INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Mum aged 22 dies for Jehovah

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#21 Post by Nick » November 7th, 2007, 2:10 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

GPJ wrote:In my view the law should uphold the human right of doctors to give whatever treatment they consider to be the best to save the life of a patient, so long as it is a standard treatment agreed among their peers. I don't see that this conflicts with other cases.
I would agree with your general feelings, George, but I'm afraid I'm going to (unfairly, perhaps) single out you abuse of the phrase 'human right' in the above sentence. It isn't a human right! Far too often, things are labelled as 'human rights' in an effort to halt discussion. And even where one would agree that eg clean drinking water, is something to which everyone should have access, hundreds of millions don't. To label it a 'right' IMO, renders the 'rightness' of that right somewhat meaningless anyway.

para handy
Posts: 587
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:39 pm

#22 Post by para handy » November 7th, 2007, 2:38 pm

gcb01 wrote: This is another case where the religious get special treatment. If I was told I needed a blood transfusion or I would die and I said I would not have the transfusion because I believed that the fairies at the bottom of my garden were against it, I'd probably be sectioned and the transfusion forceably given.
I don't think so. As I understand it, people have a right to refuse a blood transfusion for any reason. They are not forcibly given to anyone who is conscious and refuses one.

This raises a lot of ethical and probably legal questions too. At the moment I can't see how forcing medical treatment on somebody who does not want it - for whatever reason - can be ethically justified. People should be entitled to choose for themselves whether to live or to die.

Moonbeam
Posts: 617
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:44 pm

#23 Post by Moonbeam » November 7th, 2007, 4:37 pm


DougS
Posts: 737
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:48 am

#24 Post by DougS » November 7th, 2007, 8:54 pm

Here's a similar story with a happier ending.




{Edited to replace wrong link with correct one - admin}

verte
Posts: 153
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 9:23 pm

#25 Post by verte » November 8th, 2007, 12:02 am

I'm afraid I cannot be unbiased about this..my own parents belonged to a church that believed in prayer rather than doctors, and I am now deaf in one ear due to chronic ear infections in childhood. Am I correct in assuming any JW children who were in need of a blood transfusion would be denied such treatment by their parents due to their religious beliefs? Again, given my own experience, I am far from unbiased on this matter...I think brainwashing people to refuse medical treatment for such a ridiculous reason is irresponsible and indefensible.
Space for rent, cheap.

FloatingBoater
Posts: 189
Joined: September 16th, 2007, 11:50 am

#26 Post by FloatingBoater » November 9th, 2007, 12:02 am

It saddens me to say it, but I think that the woman showed great courage of conviction (some may say delusion), to stand by her belief.
I doubt whether I, as a confirmed a-theist would stand fast to my conviction and reject life saving assistance, should it so demand my revision.
Let us accept that the difference between a prophet and a madman is not what they say but whether the crowd accepts the story and tells their children to believe it.

DougS
Posts: 737
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:48 am

#27 Post by DougS » November 9th, 2007, 12:32 pm

I apologise but I posted the wrong link. I'll try again:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 812198.ece

Jem
Posts: 973
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:37 pm

#28 Post by Jem » November 9th, 2007, 12:38 pm

FloatingBoater wrote:It saddens me to say it, but I think that the woman showed great courage of conviction (some may say delusion), to stand by her belief.
I doubt whether I, as a confirmed a-theist would stand fast to my conviction and reject life saving assistance, should it so demand my revision.
Hmmm....I might have agreed with you before reading the story DougS linked to:
“I can even remember the anaesthetist waving her arms up and down saying, ‘Do you realise you are going to die, do you realise you are going to leave your babies motherless?’. I was terrified. But because of the religion I was brought up in, because of what I had been told to do, and because I was not in a fit mental state to change my mind, I refused to accept blood.”
Sounds like she was terrified of dying but even more terrified of accepting the means to live. That doesn't sound much like courage to me. Happily she lived to tell the tale...and leave the sect.

:thumbsup:

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#29 Post by Alan C. » November 30th, 2007, 1:41 pm

Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
gcb01
Posts: 564
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

#30 Post by gcb01 » November 30th, 2007, 3:43 pm

If they die before they've reproduced does that strengthen our gene pool?
Regards

Campbell

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

#31 Post by Alan C. » November 30th, 2007, 4:53 pm

:pointlaugh: Well it certainly means there's one less of them to indoctrinate the next generation, every cloud...............
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Post Reply