Re: Suicide card (page 3)

Junction-Guy

Carla, I'm with you on this one. You can't argue with a dead man. If he survives then you can hash it back and forth over the ethics of it all, but if he were to die, then it's final.

If he were an alcoholic and asked you to abide by his wishes to drink, I believe you or most wives would not abide, they would do whatever they could to help make him sober, even pouring out his drinks. Why? because you love him and wouldnt want to see him die.

You and just about everyone on here know that the people pushing this no-blood agenda are crafty liars, so you do anything you feel necessary to save his life. You can't argue doctrine with a dead man.

mkr32208

I would equate this with the people in Jonestown. This is no more about medicine or medical care than the kool-aid was about quenching those cultist thirst and we know it! They can push that "this is all about the bible and medicine and bullshit bullshit bullshit...." To get through the courts but it's garbage and we, we, know different. If you were in Jonestown and you could spill that poison OUT and tell those people "oh yeah you took that poison..." And save all those lives wouldn't you?

This is NO different! For the record I never DID shred a card as it never came up for me. However, I decided years ago that I would if it ever DID I WOULD.

Witness 007

Don't tell any Witnesses about him till he's out the hospital...If he's conscious or not, ask the doctor or him if you can see the blood card...rip it up and flush it down the toilet...no more offical document, problem solved! = Best advice ever!!!!!

Junction-Guy

Also if the admitting people ask you what his religion is, don't say "Jehovah's Witness" just say "Christian. If you tell them he is a JW, they will automatically notify a JW on their list.

When I was in the hospital awhile back I told them I was a baptist, lo and behold they contacted a baptist minister to come and see me in the hospital.

cognizant dissident

Carla said: The problem here is that you are assuming they actually are thinking for themselves, they aren't. If they were aware of all sides of the issue that would be one thing but they aren't. You think the hall would say it was ok to research AJWRB? or the history of flip flops? vaccines? transplants? Can you guarantee they will not flip flop on blood? How many have died already not even knowing they could have taken fractions? If they were truly informed I could understand if they refrained but the plain fact is they are not informed. They are under mental duress and pressure about the blood issue. I think there was an article in a medical journal that stated that most jw's if left alone and nobody from the kh knew, they would take blood.

I am not assuming that they are thinking for themselves. I am assuming that they are misinformed and are being influenced by the WTBTS. It is the doctors and nurses responsibility to inform them of the medical side of the issue, the risks and benefits of blood transfusions. Then, it is the adult patients CHOICE whether to believe and accept the educated opinion of the doctor or the uneducated or misrepresentative opinion of the WTBTS. That freedom of patient choice is not legally invalidated just because YOU don't happen to like it and you happen to be present in the ER either as as hospital staff or a relative even next of kin. If the JW happens to be unconscious and cannot hear the doctor's recommendations and give infomed consent, then it was his/her responsibility to examine all aspects of the issue before they signed their blood cards and made elders or other JW relatives their contact person's or gave them their power of attorney in medical matters.

They were not under mental duress in the strict legal sense when signed the blood card. To invalidate a signed contract due to "mental duress" there usually has to be proven an iminent threat of bodily harm to the signee. I agree that they are under social pressure. A higher degree of social pressure than many religions put their members but not the worst of them. That still does not invalidate their right to belong to and conform to any social group they wish to and follow their medical advice.

There may have been an article in a medical journal claiming that most JW's if left alone woult take blood. I have heard straight from the lips of an anasthesiologist that in his entire career, he has never met one JW that has reversed their decision on taking blood and he always endeavors to ask them when they are alone before they go into the operating room. I doubt the veracity of that article. How would the writer possibly be able to know what JW's would do if left alone. Did he actually poll them and they admitted they would. Not likely.

Mkr32208 said:
I don't ask you to condone. In fact I don't give a shit if you condone or not. My wife was welcome to leave if she wanted to. That said I would absolutly have fought tooth and nail to give her blood if the situation had come up yes I would and if you WOULDN'T do that for your family than you are a fool.
As to the hospital I wouldn't FORCE blood on them. I'm saying that I would merely lose the card, if they can't make their stand known due to being unconcious and a dr gives them blood tough shit!
To compare this situation to chemo is totally stupid.

Whether I condone your actions is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant to the law whether you condone your wife's or other JW's medical choices. You seem to be saying that because your wife stayed with you that she gave up her legal right to self-determine her own medical care and turned over to you. What a patriarachal attitude reminiscent of JW men and the old good old boy medical establishment of yester year! I would not fight tooth and nail to give my JW husband blood against his wishes. I actually came right out and asked him if he would like me to rip of his blood card if he is unconscious and then he can blame it on me later and not get df'd. He said, "ABSOLUTELY NOT!" I will respect his wishes even though I deeply disagree with them and think they are foolish. He has been informed of both sides and given the chance for the secret out without repercussion that Carla claims most JW's would take and has chosen to stick to his JW beliefs. That is HIS choice. I then asked him if I was unconscious, if he would respect my desire to have a blood transfusion if that's what the doctor's recommended even if there were a hospital full of all our JW family and JW friends. He hesitated a little too long. You see, JW's are the ones who are controlling and will not give other's the respect for their wishes that they demand for themselves. Your stand is actually closer to the JW's then to what is considered legal and ethical in the medical community. Your stand takes away the right of other's to decide for themselves and you assume it for yourself. How are you any different than the JW's then?

To compare this situation to chemo is a totally logical analogy. They are both medical treatments given to people who are dying. They both have the potential to save their life but provide no guarantee. They both carry risk of serious side effects. In fact, the situations are so comparable that both chemotherapy and blood transfusions were used side by side as examples of the medical ethics of forcing medical treatment on adult patients against their wishes when I took medical ethics during my nurses training. No distinction was made in the class and no distinction is made under the law. Your stand would not hold up in court in the US or Canada. The particular medical treatment in question is irrelevant and the particular religion of the patient is irrelevant. The entire issue is one of self-governance. If you are for taking away one patients rights, then you are for taking away another's. Next will be your own. You are on a slippery slope back to the time when patients had little rights and doctors word was law. Is that where you want to go back to?

You might be surprised at the number of paramedics nurses emt's and Dr's who accidentally lose these cards...
This isn't a normal refusal to except treatment and everyone in the medical community knows it! In fact in both my EMT classes and RN classes one of the instructors discussed this (after ascertaining that there were no witnesses in the class) and said she couldn't tell us what to do but to think about what we would do and what would be in the patients best interest... So you can kid yourself all you want if your not conscious and no one is right there the chances of you getting blood is pretty damn good if your in dire need!
Lots of witnesses fail to mention it until later too. They aren't stupid and I think a lot of them in that situation have a 'don't ask don't tell attitude.'

Unless you actually have the numbers of how many of those cards are "lost" then perhaps you would be surprised. What is a "normal" refusal to accept treatment? Well in my RN class, there was never any discussion about whether to respect medical directives. They were respected as well as patient autonomy in every instance. If a patient had checked themselves into hospital for treatment, signed papers agreeing to treatment, and then a nurse or a doctor was about to administer a procedure or give medicine and the patient said, "NO, I've changed my mind", medical personnel were not allowed legally to proceed with treatment, if the patient had previously given the OK. They must first try to inform them all over again of the neccissity of the procedure and obtain consent verbally. At no time were the patients wishes ever allowed to be ignored. All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in the state in which you were trained or practice as medical personnel are taught that they are allowed to ignore the law, ignore the patients wishes and do what they decide is in the patients best interests. If the JW's themselves fail to mention the cards, that is an entirely different ball game. It is their perogative to change their mind any time about their medical treatment any time they like which is exactly the point of this whole discussion.

I would equate this with the people in Jonestown. This is no more about medicine or medical care than the kool-aid was about quenching those cultist thirst and we know it! They can push that "this is all about the bible and medicine and bullshit bullshit bullshit...." To get through the courts but it's garbage and we, we, know different. If you were in Jonestown and you could spill that poison OUT and tell those people "oh yeah you took that poison..." And save all those lives wouldn't you?
This is NO different! For the record I never DID shred a card as it never came up for me. However, I decided years ago that I would if it ever DID I WOULD.

In a broad sense, I agree with you. I too have equated JW signing the blood cards, agreeing to sacrifice their lives on the word of men, as "drinking the kool-aid". However, since the "poision" for the JW's is not literal but is figurative, in that it is religious doctrine, the antidote must be truthful education and exposure about that religious doctrine, not force. You can tell all the JW's you want that their religious teaching is "poison". I intend to. I doubt many will listen. I don't even see how Jonestown could even have been prevented. Jim Jones didn't even break any laws until near the very end when he already had "total control". As long as people are willing to give over their minds and their power to other people and not think for themselves there will always be dangerous cults. What we should be fighting is "totalitarian control" over others in all its forms. You won't be successful in doing that by trying to give doctors (or husbands) totalitarian control over patients against their wishes. That would just be trading one abusive system for another. There have been many cases in the past where patients rights have been horribly abused by the medical profession because the balance of power between doctors and patients was too uneven. Again, do you want to go back to that time in history? Cog.

Junction-Guy

Every last one of my rights were trampled on as a JW, Carla if this is viewed as trampling on rights then so be it- what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You are faced with 2 choices in a worst case scenario.

1. Abide by his wishes, allow him to die, and then your own conscience would be bothered for many years down the line, doubting your decision.

2. Give him the blood, he lives, he divorces you.

either way you lose him--at least with option #2 you at least tried to save his life, that ought to give you some comfort.

cognizant dissident

So Junction Guy, the substance of your argument is that "My rights were trampled as a JW, so that gives me the right to trample on any other JW's rights!" Am I the only one who can seen the insanity of this logic? This is the kind of logic that had Danny Hazard pepper spraying two old JW men and thinking this was appropriate behaviour! Or that allows the KKK to say that, "some black man raped a white woman so that give us the right to take away the rights of black people everywhere!"

Also, could you actually name specifically what legal right that you have that JW's took away from you and tell us specifically just how they took it away from you?

Cog

Junction-Guy

How about life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Junction-Guy

Also giving someone blood with the intent to save a life is alot different than actually harming someone in a physical manner out of revenge. it is only going against their cult indoctrination that was perpetrated by a lying deceitful cult,posing as a religion.

mkr32208

nevermind

Re: Suicide card

Share this