Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

eviltwin

I think its foolish and selfish to be involved in a church that even preaches such rubbish. Terrible that this poor man is a widower now and the child has lost his mum over such a stupid decision. I don't believe in forcing people to do anything though if they make that choice themselves, its different if the person is a child or vulnerable adult but a person knows their own mind, if they want to be a martyr for their faith let them.

Cork boy 55

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That depends how you look at it I guess. The question being it is "survival of the fittest" of who or what exactly?

For example when an animal infected by a parasite suddenly starts to throw itself into danger, such as an ant which exposes itself to injection by cows when infected with Dicrocoelium dendriticum, or a mouse infected by Toxoplasma gondii who suddenly loses all fear of cats and runs towards them...... clearly "survival of the fittest" is indeed at play here. But not of the mouse or the ant. Of the parasite.

One does not have to stretch far at all to wonder if a memetic infection, rather than a parasitic one, is any less viewable in such terms. Is the "survival of the fittest" of our species served by this woman removing herself from the gene pool? Not really, not very much at all in fact, and that is BEFORE you consider that she managed to reproduce before doing it.

If one however takes a Natural Selection view of the Meme rather than the Gene, one starts to see a very different story. While viruses occasionally kill their hosts they do so as part of a virulence that embodies the successful elements of their species. There is a reason why terminal viruses still propagate. And there is even more reason why an occasionally terminal memetic infection would too.

So while a Darwinian discussion of this story might be warranted, one might not want to come at that discussion from the wrong angle.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am entirely convinced you have a point to make with that ^ but I have to honestly say I have no idea what it might be.

Brian Shanahan

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

<snip graph, makes quote box too big>

Given the world's population growth over the same period as shown by:

(link)

and:


(link)

The best you can say about JW growth is that it is simply treading water concurrent with global population growth, and can quite easily see that the most likely reason for the growth in absolute numbers of JW adherents is through procreation, i.e. that the parents are indoctrinating their children in their own religion. To be honest that is not really growth at all.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given the patient refusing treatment solely on religious grounds is under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense, is not then a case to be made, or at least to be argued by better minds that yours or mine, that they are similarly incapable of making "the correct" decision given they are under the delusion of unsubstantiated nonsense? Where does one draw the line on which forms of delusion warrant intervention and which do not?

That is a very interesting area you have just raised, and in fact that argument has been made (in the UK, although not yet in Ireland) but has not succeded.

[just as a preliminary point, if a person faced with a life threatening treatment decision had only received the religiously based information (unsubstantiated nonsense!), the court would not permit them to refuse that treatment (until such time as they had also recieved the factual information from their doctor)]

The legal test in this whole area (in the UK & RoI) is that in order to be 'capable' of making a decision, a person must be able to (a) comprehend & retain treatment information (b) believe & weigh up treatment information and (c) communicate the decision.

It has been argued that religous and other belief systems could negate (b) in particular. However, the courts (in the UK) havent accepted this argument for a number of reasons. The main reasons are that:

- first and foremost, the courts believe that a necessary condition for depriving a person of their decision making power is some form of 'mental impairment and malfunctioning'. They do not accept that religious belief - however 'bonkers' we might find it - amounts to a form of mental impairment. Legal incapacity can arise where the functioning of the mind is impaired, but not where the mind is capable of functioning, but does so in an unwise or even irrational fashion; it has long been accepted in law that otherwise competent adults are entitled to refuse life saving treatment for any reason, including an irrational reason. [i think that even most atheists would accept that the 'religous', even those at the fringes, fall within the latter category (ie. they have functioning minds!)],

- second, almost as a policy decision, the courts have - and continue to - 'defer' to religous based decisions. Of course there are limits to that deference (for instance, they wont allow such decisions to be taken on behalf of children).

Ultimately, the courts have not yet subjected religiously motivated decision making to a true forensic examination. If they did, and if they applied the test of capacity (above) to a person who, for instance, genuinely believes (despite all of the evidence to the contrary) that God - rather than a transfusion - will improve their drastically low haemoglobin level, it is certainly arguable that they would find that the legal test (part b) for incapacity is met.

The Irish courts have never considered the central issue you have raised but they would almost certainly follow the UK courts general approach.

pwurple

I would not be here myself without blood products.

I've got friends who are JW, and I've spoken to them about this. Their view was that it was a risk that they didn't want to take, and the religion was backing up common sense. Blood born disease.

To me, that risk is vastly outweighed by the benefits, but I see their point too. There have been instances of disease transmission through transfusion, the vCJD incidents in the UK for example. These are not long ago, we are talking about the 90's.

It's also the reason I can't donate blood here. I have received blood products several times, and am now in the higher-risk category for blood borne disease.


They also brought up the ethical issue of people being paid for blood, and the effect this has on humanity. I don't think it applies in Ireland, but in the US, and certainly now in parts of Africa for ebola, you do see a trade in blood for various reasons. Is this right? Because once you start paying people for it, you inevitably get some very desperate people lying about their medical history in order to make money.

Orion

pwurple wrote: »

I've got friends who are JW, and I've spoken to them about this. Their view was that it was a risk that they didn't want to take, and the religion was backing up common sense. Blood born disease.

This is nothing to do with why they won't accept blood transfusions. It's purely a religious thing - nothing to do with blood borne diseases. The interpret the following verses from the bible as banning blood transfusions where any reasonable person would interpret it completely differently.

Genesis 9:4 - Only flesh with its life*—its blood+—you must not eat
Leviticus 17:10 - “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.
Deuteronomy 12:23 - 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.
Acts 15:28 - the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Leviticus 17:14 - For 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. Anyone eating it will be cut off.

And that is all straight from the JW website - not my own interpretation.

Karl Stein

Sacramento wrote: »

Someone who refuses a blood transfusion for religious reasons is not of sound mind if you ask me. She died because of her decision. Doctors generally know best when it comes to keeping you alive.

Not of sound mind...

Interesting case here which is relevant:

Refusal of treatment

Re C (Adult, refusal of treatment) [1994] 1 All ER 819
The right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment/The principle that mental illness does not automatically call a patient’s capacity into question.

C had paranoid schizophrenia and was detained in Broadmoor secure hospital. He developed gangrene in his leg but refused to agree to an amputation, which doctors considered was necessary to save his life. The Court upheld C’s decision.

The fact that a person has a mental illness does not automatically mean they lack capacity to make a decision about medical treatment.
Patients who have capacity (that is, who can understand, believe, retain and weigh the necessary information) can make their own decisions to refuse treatment, even if those decisions appear irrational to the doctor or may place the patient’s health or their life at risk.

www.gmc-uk.org/consent-guidance.asp

hdowney

Orion wrote: »

This is nothing to do with why they won't accept blood transfusions. It's purely a religious thing - nothing to do with blood borne diseases. The interpret the following verses from the bible as banning blood transfusions where any reasonable person would interpret it completely differently.

Genesis 9:4 - Only flesh with its life*—its blood+—you must not eat
Leviticus 17:10 - “‘If any man of the house of Israel or any foreigner who is residing in your midst eats any sort of blood, I will certainly set my face against the one who is eating the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.
Deuteronomy 12:23 - 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.
Acts 15:28 - the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Leviticus 17:14 - For 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. Anyone eating it will be cut off.

And that is all straight from the JW website - not my own interpretation.

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!!!

Brown Bomber

lazygal wrote: »

Or unless you are pregnant in Ireland and don't wish to be. Plenty of interference in one's body happens when you're pregnant, yet all women are refused the option of doing anything about it.

... and your point is that two wrongs make a right...?

GLaDOS

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!!!

Guess black pudding is out so

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

You'll be hoping a long time, the best support they'll get will be "it was god's will that your wife and mother died".

It's long beyond time that religion should be a valid reason for a person refusing required medical treatments, the doctor's job is to help the patient recover, not pander to their delusions.

So you'd be in favour of force-feeding (a form of torture according to the UN) anorexics who refuse to eat?

Brown Bomber

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well then, you must hate living in Ireland,

I don't, live in Ireland that is.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Allowing a person to refuse valid and vital medical treatment just because ... < Doesn't matter what the individual's reason is. It's every individual's right to bodily integrity >

The alternative is strict authoritarianism. I never had you pegged for being so fervently pro-life/anti-choice.

lazygal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and your point is that two wrongs make a right...?

What's the two wrongs?

smokingman

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree that it is stupid. I don't agree that people should be denied the ownership of their own bodies because someone else thinks that they are stupid. Liberty is the freedom to make the wrong choices.

Just like abortion so. Glad you're a pro-choicer now.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of force-feeding (a form of torture according to the UN) anorexics who refuse to eat?

So you think Ireland is now torturing people then? 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?

Story from yesterday
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/anorexia-victim-can-be-force-fed-via-tube-judge-rules-297236.html

There's been prevuious judgements in Ireland were judges have ruled force feeding can happen
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/anorexic-woman-can-be-fed-against-wishes-court-rules-1.1812655

Anorexia is a disorder by the way, it's not a person's free will.

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

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Legal incapacity can arise where the functioning of the mind is impaired........(ie. they have functioning minds!)

Indeed, which is why I did not really discuss impaired or non-functioning minds: But minds operating under a delusion. There are differences between the two, even if subtle. It is also why I prefaced by points with phrases like "ideal world" because it is quite clear that the divides of which I speak do exist and religion is not going to be treated with all the other unsubstantiated delusions that likely would have people step in.

After all, as I asked in my post, what really is the difference between the delusion that god will reduce the quality of your position in the after life if you accept a transfusion.... and the delusion that the doctors are lizard skin aliens injecting mind controlling drugs into patients in order to ensure subjugation and a docile public?

And yet, clearly, the patients climbing out of bed espousing each of these delusions will not be viewed or treated equally by their peers. One will be given the whole "yes sir whatever you like sir" treatment and the other strapped to a bed in a mental asylum until such time as it can be ascertained whether they are a threat to themselves or others.

drkpower wrote: »

Ultimately, the courts have not yet subjected religiously motivated decision making to a true forensic examination.

Alas true, which is why we can do little more than keep making the right noises in the hope that some day they will.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and your point is that two wrongs make a right...?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of force-feeding (a form of torture according to the UN) anorexics who refuse to eat?

You have a cute MO of summarizing and distilling peoples posts into things that no one actually espoused in any way.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed, which is why I did not really discuss impaired or non-functioning minds: But minds operating under a delusion. There are differences between the two, even if subtle. y.

No, I raised it because that is the key legal distinction and the reason why your argument, which has been raised many times before the courts, has been rejected.

The courts don't accept the 'delusion' that you talk about.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

No, I raised it because that is the key legal distinction and the reason why your argument, which has been raised many times before the courts, has been rejected.

The courts don't accept the 'delusion' that you talk about.

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.

chrysagon

people to fond of butting into other peoples business...

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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