Advanced search

To want to punch this woman?

(74 Posts)
ShouldaWouldaCoulda Tue 30-Oct-12 12:05:34

She developed slapped cheek syndrome during pregnancy, baby born anemic needed blood transfusion and she refused,(JW) doctors overruled and her life was saved.
Baby is now 5 months old and she has openly said she resents the docs who saved her DDs life because she wont go to heaven or whatever shit she believes.
(I tend to stop listening whenever she opens her trap)
twat angry

mrsfuzzy Tue 30-Oct-12 12:34:59

i was working was working in a hospice many years ago and a 26 year old mother of twins was admitted with myeloid leuk. her husband pleaded with her to take blood transfusions to save her life but she refused, and it had gotten to the stage there was nothing else that could be done, i was with her as she lay dying and her last words were the names of her four year old sons. it is such a debatable subject, personally i cannot see how anyone could refuse on religious grounds but everyone has to make their own choices,many people thought she'd done the wrong thing, myself included but you can't force treatment against someone's will, it's the same situation with resuss patients but that's another situation sadly i have too much experience of.

ZombTEE Tue 30-Oct-12 12:38:43

Yes. YABU. Violence is not the way forward.

If she wants to be a twat in the name of religion, just ignore her.

Ithinkitsjustme Tue 30-Oct-12 12:41:27

I think it's incredibly sad that she feels this way, but YABU to want to smack her. It's very hard to go against a religion that you have been taught from childhood and for this woman, the thought that her baby will not go to heaven is a massive deal. She needs help not a slap.

altinkum Tue 30-Oct-12 12:41:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ShouldaWouldaCoulda Tue 30-Oct-12 12:45:40

I am joking about the punch btw

mrsfuzzy Tue 30-Oct-12 12:59:04

as a nurse i have often had mixed feelings about a patients choice of treatments but religion is such a strong factor for some people, who am i to try to suggest other wise, whether it is right or wrong it will always divide people and make sense to some and not to others.

Strawhatpirate Tue 30-Oct-12 13:03:43

Imagine being the poor child and growing up with your own mother telling you that you have been permabanned from heaven sad

ICBINEG Tue 30-Oct-12 13:05:58

I just don't get how anyone thinks they get to make decisions about someone else's survival chances on the basis of a religion that they don't even share!

If you are JW then sure don't accept a transfusion. But your baby is not JW so how do you get to apply your principles to them? You certainly don't get to refuse me a blood transfusion and how exactly is a baby less of an independent person than I am?

Fuck parental rights. We are a society and we should be protecting children from people who would harm them no matter whether there intention to harm comes from religion or any other place.

lisad123 Tue 30-Oct-12 13:06:37

I'm a little hmm about this thread because JW don't believe you go to heaven! And they also don't teach that children given blood are "banned" from paradise

freddiefrog Tue 30-Oct-12 13:08:04

IMO, if you want to put your religious beliefs ahead of medical treatment for yourself then fine, but not when it means your child could lose their life.

economistextra Tue 30-Oct-12 13:08:46

I'm glad the doctors overruled.

Ithinkitsjustme Tue 30-Oct-12 13:09:21

ICBINEG the point, as I see it, is the damage that this woman will now do her child if she tells it that it has been banned from heaven. Would you advocate that the child was taken into care?
Many people will terminate a pregnancy in the belief that the child would be born with a condition that would make it preferable to have never been born. This woman is really saying the same thing. To her, the afterlife is even more important than the present one.

Kalisi Tue 30-Oct-12 13:15:46

Not really, terminating an unborn foetus is a whole different kettle of fish to denying lifesaving treatment to a living child based on nothing more than a blind belief. I am 100% behind ICBINEG on this one.

NoTeaForMe Tue 30-Oct-12 13:16:23

Lisa JW's do not accept blood transfusions as the blood is unpure. They do believe on going on to a better afterlife, whether they call it heaven of. It doesn't really matter! As far as I remember they do not accept blood transfusions as this would stop them continuing to this 'better place' .

I find this all so weird. A friend of mine is married to a JW (massive problems in the family as she is not and has stated their children won't be either!) and his nan recently died. She needed a blood transfusion but the whole family refused, so she died-my friend had little sympathy as the nan could easily have been saved and lived healthily and happily for another 10 or so years!

SouthernShepherdess Tue 30-Oct-12 13:16:46

I'm sorry..but I believe in God myself (not a JW)! But I have a liberal view of a firm believer that medical technology and the knowledge we have is God-given, and outdated, extreme religious views like that have no place this day and age. YANBU to feel angry at this woman. Let her refuse a blood transfusion for herself..but this is her baby ffs! these people have a very unrealistic, dark-age view of God, and need waking up! It winds me up no end. No wonder so many people go away from religion in this day and age..they all think we are like that!

Ithinkitsjustme Tue 30-Oct-12 13:19:31

Kailisi - I read the post as the woman being given a transfusion when she was pregnant, sorry my mistake.

ICBINEG Tue 30-Oct-12 13:19:40

Ithink If the mother is doing provable harm to the child by repeatedly implying they are damned or in some way worthless then yes I would support taking the child into care.

If I were a doctor I would not being worrying that I shouldn't save a babies life in case the mother decides to abuse the child as a result. I would just get on and do my job and let society deal with the rest.

CotherMuckingFunt Tue 30-Oct-12 13:21:44

My dh's mother is a JW and as far as he is aware blood transfusions are 'allowed' now and there is no such belief that receiving blood stops you going to the after life.

Wowserz129 Tue 30-Oct-12 13:22:35

I think people should butt out! I get sick of reading comments like yours OP about JWs, Muslims, etc. it's so judgmental!! Yes I personally think that the babies health should be protected but to say you want to punch her for what she religiously believes is just shallow and immature.

lisad123 Tue 30-Oct-12 13:23:21

Blood fractions are allowed, as are cell saver machine (which is your own blood). Most of the decisions about health are personal choice and only one that are in the bible are set as "rules".

peeriebear Tue 30-Oct-12 13:23:52

My aunt was a JW years ago. My cousin potentially needed a transfusion; my aunt refused. My grandparents got her decision overruled. Cousin didn't need transfusion in the end, but Aunt didn't speak to grands for over a year.
Now my aunt is no longer a JW and I bet she is damn glad for my grands' actions.

ICBINEG Tue 30-Oct-12 13:24:15

southern I don't think atheists do bunch JW in with more liberal enlightened religions tbh. Although a lot of damage can be done by sending kids to even very liberal C of E sunday school when they realise they have no faith and so all the lovely fluffy going to heaven stuff isn't meant for them.

Personally I think religion should be as much an adult activity as sex, voting and drinking. When you know your own mind then feel free to engage in religion or not as you see fit. Being told how you should feel about these things from a very early age causes chaos if you later find you don't.

I think it isn't unlike being told homosexuality is bad from the moment you are born and then hitting puberty and finding out that means you.

CaptainHoratioWragge Tue 30-Oct-12 13:27:05

I believe that she should have the religious freedom to choose not to accept life saving treatment for herself, but not to choose this for her child.

Incidentally ,the JW message on blood transfusions has been very mixed. At first the church allowed them for many years then it suddenly banned them for many years, now it appears to be relaxing its stance somewhat.

Their teaching on this is desperately inconsistent but this is not something that the average JW is ever told.

Kalisi Tue 30-Oct-12 13:29:08

Ah yes Ithink in that situation I would actually agree with you. See how fickle these forums make me grin

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: