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

#1 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 1:05 pm

I can't think of what to say about this, it's left me speachless. Mum aged 22 dies for Jehovah. :headbang:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9274
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

#2 Post by Maria Mac » November 5th, 2007, 1:23 pm

I recall a BHA celebrant was sent to JW family where the same thing had happened. She wasn't told by the Funeral Director before she went that they were JWs, only that they didn't want a vicar!

In the end she acted as MC - opened and closed the ceremony and introduced a series of speakers. She then asked (on the celebrants egroup) whether she had done the right thing as a humanist.

Everyone said yes, though some said they think they would have felt too angry to conduct the ceremony.

Do you think they should have overruled her wishes?

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

#3 Post by gcb01 » November 5th, 2007, 1:57 pm

It's a good example of the power and stupidity of religion - it is completely unnatural to prefer to die and leave your children without a mother.

I think she could have been stopped if considered insane.
Regards

Campbell

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

#4 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 2:26 pm

Now I've had time to think about it, I agree with gcb01.
I think she could have been stopped if considered insane.
I think she should have been sectioned, and given the blood transfusion.
The level of her commitment to the JWs must surely rank as some kind of mental illness.
I also think the hierarchy of the JWs should be held responsible for her death. Nutters isn't a strong enough term to describe them.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Thomas
Posts: 459
Joined: July 21st, 2007, 3:54 pm

#5 Post by Thomas » November 5th, 2007, 2:36 pm

gcb01 wrote:It's a good example of the power and stupidity of religion - it is completely unnatural to prefer to die and leave your children without a mother.

I think she could have been stopped if considered insane.
I wonder if she - and perhaps the rest of the family - seriously thought that she wasn't going to die because their prayers would save her.

Alan C. wrote: The level of her commitment to the JWs must surely rank as some kind of mental illness.
Every JW I've ever met has been exactly the same. It certainly isn't rational but I doubt it qualifies as mental illness.

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

#6 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 2:55 pm

Thomas
Every JW I've ever met has been exactly the same. It certainly isn't rational but I doubt it qualifies as mental illness.
Just because there are a lot of sufferers, doesn't invalidate it as a mental illness, It just proves how good the men who run these cults, are at brainwashing people.
It's ironic that on one side you've got the catliks who think they are drinking blood, then you've got the jahovas wankers committing suicide, rather than have a transfusion, and it's the same bloody god that's directing them both
:twisted: I wish it was 7.00pm, I need a drink!!!!
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Curtains
Posts: 88
Joined: July 8th, 2007, 3:51 pm

#7 Post by Curtains » November 5th, 2007, 3:31 pm

But isn't the point that it doesn't 'qualify' as a mental illness as far as the doctors are concerned? So they can't section someone who refuses treatment on religious grounds.

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

#8 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 4:08 pm

If it had been known what the suicide nutjobs were planning, before they flew the planes into skyscrapers, I'm sure they would have been deemed "mentally ill" although they would claim not, "on religious grounds"
It's high time ALL religious privileges were dismantled, what about the doctors who have sworn the Hippocratic oath? Think of the position it puts them in, they have taken an oath to save life then have to stand by and watch a young girl die, all because of some silly superstition.
These are the same doctors who are not allowed to help end the life of a patient suffering extreme pain, and who is dying anyway, it's madness.
curtains
But isn't the point that it doesn't 'qualify' as a mental illness as far as the doctors are concerned? So they can't section someone who refuses treatment on religious grounds.
When a happy 22 year old with two new babies, decides to commit suicide, I'd say that she was mentally ill.
Anybody that enters an NHS hospital should not be able to opt out of anything on spurious "religious grounds"
Also, I think the twins should be taken into care, they are not safe with a family that could watch their mother die and do nothing to prevent it.
End of rant.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Firebrand
Posts: 686
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 9:05 am

#9 Post by Firebrand » November 5th, 2007, 5:10 pm

I feel like screaming and smashing something up! I don't know whether it's mental illness or not but I do feel that it is CRIMINAL! Those children will grow up never knowing their mother - I only hope this makes them question all the crap they are taught and turn their back on it.

:boohoo:

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

#10 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Firebrand
I only hope this makes them question all the crap they are taught and turn their back on it.
The whole bloody family are ensnared in the cult, so I see little hope for the kids, unless as I said earlier, they are taken into care.
Yes I know that sounds extreme, but look at the alternative, two more indoctrinated young minds. I feel like going down to the kingdom hall here and putting a match to it (yes it's made of timber) :twisted:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#11 Post by Nick » November 5th, 2007, 5:47 pm

Anybody that enters an NHS hospital should not be able to opt out of anything on spurious "religious grounds"
I'm assuming this came out mid-rant, as it is inconsistent with other things we may wish to see, eg the end to invasive or continuing surgery or treatment when suffering a terminal illness.

I wonder if the approach should be more that it constitutes child abuse, and that she should have been forcibly treated for the benefit of the children. Surely her god has the capacity to forgive her?

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

#12 Post by Jem » November 5th, 2007, 6:19 pm

Sounds like not all JWs agree with the policy of refusing blood transfusions and there are moves to get it changed.

http://www.ajwrb.org/physicians/Lee-JME2000/375.html

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

#13 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 6:56 pm

Anybody that enters an NHS hospital should not be able to opt out of anything on spurious "religious grounds"
I'm assuming this came out mid-rant, as it is inconsistent with other things we may wish to see, eg the end to invasive or continuing surgery or treatment when suffering a terminal illness.
No no Nick, the things you mention here have got sod all to do with religion, note the last two words in my sentence.
I've been doing some digging around and came across this.
Since the WatchTower Society first stopped Jehovah's Witnesses from accepting blood transfusions in 1945, there has been a stream of state and federal court cases which have slowly but surely chipped away at the moral concept that to allow an adult or child to needlessly die inside a hospital setting is something unconscionable to our modern society. But, such has nearly been completely accomplished, thanks to the tireless efforts of the WatchTower Society's Legal Department.
Isn't it marvellous how these religious rules, supposedly set in stone, can be adopted or dropped at the whim of the top men, Catholic priests could marry up until the 1500s, and when I was a lad they couldn't eat meat on Friday. (Catholics that is) but I'm sure you knew that.

Nothing gets my blood pressure up more than a tragedy like this one, that is easily preventable, if you remove the religious blinkers.
5 more minutes, and I'm having that drink.
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

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

#14 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 7:08 pm

I just followed your link Jem, and now I'm even more irate (not your fault you understand :wink: )
Bloody morons! Like every other sect within the cult, they can't even agree among themselves what the ground rules are.

And I just had a thought, surely the doctor, by not giving the transfusion assisted the patient to die? Is this another privilege to be given to the faith heads but denied to the rest of us?

I'm off for a shower, and then that drink to calm me down. :twisted:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

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

#15 Post by Alan C. » November 5th, 2007, 8:00 pm

The poor sod really did die for nothing Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban. That's from a BBC news item in June 2000. :cross: :twisted: :angry:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Phaedo
Posts: 55
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 3:54 pm

#16 Post by Phaedo » November 6th, 2007, 1:51 pm

Alan C. wrote:
And I just had a thought, surely the doctor, by not giving the transfusion assisted the patient to die? Is this another privilege to be given to the faith heads but denied to the rest of us?
Aren't we looking to have our cake and eat it here.
On the one hand it has been strongly argued on this forum that each individual should have the right to terminate his/her life. On the other hand we condemn this woman for doing so because her motive was a religious belief. Much as I abhor the waste of a viable life and the consequences for her family. especially the children, I feel if we are to be consistent we have to grant her right to have done what she did.
There still remains the question, though, if suicide is illegal in law in this country, should those who aided and abetted her in doing this be prosecuted as they might have been if the had helped her get to Switzerland to achieve the same end. Does suicide for a religious belief absolve one from the law?
The law once more appears to be an ass.
True lovers of knowledge are temperate and brave...
Socrates

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

#17 Post by gcb01 » November 6th, 2007, 4:22 pm

I don't think this was suicide, I don't think she wanted to die - it was just her brain was so addled by woo-woo.

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.

But if I said it was because of woo-woo then I'd be left alone to die.
Regards

Campbell

GPJ
Posts: 40
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 5:35 pm

#18 Post by GPJ » November 7th, 2007, 1:12 pm

I feel sympathy for the doctors in this case. It seems they are prevented from giving the best available treatment, either because of a law which respects the right of people to hold ridiculous beliefs, or because of fear of being sued for large sums for violating such supposed human rights.

If the doctors had ignored the patient's religious views and she had recovered, would she have committed suicide? would she have sued for violation of her rights? would she have thought that after all it was Jehovah's will that she should live?

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.
George Jelliss

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

#19 Post by Nick » November 7th, 2007, 2:04 pm

Alan C. wrote:
Anybody that enters an NHS hospital should not be able to opt out of anything on spurious "religious grounds"
I'm assuming this came out mid-rant, as it is inconsistent with other things we may wish to see, eg the end to invasive or continuing surgery or treatment when suffering a terminal illness.
No no Nick, the things you mention here have got sod all to do with religion, note the last two words in my sentence.
The problem is, Alan, that all she had to do was just to refuse treatment for personal reasons. The result would have been the same. I would like to explore the options of forcible treatment for the benefit of the children.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

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

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.

Post Reply