Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion (page 3)

TD

Dave,

The questions I think you're driving are:

Is it proper to expect someone to violate their conscience or principles with regard to medical treatment?
If it is not proper to expect some to violate their conscience or principles with regard to medical treatment, to what degree are other people resonsible for the consequences thereof?

The answer to the first question is easy because that's a matter of individual right to choice. The answer is, "No."

The answer to the second question is not as easy because now we're dealing with the balance of rights and responsibilities between multiple parties.

For example, if an animal rights activist, or for that matter a JW, steps on a rusty nail on your property to what degree are you responsible? Are you responsible just for treatment of the injury or are you responsible if they refuse a Tetanus immune globulin injection and subsequently die of tetanus?

The only way to be fair to both parties is to apply the reasonable person standard.

This is clearly wanting to have it both ways. She's touting him as a model Witness because he died from refusing blood, but she is using "worldly" courts to continue to ~~milk~~ collect money from his "worldly" employer.

One point not discussed is why did the guy have an accident? His truck "inexplicably" went off the road. Was it a problem with the truck or a problem with the driver? Is the employer liable for poor driving on the part of the deceased?

I think the employer paid enough money to the widow. The man clearly died because he refused treatment, not because of the accident.

Dave, the harvesting issue is a non-issue because it will never happen...

Mrs. Witness

This is clearly wanting to have it both ways. She's touting him as a model Witness because he died from refusing blood, but she is using "worldly" courts to continue to ~~milk~~ collect money from his "worldly" employer.

One point not discussed is why did the guy have an accident? His truck "inexplicably" went off the road. Was it a problem with the truck or a problem with the driver? Is the employer liable for poor driving on the part of the deceased?

I think the employer paid enough money to the widow. The man clearly died because he refused treatment, not because of the accident.

Dave, the harvesting issue is a non-issue because it will never happen...

AlmostAtheist

>>Dave, the harvesting issue is a non-issue because it will never happen...

That's the second time someone has dismissed this line of reasoning because it isn't "real". WTH? Since when is a hypothetical not a valid basis for discussion?

You say it will "never happen". You say this because society at large objects to it. The premise is that society at large changes that viewpoint. If that happens, then it will almost certainly happen.

If society at large felt accepting blood was wrong, you would also say that blood transfusions will "never happen".

I'm not saying I agree that the company owes more money. In fact, all things considered, I think justice was served. He got hurt, the company paid compensation, he made some decisions that cost his life and created some consequences, and his widow is now living with those consequences. Sad, but probably just.

But I AM saying that this issue of motivation for refusal is not being discussed. It's being ignored. And I'm not at all sure why, since this is a group that doesn't generally shrink from discussing things, even uncomfortable things.

Dave

Abandoned

So they paid her to sit at home on her *ss for a year but she wants them to pay until she dies or remarries? Is she handicapped in some way (logical thinking ability notwithstanding)? Why do so many witnesses feel that they are owed something by the world they are so quick to condemn? Is it because they are most hypocritical group on the planet? I think so.

nelly136

maybe theyre trying to set a precedent, soon any tom dick and jw will be able to commit legalised suicide and pay off their two mortgages.

i know thats probably a crass thing to say but my jw mother kept my dad insured years after they were divorced, he on the other hand never would take out insurance himself or buy their house as a dub cos armageddon was coming anyways preferring the 'trust on jehovah' method.

prolly a new thread fodder thang

i think the harvesting thing is alive and well not sure if theyve moved on to organs but its already used for bonemarrow

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1460-9592.1992.tb00208.x doubt the baby had a choice or option

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7025/240/b

AlmostAtheist

Another problem similar to this is a motorcyclist that chooses not to wear a helmet, that is struck by a drunk driver and dies. The drunk driver is clearly responsible for the accident, but how much of the death is the fault of the cyclist for the choice he made to not wear a helmet? Or to ride a motorcycle at all?

In order to call this blood story the extreme (and I agree that's what it is), we have to identify where the line is. That's all I'm trying to do.

Dave

wednesday

Her thinking may stem from the many years jws died due to really bad medical care. If you went in and said you were a jws and said you refused blood, many of the medical profession took that as a LICENSE TO DO NOTHING. No one sued b/c they were taught jws should not sue b/c they refused blood. the thinking has changed over the past 10-15 yrs and more are making the medical establishment try a little harder to provide decent medical care. It seems the threat of law suits is the only thing that motivates some to do anything.

yes jws severely handicap the medical profession but sometimes they have used it as an excuse to not even try to provide decent care.

TD

Dave,

That's the second time someone has dismissed this line of reasoning because it isn't "real". WTH? Since when is a hypothetical not a valid basis for discussion?

The hypothetical is certainly valid basis for discussion.

When hypothetical examples are crafted to force an absurd or extreme conclusion it's only natural for people to examine the validity of the assumptions and refuse to go down that path if they appear to be invalid.

Finally-Free

Bottom line: She's a typical POS cultist who wants to live off of someone else's dollar.

W

Now widow wants MONEY because of no blood transfusion

Share this