*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Ahhh, here it is. The kid's name is Abraham Starchild Cherrix. Big controversy surrounding his case.
Jehovah's Witness mother dies after refusing blood transfusion after giving birth
- Thread starter user79
- Start date
Shimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
I don't disagree that it was needless, and I can't say I would agree with that decision, the mother in me believes in protecting my children at all costs...
But I also believe in peoples' rights to practice their religion within the law. :/
Originally Posted by Ladybug10678
It isn't always divorced parents. This is where it gets sketchy. I'm trying to remember the details about the case of the teenage boy who didn't want chemo but wanted to keep going with some crazy treatments that weren't going to help him. He had some crazy hippy name. Why can't I remember this? Anyway, while I understand and appreciate the freedoms afforded us in this country, I am 100% uncomfortable with children dying because of their PARENTS beliefs. You can't rationally argue that a young child chooses the religion their parents follow. Maybe a teen, yes, but a young child? The needless death of children does not sit well with me. |
I don't disagree that it was needless, and I can't say I would agree with that decision, the mother in me believes in protecting my children at all costs...
But I also believe in peoples' rights to practice their religion within the law. :/
MACATTAK
Well-known member
Quote:
I'm in the same boat you are. I was raised in this environment (though I was never baptized, and my family no longer belongs to this church). At this point in my life, I would never refuse a transfusion, but at that point in my life I would have refused it, and so would my family. I understand her decision (as that's what we are taught), but I can't say that it's right or wrong.
| Originally Posted by urbanlilyfairy
I don't know what think ... I grew up in the Jehova's witness enviorment. My family was never devout ..my mother, brother and I were never baptizied in the religon ..but we did study with them and attended the kingdom hall weekly for year (kingdom hall =church) I don't ever recall an incident like this happening with anyone we knew but we did hear stories ...and many for the baptizied members carried around little cards in their wallets/purses that said basically no blood and was signed by them. I think it is unfortuante that the mother passed. I don't have an opinon on whether it is wrong or not. I just feel sorry for their children and sadness for the familes loss. |
I'm in the same boat you are. I was raised in this environment (though I was never baptized, and my family no longer belongs to this church). At this point in my life, I would never refuse a transfusion, but at that point in my life I would have refused it, and so would my family. I understand her decision (as that's what we are taught), but I can't say that it's right or wrong.
marreyes38
Well-known member
Quote:
| Originally Posted by MissChievous
Witnesses believe three Biblical passages explicitly prevent them from receiving blood transfusions. However the faith's ruling Watchtower Society allows Witnesses to receive organ transplants, as long as the organ is completely drained of blood. |
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THESE THREE PASSAGES THAT PREVENT THEM FROM GETTNG BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS ARE???
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
Quote:
Yeah, me too. It is one of those situations that may not have an answer. I have a hard time with issues like this. I guess if you pressed me hard enough, I'd have to say that I'm more inclined to protect children at all costs though. Bleh.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
I don't disagree that it was needless, and I can't say I would agree with that decision, the mother in me believes in protecting my children at all costs... But I also believe in peoples' rights to practice their religion within the law. :/ |
Yeah, me too. It is one of those situations that may not have an answer. I have a hard time with issues like this. I guess if you pressed me hard enough, I'd have to say that I'm more inclined to protect children at all costs though. Bleh.
MxAxC-_ATTACK
Well-known member
My moms friend's son Is dying he has somewhere like 3 years to live because he can't get the transfusions he needs due to being a J.W...
it seems screwed up to me ..
it seems screwed up to me ..
xsnowwhite
Well-known member
i think that it is her choice.
Personally, it's a bit drastic to me but if she believes so much in her religion that she's willing to never see her children again, thats her decision.
I don't think the religion should completely decide for you though, if that makes any sense.
Personally, it's a bit drastic to me but if she believes so much in her religion that she's willing to never see her children again, thats her decision.
I don't think the religion should completely decide for you though, if that makes any sense.
SparklingWaves
Well-known member
I can give an example of what I witnessed years ago in the ER. The boy was 7. His leg was broken from being thrown off his bike from a car hitting him. He was alert and conscious, but had lost a lot of blood and was continuing to loose blood. The parents were there and refused to sign the consent for blood. He was starting to go into shock fast. They were working hard to keep him stable. The physican got the "powers to be" at the hospital to step in and get the court to intervene on the child's behalf. It was during the day, so the courts were very busy. By the time, they got the go for blood from the court. The boy was dead.
Many people may think blood transfusions are only needed in situations like surgery. You can loose a lot of blood in many other ways i.e., an injury to a main artery, misscarriage, industrial accidents, ectopic pregnancy, fracture, dog attacks, internal trauma from sports or a car accident, etc. I have no idea what they do with people who have genetic bleeding disorders.
So, the question is - Are they willing to die in all the above situations or allow a loved one to die in those same situations. Apparently, JWs are willing to die than receive blood transfusions.
Many people may think blood transfusions are only needed in situations like surgery. You can loose a lot of blood in many other ways i.e., an injury to a main artery, misscarriage, industrial accidents, ectopic pregnancy, fracture, dog attacks, internal trauma from sports or a car accident, etc. I have no idea what they do with people who have genetic bleeding disorders.
So, the question is - Are they willing to die in all the above situations or allow a loved one to die in those same situations. Apparently, JWs are willing to die than receive blood transfusions.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
Instead, I want to posit that they've misunderstood the text, and numerous other texts regarding blood.
The principal barrier to social and religious unity among the Jewish and Gentile Christians was the low standard of behavior reputed by the Jews to be so common among the latter. Idol feasts were considered shameful debaucheries, where immoral behaviour was rampant. It is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship.
In addition to that probable connection, God's prohibition of eating blood (including things strangled) was given in the covenant with Noah, thus:
Does this mean that they can change their mind? Yes. Does it mean that they still have a living brain with which to reach for more literature to guide their understanding of Biblical text so they can prevent premature deaths? Absolutely. Does it mean they need to educate themselves more fully about their beliefs before proclaiming their beliefs to be unassailable? Abso-fucking-lutely!
Does it mean I think they're behaving foolishly, and putting their children at risk for the sake of ignorant belief? Unfortunately, yes, because if they did a bit more studying they'd understand what it means to have plurality of meaning in one of the most contradictive texts known (i.e., the Bible), and be able to make fully informed decisions with a good conscience and with the faith that God will judge them accordingly and fairly.
| Originally Posted by Raerae
What if the kid wants the blood transfusion, but the parents who have to consent, refuse to give it, and the child dies as a result? |
"15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (Acts)
This is the principle text they refer to when they say they have religious grounds to object to blood transfusions. The medical disadvantages are also often greatly exaggerated, but I'm not going to get into that here.
Instead, I want to posit that they've misunderstood the text, and numerous other texts regarding blood.
The principal barrier to social and religious unity among the Jewish and Gentile Christians was the low standard of behavior reputed by the Jews to be so common among the latter. Idol feasts were considered shameful debaucheries, where immoral behaviour was rampant. It is possible that all four of these restrictions relate to idol worship.
"The things which pollute both the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcase which is strangled." (Clementine Recognitions, translated circa 400 AD, original text perhaps from somewhere between 0AD and 300AD, giving us a very good glimpse of the early Christian Church and its teachings.)
The passage from Clement clearly implies that the eating of blood and things strangled was also connected with idolatrous feasts. Given that Acts 15:20 was written around the same time, and concerns the same characters that appear in the Clementine Recognitions, it is very probable that the implication is about eating blood.
In addition to that probable connection, God's prohibition of eating blood (including things strangled) was given in the covenant with Noah, thus:
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat (Genesis 9:4).
This makes it clear that the denial of blood as food to man predates Mosaic law. Furthermore, the act of eating blood is prohibited in many other passages. Here are a few:
Leviticus 3:17 'It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.'"
Leviticus 7:26 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.
Leviticus 17:10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:14 "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."
Leviticus 19:26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.
Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 "Only you shall not eat its blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
1 Samuel 14:33 Then they told Saul, saying, "Behold, the people are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood." And he said, "You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today."
1 Corinthians 8:7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
My contention is simple. The Jehovah's Witnesses have misinterpreted the Bible, or otherwise willfully chosen an interpretation that they feel is the safest to be in accordance with God's laws. Leviticus 7:26 'You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.
Leviticus 17:10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people.
Leviticus 17:14 "For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off."
Leviticus 19:26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor practice divination or soothsaying.
Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.
Deuteronomy 15:23 "Only you shall not eat its blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water.
1 Samuel 14:33 Then they told Saul, saying, "Behold, the people are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood." And he said, "You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today."
1 Corinthians 8:7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
Does this mean that they can change their mind? Yes. Does it mean that they still have a living brain with which to reach for more literature to guide their understanding of Biblical text so they can prevent premature deaths? Absolutely. Does it mean they need to educate themselves more fully about their beliefs before proclaiming their beliefs to be unassailable? Abso-fucking-lutely!
Does it mean I think they're behaving foolishly, and putting their children at risk for the sake of ignorant belief? Unfortunately, yes, because if they did a bit more studying they'd understand what it means to have plurality of meaning in one of the most contradictive texts known (i.e., the Bible), and be able to make fully informed decisions with a good conscience and with the faith that God will judge them accordingly and fairly.
little teaser
Well-known member
even though i dont agree or understand the decision of the woman who refused a blood transfusion after giveing birth, i do belive its her choice regardless, even if imo its a selfish decision.
i dont think a person has a right to choose something that huge for another human even if its there child. i could understand if someone was really ill or on life support and theres no more quality of life, but not this.
i dont think a person has a right to choose something that huge for another human even if its there child. i could understand if someone was really ill or on life support and theres no more quality of life, but not this.
Shimmer
Well-known member
Here's a question:
The child is being raised JW, and is ill.
A blood transfusion could provide the support necessary to save the child's life.
The parents are devout JW...they refuse the transfusion.
The state steps in, and orders the transfusion against the wishes of the both the parents and the child.
The child's life is saved.
The child grows into an adult following the tenets of the JW church's teachings.
Though the child has been afforded the opportunity to become an adult, he was forced something he neither wanted nor believed in, nor does he believe in today.
Is that 'right'?
Ratmist - I don't disagree that the JW church has misinterpreted the Biblical passages, nor do I disagree that they are behaving foolishly.
But they are guaranteed the freedom to worship and believe as they choose, particularly in the case mentioned in the first post...she was a cognizant and conscious adult making her own informed decision.
The child is being raised JW, and is ill.
A blood transfusion could provide the support necessary to save the child's life.
The parents are devout JW...they refuse the transfusion.
The state steps in, and orders the transfusion against the wishes of the both the parents and the child.
The child's life is saved.
The child grows into an adult following the tenets of the JW church's teachings.
Though the child has been afforded the opportunity to become an adult, he was forced something he neither wanted nor believed in, nor does he believe in today.
Is that 'right'?
Ratmist - I don't disagree that the JW church has misinterpreted the Biblical passages, nor do I disagree that they are behaving foolishly.
But they are guaranteed the freedom to worship and believe as they choose, particularly in the case mentioned in the first post...she was a cognizant and conscious adult making her own informed decision.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
Medicine must always be ethical. However, I found a bit more information from someone anonymously posting on another site:
I think it's wrong to put the medical profession in a corner like this on the basis of a belief that is incompatible with ethically moral, ethically correct, medical science. There was a case a few years ago of a 14 year old JW girl in Canada who was suffering with cancer, and she and her parents refused blood transfusions, which were required to keep her alive. The doctor sued and won the right to force the treatment. Do I believe this is right? No. Do I believe the relationship between the patient and the doctor is completely, irreparably changed for the worse? Yes. But do I think it's wrong for parents to bring in a critically ill child and say, "Treat them, but only in the way I think is correct, despite the fact I am not a medically trained person and I cannot possibly draw on the same body of information as you, the doctor?" Yes, I think that's wrong.
Quote:
The freedom to worship as one pleases is a right guaranteed by our Constitution and by human rights in general. But if someone's beliefs prevents someone from being able to do their job when requested, there's a clear problem. If it prevents that same person from being able to save the life of a minor, then that breaks all the normal boundaries of "It's your life, believe what you want".
I also think that if they're being coy about what constitutes blood (see above) and are very pleased to take from the blood bank but never donate, while crippling the abilities of doctors (who then have to wrestle with the ethics), then they're being utterly selfish little shits, hiding behind the veneer of 'freedom of religion'.
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
Here's a question: The child is being raised JW, and is ill. A blood transfusion could provide the support necessary to save the child's life. The parents are devout JW...they refuse the transfusion. The state steps in, and orders the transfusion against the wishes of the both the parents and the child. The child's life is saved. The child grows into an adult following the tenets of the JW church's teachings. Though the child has been afforded the opportunity to become an adult, he was forced something he neither wanted nor believed in, nor does he believe in today. Is that 'right'? |
Medicine must always be ethical. However, I found a bit more information from someone anonymously posting on another site:
I work in a hospital that has a "bloodless surgery" program. We get lots of JW patients, in fact, the two employees who run the program are JWs. You might ask the JWs that come to your door why, if blood is forbidden by the bible, do JWs accept what they call blood fractions. They refuse plasma but accept both water and albumin. Water and albumin are the main ingredients of plasma. They refuse red cells but will accept hemoglobin preparations like the still experimental Oxyglobin. Red cells are pure hemoglobin in a little cell membrane sac. The refuse platelets but will accept cryoprecipitate to help stop bleeding which is made from plasma. They will accept clotting factors for hemophiliacs, also made from plasma. Planned surgeries can often be performed without blood, and if all goes well, can be quite successful.
JWs do die from planned surgeries when doctors are unable to give blood. Their recoveries are often longer because they are too weak to be able to get up and walk soon after surgery. Their surgeries cost the health care system way more than other surgeries, yet many of them are on Medicaid and Medicare or are charity patients. Their church doesn't pick up the cost of their teachings. Most of the surgeries are done on healthy people who "refuse" blood that would never have been given in the first place. Many JWs die from emergency blood loss. Their response to that is that if blood was given there was no guarantee that they wouldn't have died anyway. OK, there is no guarantee the ceiling won't fall on them either. We have had patients bleed out in front of our eyes and not be able to give red cells or platelets or fresh frozen plasma which would have saved their lives.
The oxyglobin that they love to talk about only lasts in the body for 3 to 4 days. If the original problem isn't fixed at that point, then they not only have to deal with anemia but with the added stress on their liver and spleen from getting rid of the oxyglobin. And, where do they get all of these "blood fractions"? From you and me donating our blood so they can live. But they won't donate for us.
They like to compare eating blood to transfusions. Transfusions do not feed the body. You cannot survive on blood transfusions, if that is the only intake you have you will starve to death.
You will never convince them, but you might at least make them question their beliefs. You might be able to introduce the idea of scientific reasoning.
Oh, a favorite fact of mine. They like to present as fact that there are four main blood components, white cells, red cells, platelets and plasma. They present that as a fact that is accepted by all of medicine. They got it from an EMT manual. They say that is the only division of blood. They forget all the components of plasma itself. Because it isn't listed in an EMT manual. It isn't in the EMT manual that red cells are pure hemoglobin.
I wish there was a way to reason with them but there isn't. The most to hope is that you can introduce the idea of doing their own research from sources outside of the biased ones they are given. However, they are forbidden to do research outside of what they are given so if they are completely blinded, no hope.
Now, your argument is that you have the right to refuse treatment for your child based on your authority as a parent and your authority as a a fully rational adult. If you are making an irrational, ill-informed decision that you know has a very good chance to end another person's life, by any other definition, that is murder. It is the question of religion that somehow excuses this, because we are taught to respect people's beliefs. The hands of the doctors are legally tied, but ethically, they are damned if they do, damned if they don't.JWs do die from planned surgeries when doctors are unable to give blood. Their recoveries are often longer because they are too weak to be able to get up and walk soon after surgery. Their surgeries cost the health care system way more than other surgeries, yet many of them are on Medicaid and Medicare or are charity patients. Their church doesn't pick up the cost of their teachings. Most of the surgeries are done on healthy people who "refuse" blood that would never have been given in the first place. Many JWs die from emergency blood loss. Their response to that is that if blood was given there was no guarantee that they wouldn't have died anyway. OK, there is no guarantee the ceiling won't fall on them either. We have had patients bleed out in front of our eyes and not be able to give red cells or platelets or fresh frozen plasma which would have saved their lives.
The oxyglobin that they love to talk about only lasts in the body for 3 to 4 days. If the original problem isn't fixed at that point, then they not only have to deal with anemia but with the added stress on their liver and spleen from getting rid of the oxyglobin. And, where do they get all of these "blood fractions"? From you and me donating our blood so they can live. But they won't donate for us.
They like to compare eating blood to transfusions. Transfusions do not feed the body. You cannot survive on blood transfusions, if that is the only intake you have you will starve to death.
You will never convince them, but you might at least make them question their beliefs. You might be able to introduce the idea of scientific reasoning.
Oh, a favorite fact of mine. They like to present as fact that there are four main blood components, white cells, red cells, platelets and plasma. They present that as a fact that is accepted by all of medicine. They got it from an EMT manual. They say that is the only division of blood. They forget all the components of plasma itself. Because it isn't listed in an EMT manual. It isn't in the EMT manual that red cells are pure hemoglobin.
I wish there was a way to reason with them but there isn't. The most to hope is that you can introduce the idea of doing their own research from sources outside of the biased ones they are given. However, they are forbidden to do research outside of what they are given so if they are completely blinded, no hope.
I think it's wrong to put the medical profession in a corner like this on the basis of a belief that is incompatible with ethically moral, ethically correct, medical science. There was a case a few years ago of a 14 year old JW girl in Canada who was suffering with cancer, and she and her parents refused blood transfusions, which were required to keep her alive. The doctor sued and won the right to force the treatment. Do I believe this is right? No. Do I believe the relationship between the patient and the doctor is completely, irreparably changed for the worse? Yes. But do I think it's wrong for parents to bring in a critically ill child and say, "Treat them, but only in the way I think is correct, despite the fact I am not a medically trained person and I cannot possibly draw on the same body of information as you, the doctor?" Yes, I think that's wrong.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Shimmer
Ratmist - I don't disagree that the JW church has misinterpreted the Biblical passages, nor do I disagree that they are behaving foolishly. But they are guaranteed the freedom to worship and believe as they choose, particularly in the case mentioned in the first post...she was a cognizant and conscious adult making her own informed decision. |
The freedom to worship as one pleases is a right guaranteed by our Constitution and by human rights in general. But if someone's beliefs prevents someone from being able to do their job when requested, there's a clear problem. If it prevents that same person from being able to save the life of a minor, then that breaks all the normal boundaries of "It's your life, believe what you want".
I also think that if they're being coy about what constitutes blood (see above) and are very pleased to take from the blood bank but never donate, while crippling the abilities of doctors (who then have to wrestle with the ethics), then they're being utterly selfish little shits, hiding behind the veneer of 'freedom of religion'.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
One should never be forced to do anything they do not wish to do- if this is so then there is a direct violation of our personal freedoms and liberties.
That being said it is so sad that many religions/Christians in particular choose to follow the traditions of man and not that of God. I will not pass judgement on them at all but I will say that nowhere in the Bible does it state that there is to be no blood transfusions etc-especially when it involves saving a life. Nowhere. Not Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Hebrew....nada. I suspect that many johovas witnesses may be confusing it with another topic (and that will open a can of worms) but my reply to that would be...read the Bible. Know what you are reading and don't listen to the traditions of man but of God.
I am of the opinion that I admire her for being willing to die for her faith but my thought is, if God gave the gift of this new technology, we should use it. I do think that she listened to the ideologies of man and that is what cost her her life. Had she read the Bible and understood it (and again, I don't know if she did or did not but seeing the circumstances.....as provided)- she would know that God is a God of life and not death and she would've accepted the Blood transfusion.
-speaking on the spiritual terms of course.
I won't go on the common sense terms....that would just be too easy
That being said it is so sad that many religions/Christians in particular choose to follow the traditions of man and not that of God. I will not pass judgement on them at all but I will say that nowhere in the Bible does it state that there is to be no blood transfusions etc-especially when it involves saving a life. Nowhere. Not Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Hebrew....nada. I suspect that many johovas witnesses may be confusing it with another topic (and that will open a can of worms) but my reply to that would be...read the Bible. Know what you are reading and don't listen to the traditions of man but of God.
I am of the opinion that I admire her for being willing to die for her faith but my thought is, if God gave the gift of this new technology, we should use it. I do think that she listened to the ideologies of man and that is what cost her her life. Had she read the Bible and understood it (and again, I don't know if she did or did not but seeing the circumstances.....as provided)- she would know that God is a God of life and not death and she would've accepted the Blood transfusion.
-speaking on the spiritual terms of course.
I won't go on the common sense terms....that would just be too easy
SparklingWaves
Well-known member
I find the information you provided very interesting, Ratmist. Thank you for posting that information.
There must be more than one division of JWs, because I have cousins that do not believe in receiving any fractions of blood. However, I went to school with a JW who did believe in receiving fractions of blood.
There must be more than one division of JWs, because I have cousins that do not believe in receiving any fractions of blood. However, I went to school with a JW who did believe in receiving fractions of blood.
ratmist
Well-known member
Quote:
Two of my best friends growing up were JW's. They never really talked much about the religion, though their mother often tried to send pamphlets of information home with my brother and me. Used to drive my mother, who is Catholic and an RN (Surgical), and my father, who is a 'GDI' (that's Goddamned Independent) and an LVN, completely crazy.
| Originally Posted by SparklingWaves
I find the information you provided very interesting, Ratmist. Thank you for posting that information. There must be more than one division of JWs, because I have cousins that do not believe in receiving any fractions of blood. However, I went to school with a JW who did believe in receiving fractions of blood. |
Two of my best friends growing up were JW's. They never really talked much about the religion, though their mother often tried to send pamphlets of information home with my brother and me. Used to drive my mother, who is Catholic and an RN (Surgical), and my father, who is a 'GDI' (that's Goddamned Independent) and an LVN, completely crazy.
SparklingWaves
Well-known member
My JWs cousins and my Baptist cousins always get into big fusses. They do not agree on many different issues.
