Jehovah’s Witness dies after she refuses blood

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.