely ill person taking cannabis to improve their appetite or the same person later deciding to commit voluntary euthanasia when the level of pain gets to high. Most people accept we have to look at what effect laws have on more than the individual. At what point would you agree that a law is to harmful to a community to be humane? If it doubles their mortality rate would this make you reconsider?

People are stupid, if they want to followa nonsense belief to the grave let them, but this baby did NOT decide he'd rather die. I totally agree with the judge in this case, while I also accept your premis that we do all manner of thing based on various ethics.

Well what about the recent case where a Jehovahs witness woman was given blood while unconscious? Or where one was made take anti HIV drugs? HIV is a very nasty disease but it is not an immediately fatal one. If you allow forced medication of a disease that is not going to kill you soon where is the line drawn? Legal enforcement of teeth brushing as it reduces the rate of heart disease?

Why is it that (it looks like that) if a consenting adult wants to sell me his kidney thats illegal but if I don't want one I can be forced to have it? Why do I (and particularly women) have to have an increased mortality risk because of some views of Catholics?