To want to punch this woman?

[ShouldaWouldaCoulda]

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

"Over its history the Watchtower Society has made a virtual 360 degree turn on their acceptance of blood products. The result is a stance that is:

◦Inconsistent - The Watchtower states God's standard is that blood must not be stored, yet allows Jehovah's Witnesses to use blood fractions derived from stored blood.

◦Double Standard - Jehovah's Witnesses use significant quantities of medical products derived from blood, but are forbidden from donating blood.

Just as the Watchtower revoked its ruling that organ transplants are wrong in the 1980's, over the last few years it has made significant changes to the acceptable use of blood. Every Jehovah's Witness should seriously consider the implications of the Watchtower making such life and death doctrinal changes before deciding to refuse blood, when lives are at stake.

"Jehovahs Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or the four primary components of blood namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. They also do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion." Kingdom Ministry Nov 2006 p.3

"Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself." Watchtower 2000 Jun 15 p.31

1. If it is wrong for a Witness to donate blood, who do the blood fractions they use come from?

1. If blood must be poured on the ground, where are the blood fractions they use derived from?

1. If abstaining from blood does not allow taking a "major" fraction, why does it allow a fraction of a fraction?

1. If blood fractions were always acceptable to Jehovah, who is responsible for the Witnesses that needlessly died refusing them, due to Watchtower policy forbidding them prior to the year 2000?

Children are not JW unless they choose to be baptised when old enough to decide for themselves. Parents like every parent make what decision they think best for their kids. Each JW has their own medical forms which shows what medical treatment they consent to, and this is stored with GP and family.

I have reported this thread as I am sick to the back teeth of it being 'fine' on MN to direct hatred at JWs simply because of their religion. In this country we are free to follow whatever religion we choose. Children are not left to die for want of transfusions as the courts always intervene, but legally a child is not a person in its own right until it has left it's mothers body. That's decided by the lawmakers.

I don't agree with any organised religion, but I am proud to live in a country where everyone has the right to practise whatever religion they choose, or indeed none. I'm sick of reading ignorant religious bigotry on here, it wouldn't be tolerated if it was against Jewish people would it!!

I am also a bit hmmm about this thread.

Of course we should save lives where we can, but its not always black and white.

Get over your "atheism is right and everyone who believes something else is a fool" attitude. Imagine for a minute that you know beyond all doubt that doing X would save your child's earthly life at a cost of their eternal life after death. Is doing X in the best interests of the child? No it is not. Anyone who immunises their child admits that short term pain is acceptable in light of longer term benefits (bad needle, good protection from nasty disease). By extension, if eternal life (i.e. more than 1000000 years of life after death) is jeopardised by a transfusion then the blood should not be given despite the horrible and regrettable short term consequences (i.e. the child dies now and not in 70 years time). The only difference here is that YOU do not agree with the parent's beliefs. In fact, most people would not agree with this parent's beliefs too, this is a very extreme example which is likely not real IMHO.

Children are not born with a faith and they are not born atheist either. Until the child is old enough to make their own decisions, the parents are best placed to do take decisions on behalf of the child. The state intervenes in rare cases where the physical or emotional welfare of the child is deemed (by the law, after long debate) to be put at risk by the parents viewpoint. But this must be done VERY carefully and very rarely. To do otherwise is to say that people with a minority viewpoint should not be allowed to raise children. So no JWs raising kids, or anyone who wants to home educate (ooooh, frowning on the state's provision!) or who chooses to live a sustainible lifestyle without a car (hippies!), and before too long you have to be a liberal heterosexual cohabiting but not married Daily Mail reader to get your breeding license.

If you want parents to have no parental choice we should raise all our children in a large hive nursery where they all get equal opportunities and identical upbringings by childminders who have "government approved" beliefs.

Yes links are right, changes have been made about the "rules" on blood transfusions but you know what, I would rather they hold up hands and say, we have looked into this further given new information than stick to old rules to save face.
The bible hasn't changed but medical stuff has moved forward.
Did you know JW have raised thousands of pounds to give hospitals a cell saver machines for all to use so people can have their own blood (much safer), but then you wouldn't know that unless you listened.

Featherbag, I agree with you it is horrid to see prejudice like this.

However I think there's possibly a reason that this particular religion gets slated so much - it's that people only know anything about it in the context of strangers knocking at their doors, trying to enlighten or possibly convert them, and the furthest most people get is saying 'no, please go away'.

So in a sense the poor old JWs are set up to fail before they even start, which I think is a shame as even if their rules and beliefs aren't something I'd agree with (and I don't even know this, as I'm ignorant about them) I think ifthey are happy doing what they do, they should be free to do it.

But people characterise them/perceive them as a nuisance, and odd, because they find the persistent evangelism annoying, so it's become a standing 'joke' to a lot of people.

Really sad.

none on this thread has any right to stand in judgement of others beliefs, i,m a paga and i could bang on about how christians have hijacked many pagan ideas and taken them as their own, but that is missing the point. just because you do not agree with someelse does not make you right, the jw bashers need to be doing something a bit more constructive with their lives and stop judging every one else.

aree with lisad op. all abit daily wail for me.

I always want to punch JWs.

I helped in a school with a little JW girl who would cry because she wasn't allowed to celebrate Christmas and her Birthday.

I wanted to hold her and hug her and tell her it didn't matter. That there is no God, no heaven and no hell. I wanted to bring in a huge cake and have the whole class sing happy birthday to her.

Of course I couldn't, the whole reason she was there was the school let their parents come in for assembly and Re and teach them according to their cult faith.

I would imagine, that if you have belonged to the J.W faith all your life then you have been brainwashed to believe that you will be denied to chance to enter the supposed afterlife if you have a blood transfusion. I think they view this afterlife as more important than the actual life they are living. Its very hard to understand how they can refuse life saving treatment, for themselves and their children, but then we view blood transfusion as a life saving treatment and not something that will seperate us from our faith and ultimately family like they do.
FWIW children of J.W are not normally denied a blood transfusion as their wishes are overruled.

I want to second everything that MichaelaS said!
great post.

hmm not sure where people are getting the idea that there is prejudice against JW here....I think most people posting would have equally laid into any other religion refusing blood transfusions to dying babies. It is the action not the religion that is being denounced.

Society sets the norms. We (British society) think adults having sex with minors is immoral and would prevent a parent from pushing a child to engage in such acts. Not all cultures/religions agree. So somewhere along the line a society draws the lines for everyone in that society. Somewhere along the line we say nope actually you the parent are not best placed to make decisions for your child.

British society currently values a babies right to live this life more highly that the potential loss of the afterlife that the JW (may or may not!?!) believe in. We certainly believe a parent is in the wrong if they EA said child by continuously telling it that it is damned or otherwise unworthy....

The more society evolves and matures, the more parental 'choice' will be removed. This seems entirely the right and moral way to go. All children should get the benefit of current best parenting practise whether their parents like it or not.

Just remember that JW's were sent to Concentration Camps during 2WW because they refused to join and fight the Nazi's. Don't recall other Christian based doctrines espousing this en masse. Too busy turning away boatloads of Jewish refugees from their shores....

I am an atheist, I believe religion is a system invented within the human story rather than a series of true ideas that explain the story.

However even If faith is a religious system that explains the human story, it's exponents have lost the majesty of its explanation in exchange for it's validation of their lifestyles.

To sum up- don't bother trying to justify one belief system over another because they are all corrupt, hypocritical and very far from the simple creeds that they determinedly cling to as an ideal.

op, leave her to it.
she's unreasonable due to religion and you are intolerant and unpleasant.
can't imagine why you ever speak to each other.

ICBINEG do you really believe that the more society evolves the less parental choice there will be? That the government will eventually dictate what children eat, where they live and what they wear? I think that's very sad and a bit too sci fi to happen outside North Korea to be honest. Even the most oppressive regimes in the world allow people to bring up their own offspring. The only counter example i can think of is Australias program of taking Aboriginal children and giving the to white families or raising them in school workhouses to become maids etc.

Every attempt I know of to indoctrinate a generation of children with another's beliefs has been seriously frowned on by history shortly afterwards.

Britain shipped hundreds of children to the Antipodes to be brought up away from their families and culture. Inuit, Tinglit and Native American children in Alaska were taken away by the US government and raised in homes/care. They have finally been awarded some compensatory acknowledgement of this terrible trauma inflicted upon them.

Michela society already intervenes if people feed their kids cat food...or just nothing but biscuits. We would class it as abuse (which I would agree with).

I wouldn't see the state acting as parent as indoctrination. I would expect a state education program to acknowledge the existence of all faiths and none but not at any point tell children there is a 'correct answer'.

You are totally right. The indoctrination of children never ends well. That is exactly why parents should be prevented from doing it to their children as they do at the moment.

I truly think that as society evolves indoctrination to a faith will be considered as a form of mental abuse in the same way that bringing your kids up to think homosexuality is evil is emotional abuse, and bringing your kids up using violence as a behavioural modifier is already firmly considered to be physical abuse.

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.

Errrrr.....

OK I'm not JW but have discussed this sort of senario with JWs. They believe the vast majority of people will not go to heaven, only a certain few thousand.

They also do not blame anyone who has had a blood transfusion who was not in a position to refuse.

Oh and finally, it is only baptised JWs who accept blood who are shunned, as she is a few months old she won't be baptised yet.

Much as the whole JW makes me uncomfortable, I can imagine if you are a believer that is immensely distressing to think your child has been denied an after life because of intervention.

Her issue should be with a God who would make that call, rather than the Drs who's job it is to save life, not after life.

I would hope that any God worth his salt would have added a clause to his rule that you only get denied entry if you KNOWINGLY took another's blood or gave consent.

I think she has a right to choose for her self but not choose for others in such a situation.

I remember a story in the paper a while back about a couple who were accused of murdering a child in some warped voodoo exorcism ceremony. Im sure they believed that what they were doing would save their child from eternal damnation in the long run but quite rightly they were found guilty and sentenced accordingly.
Screw respect for their beliefs and parental rights, when something is considered by the society as a whole to be a neglectful and/or harmful decision in child rearing, personal beliefs should not even be considered.

If someone who is mentally ill refuses such treatments, I presume they are over-ruled.

Someone who talks to an invisible friend, and believes that said friend has supernatural powers, and follows their advice. . . exactly how is that different?

As an athiest i agree fully. Its madness.

I know people have the right to believe what they want but when people start tslking about God and Jesus they may as well be saying Darth Vader amd Luke Skywalker as far as Im concerned.

A person with mental illness who is detained under section cannot be forced to have treatment for physical illnesses, only mental health issues. For example a patient with Schizophrenia Dx with Diabetes cannot even be forced to take life saving insulin. Only when they become so unwell as to be risking death (i.e iunconscious) can the medics then treat. I have had to negotiate this situation in hospital with a former client. Medical staff just couldn't believe that the MHA could not be used to enforce physical treatment.

Someone who talks to an invisible friend, and believes that said friend has supernatural powers, and follows their advice. . . exactly how is that different?

Sounds like your average Christian to me.......