About some religious beliefs?

[MissionItsPossible]

Yes this is a hot topic. I'm watching One Born Every Minute and there is a Jehovah's Witness couple on there and the wife is about to have a baby. But they are worried about if she loses too much blood and dies. AIBU to wonder how how can a religious belief that is not proved by any form of God can trump potentially losing the love of your life by a medical operation that could save them? I'm not religious so maybe don't understand but I can't understand how in any religion, against whatever beliefs, you could deny someone you made, or someone you gave birth to, or someone you just love in general against a medical and important operation, refuse operations over the genders/ethnicity of the doctors/nurses operating. As said I am not religious so maybe just don't understand but if I was involved in a religion that didn't believe in blood transfusions and it aspired that it was the only thing that was a chance to save my child, like HOW could I even contemplate dismissing that over faith?

Because faith is very important to some people.

My sister freely admits she loves god more than her husband, more than her children. God comes before everything.

Faith is pretty much by definition irrational, I'm afraid. Its odd how its so commonly seen as being a virtue.

I get what you mean, it's madness to those who don't have that belief.

I would have died in childbirth without blood transfusions. But I have sympathy for someone who has been so indoctrinated that they believe their soul is at risk over such matters. That must be torture for them.

Put very bluntly, if she has too much blood loss she and possibly baby die. Her 'God' and she don't believe in intervention so they accept the result.

Most of these religious rules are man made, not God made. Many people ascribe religious rules to God's will - that is what is worrying. People following blindly in 'faith' that the people who made the rules know what's best for them and their children.

All religious rules are man made.

Religion doesn't fit into my brain, I just don't get it.

Ridiculous how someone can be so brainwashed that they would rather their child's mother died during childbirth.

I'd have died having DD without medical intervention (including a blood transfusion). Scary that such strong religious beliefs could allow this to happen.

Because people are stupid and/or selfish.

It's hard from our perspective to imagine why anyone would feel like that.

It's similar to the food observances some faiths practice. In those cases they may have had a historically sensible root- guarding against disease, etc.

JWs are not that old though, so it's an odd interpretation of a bible verse no other faith is much worried about.

All the rules are man made. The funny thing is even Jesus said the rules didn't matter but the church seemed to disregard that rather key bit of his teaching.
I guess once you take that leap you take on a burden to believe anything you're told by the religion.
Very dangerous to hand over your own truths like that.

My friend has just nursed a JW in HDU. He was having self transfusion, which is I think permitted , but his blood was as weak as water as he was so poorly. He was almost persuaded ( he did consent ) to some intervention but then a JW 'advocate' spoke to him and he changed his mind. He sadly passed away with his family looking on, he only in his 40's. heartbreaking.

There is no reason for anyone to ascribe that rule to God. There is no basis for it.

That advocate basically murdered him. There should be laws against that. (Or rules, a bit like those in holy books, but that actually change and evolve to reflect society rather than dragging them to the past).

Parents can refuse for their child but the medical team can go to court to overrule it.

Crepe I know :( , my friend was really upset. I'll hold my hands up to being a practicing Catholic but I'm deeply ashamed of some of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of the faith. And there's a lot of it I don't agree with and would say as much,.

Parents can refuse for their child but the medical team can go to court to overrule it.

That's only useful in non emergency situations though

In an emergency situation it would just be given, we have to act in the best interest of the child.

Ah ok! That's good. I didn't realise that.

I would have died in childbirth without a transfusion. I'm pretty sure that if the child in question needed essential medical care, and the parents refused, they would be overruled. I hope so, in any case,

I kind of get it, from a bit of a tortuous point of view that I have to force myself into.

Don't think that kind of religious rule (limitation of medical treatment) ever works from an individual point of view, or a "it's the will of a loving and merciful god" point of view.

I can see how some of those kind of rules could be about building a society that overall is a society that's an ok place to live in and successfully self-perpetuates. So, in this case, it's a society that says "simple medical intervention only" as a way of deciding how to allocate resources, what types of,learning to pursue. It's not a decision I agree with, but I see it as viable alternative way of ordering a society. Less caring would be one way to characterize it, but it would also be possible to think of it as a less selfish society (people less concerned with clinging onto life, whatever the circumstances). You could also argue it would make people more careful and considered in some of their decisions, because medical intervention can't just undo mistakes ( like smoking or eating too much, participating in dangerous sports, having many children).

Mostly though, I think faith is outside of rationality (and also individual self-interest). It's a different way of ordering thoughts and feelings, deciding and fining purpose in life., And in some ways a very successful one- I think there have been studies showing that people who have faith live longer and are happier. I'm sure I read somewhere it's associated with dopamine release.

RhythmAndStealth

I was just about to go offline when I saw your post. I get it as if in a religion its all about naturalism and non-medicinal unless basic and non-intrusive. Medicinal discoveries over many years have allowed us to live much longer than we were meant to live (I say that mainly about the Western world though applicable to other people in other parts of the world too).

I often wish I was religious. Just so I could pray to a God and talk to him and I have flirted with the idea but never done so. But the more I think about this and thinking if I had a newborn baby in hospital fighting for its life and the doctors said that they would need a blood transfusion to stay alive and my religion disallowed it, would I stand in front of my newborn baby and disallow them that chance and watch them die in front of me? To put it bluntly, because that's what would happen? Just shocking to me and I can't understand

So, in this case, it's a society that says "simple medical intervention only" as a way of deciding how to allocate resources,

I'm fairly sure that's got nothing to do with the JW stance on blood transfusions, because they do allow certain more complicated interventions. It's down to an authoritarian religious group laying down a particular interpretation of a few bits of a book, ostensibly for doctrinal reasons but I think some of these odd dogmas are really more about reinforcing 'us and them'.

YANBU. It that whole "my imaginary friend is better/stricter/more wonderpus than yours" thing. I don't get it. My husband and I ranting at the screen. Life is so precious. Why would you not want to save it.

Mission- I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, and I don't agree with their stance, in fact I'm not religious myself at all. I do try to understand why religious people make decisions that are counter-intuitive to me. What I said above is the closest I can come to that.

Similar to yourself, in the new-born baby situation, I would act as you would- defend the baby. But people can and do act otherwise. Whilst I don't agree with that, I do want to understand it.

I'm sure my characterization is not accurate, and I'm also sure, as Errol mentions, that it's not as simple as that. With all organized religion, there are structural influences, the presence of elites and in-group/out-group dynamics.

But equally, I do see that religion does cause people to think, act and feel differently. It does create senses of purpose that can move mountains. I don't think all religious people are simply duped idiots, I do see it adds something to their lives, and the lives of those around them, and I am intrigued by that.

It might be that religion is a useful fiction. Or it might function, in some instances, to remind people of their own fallibility, that there is a limit to what human reason and emotion can achieve at any given point in time.

I think there is something useful in examining religious difference (particularly the differences between those who are religious and those who aren't). It is a big part of our human history.