Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

OK, so could a Jehovah's Witness please explain this?

89 replies

Housemum · 18/05/2010 11:53

I really don't want to start a religious argument but I read this: story on Yahooand it made me so sad to think of a life wasted. Please could someone who is a JW or who knows a lot about it explain to me just why this is right? As I said, I don't want to argue but I really want to understand. In my personal opinion if God has given people the ability to save lives, they should use that. Why is accepting blood from someone who has willingly donated it so wrong?

Apologies for linking to a DM article but that's the problem with having Yahoo as a homepage!

OP posts:
GothAnneGeddes · 21/05/2010 15:55

Campion makes a very good point.

At 15 he does not have the legal right to refuse medical treatment. If the doctors had given him a transfusion and he had later sued, the doctors would win the case and they could clearly demonstrate they were acting in the child's best interests.

I would be very interested to see if there are any repercussions following this.

CoteDAzur · 25/05/2010 15:40

It is a very commendable that he has willingly removed himself from the gene pool, thereby increasing the quality of the said gene pool.

Ironically for this religious nut, very Darwinian of him.

TiggyR · 26/05/2010 12:55

Hmm. at 'it was the car that killed him, not the lack of a blood transfusion' argument.

It's a bit of a cop-out, that one. I appreciate that the media latches onto these things, and doesn't always tell the full story, and it is indeed entirely possible that he would have died anyway, blood transfusion or not, though without any of us having access to his surgeon's notes we can only guess at the likelihood of that. But we'll never know, will we? Because a very real opportunity to improve his chances of recovery was denied, when a blood transfusion was refused.

To any JW mother I'd say this: Consider your child went into A&E with febrile convulsions and a high temp due to chicken pox, and the hospital failed to give the babay Calpol to reduce the dangerously high temperature, and it died, or suffered brain damage, would you accept the hospital's argument that it was the chicken pox that did the damage, and not the lack of available calpol? After all, who are you to say what may or may not have worked?

wahwah · 26/05/2010 13:09

Surely the point is that your child's immortal soul is more important than their physical body? if you believe that then of course you can refuse a transfusion and do it out of love. I certainly don'r agree (and would support legal measures) but it doesn't mean I cant understand their point of view.

ImSoNotTelling · 26/05/2010 13:13

It's not the only relgion which puts it's principles before the application of modern medical techniques for it's congregation.

I'm thinking of the exhortions not to use condoms (and thus to contract HIV) and things like that.

TiggyR · 26/05/2010 13:30

Quite right, and that's killed a damn sight more people (aids and general third world poverty and ferar/ignorance in the name of religion) than refusal of blood tranfusions. I'm not an apologist for either stance!

StrawberriesAndCherries · 26/05/2010 15:49

How do you feel about those brave young men who lost their lives for their personal beliefs in WW1 and WW2?

This young man put his beliefs before his personal welfare as the young men did back then. It is surely to be respected even if you dont agree with it and comments like "he has removed himself from the genepool" are disgusting CoteDAzur - a young man died for goodness sake have some respect for his choice, whatever you may think of it

ImSoNotTelling · 26/05/2010 15:58

The brave young men in WW1 and WW2 were fighting for others - for their country, their wives and children, their parents.

This young man did it for himself.

I do not think that you can compare the two motivations.

StrawberriesAndCherries · 26/05/2010 16:04

My point was that whatever your belief, he and they put someone of greater importance than themselves.
It was their beliefs that motivated them to put their lives secondary as it was his, so it can be compared in that way.

littleducks · 26/05/2010 16:14

By CoteDAzur Tue 25-May-10 15:40:51
It is a very commendable that he has willingly removed himself from the gene pool, thereby increasing the quality of the said gene pool.

Ironically for this religious nut, very Darwinian of him.

I think the above is a truely horrid and cruel thing to say following the death of a 15 yr old and would be extremly distressing for anyone who ever knew him to read. I hope that you will withdraw that post (and MN pls delete my quote if she does)

He may have possibly contributed to his death by refusing a medical treatment but he was killed by the car accident, he did not force his views on anyone, he was not preventing a child or another from receiving blood purely making a decision wrt to his own body, i dont think that he deserves to be spoken of in this way

ImSoNotTelling · 26/05/2010 16:18

strawberries, as I read it, the young man refused the blood transfusion because he did not want to go to hell.

That seems like a selfish motivation - he did it for himself. As he didn't want to have a bad time in the afterlife.

Soldiers are doing it for other people/the crown/their country.

I think they enormously different motivations.

StrawberriesAndCherries · 26/05/2010 16:27

ISNT - I do see your point how it could be seen to be doing for himself if Jws believed in hell and he was scared of going there, but they dont (my very good friend is one). So he had nothing to gain for himself, the gain would have been if he had taken the blood - he would have gained his life now possibly, but would have felt a bad conscience going against his beliefs.

Just as those men who died fighting for their country could of ran away and possibly lived, but could they have lived with themselves?

CoteDAzur · 26/05/2010 16:42

It is laughable to compare refusal of a life-saving treatment to fighting for one's country. Not to mention downright ridiculous to claim that soldiers died for their "beliefs" in WWI & II, unless you come from an alternate universe where the Crusades happened at that time.

This boy's untimely demise is indeed a case of the stupider specimens of a species dying off earlier than the more intelligent one (who would surely not refuse a procedure that would save their lives, survive to breeding age, and pass on their genes) and hence very Darwinian. Clearly, some people here have a more emotional viewpoint, but the fact remains.

stripeyknickersspottysocks · 26/05/2010 17:14

At 15 he does legally have the right to refuse medical treatment if he's deemed competent under the Gillick competence law.

There was that 12yo recently who refused a heart transplant.

StrawberriesAndCherries · 26/05/2010 17:17

"Beliefs" doesnt have to mean religious beliefs. Their Beliefs were that they should defend their country, other people may think they were wrong but all should respect that is what they believed in.

How low on the "Darwin scale" were those men who went over the top to certain death CoteDAzur, how thick were they??? Or maybe they were just doing what they felt was right, as this young lad was.

SongBiird · 26/05/2010 17:18

I've avoided this thread for a while but needed to comment.

Cote that is pretty harsh! I think people are forgetting that this is a 15 year old BOY. 15 is a very vulnerable age. How many stupid things did you do or believe to be true when you were 15. Who is to say that had he lived 10 years more he would have turned his back on JW and seen it as clap trap? He has been raised as a JW and you have to acknowledge that for the most part it is one of the strictest religions in terms of teaching their beliefs. No once a week sermons for these kids, they go to Kingdom hall a good few times a week. Mostly their friends are JW's, certainly their parents are. If you want to lay the blame on anyone, you would have to lay it at the floor of the parents. They absolutely could have overruled him had they wanted to.

I'm certain that if my son made a decision that may have ended his life due to something that I had taught him, I would hold myself to blame.

SongBiird · 26/05/2010 17:19

I do agree with an earlier poster, JW transfusion guidelines are a complete misinterpretation of the Bible.

CoteDAzur · 26/05/2010 17:34

"Their Beliefs were that they should defend their country"

Oh that is a "belief", is it? And my belief is that the sun is bright

Everybody defends their country and their home. It is not a belief. It is instinct.

"How low on the "Darwin scale" were those men who went over the top to certain death???"

Is there a science book in the planet you are broadcasting from? Or do you just hold hands and sing kumbaya all day long?

It is entirely normal for people to fight to protect their livelihood, their land, and their families. Even male gorillas will fight to protect their groups. Again, very Darwinian.

CoteDAzur · 26/05/2010 17:48

Songbird - Harsh, but true.

As you say, perhaps he would have made a different decision in ten years. Unfortunately, we rarely get second chances in situations of life and death

ImSoNotTelling · 26/05/2010 18:10

Sorry someone up the thread said that they would go to hell if they had a tranfusion.

Should I rephrase

They believe that they won't go to heaven, if they have the transfusion. is that right?

RunawayWife · 26/05/2010 18:29

might help

CoteDAzur · 26/05/2010 20:50

Does anyone know if JWs are OK with receiving their own blood in transfusion?

If so, why don't they store some of their blood? Surely it is probable that they will need it at one point or another of their lives. Much more probable than my DC ever needing the cordon blood that I have stored for them.

CoteDAzur · 26/05/2010 20:51

Ah, I just saw in Runaway's link that they don't allow that, either.

SongBiird · 26/05/2010 21:12

I thought they could store their own blood. I've heard of a blood substitute that they use. I'm not sure how it works though, or whether or not it is readily available i.e. do they only get it in for pre-planned operations etc.

SmellsLikeTeenSweat · 26/05/2010 21:24

I'm not a JW, but I undertstand that they believe that 'the life is in the blood', so if you take soemone else's blood you are, in some way, taking some of their 'essence', their 'being', which would presumably be wrong.

The thing about not taking blood comes from the passage that's been quoted above, commanding that you don't 'take blood'. I have looked at this in the past and come to the conclusion that it means that you shouldn't take someone's life, that is, kill someone. I doubt very much that when the Bible was written it would have been referring to blood transfusions.

But JWs would disagree.