The point I was trying to make with the adoption comparison was that the children are still doing with out a mother. Some Mothers can take care of the mother but just choose not too. Much like an abortion. This is a very moral gray area. As I stated it's merely my opinion.
Shropshire Star news editor examines issues behind death of JW Emma Gough
by AndersonsInfo 85 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
besty
The whole point of adoption is to provide a mother. What has happened here is that the mother has voluntarily committed suicide.
It sounds like you are beginning to understand the point that not all rights are equal? -
Xena
I agree with Burger Time. You can't take away people's choices just because you don't like or agree with them. That said when you make a choice like this you ought not sue the doctors for following thru on it. I find it interesting that they are sueing the doctors and the WT lawyers are involved. They generally don't like this type of publicity and only use the lawyers when blood transfusions are being pushed on a minor or something like that. Usually when someone dies from a blood transfusion they use it to highlight their faith in an Awake article and be done with it.
-
scotsman
I suppose I'm with Burger Time, the rights of the mother to choose trump the right of the child to a mother, unpalatable as it may be. Just as a woman has a right to a termination.
Just to clarify, the newspaper article doesn't say that the family are sueing the doctors, it's an inquest into the cause of death and the family have a right to representation.
-
BluesBrother
I have to support the patients right to refuse an unwanted medical treatment, for any reason. I live in the U K , less than a hundred miles from Telford. I would never want the doctors to be able to medicate me over and above my express wishes. Hell, It is my body and I must have the final say in what happens to it. If you legislate against the refusal of blood it opens up a can of worms for a lot of other decisions that could be based on that precedent. Children are a different case, but for adults, we must have the right to chose.
It is bizarre that the WT lawyer argues that they could have used another part of the same blood, as an alternative treatment...!
-
Xena
Thank you for clearing that up for me scotsman. :-)
-
one of 12
Hi Barbara,
If you're still about, just a wee side question for my own personal research project, if factor VII has been approved, then are the witnesses allowed Anti-D as well which is plasma based and used it the treatment of Rhesus factor problems at birth or during pregnancy. I'm a student Midwife and all this about blood transfusions and anti-D antibodies is what we are discussing at the moment. Your information would be greatly appreciated or directions to where I can get downloadable copies.
One of 12(siblings not apostles)
-
tijkmo
i'm a bit curious as to what it was that caused her death because there seems to be differing points of view....maybe that's the reason for the inquest...
it she was hemorrhaging then clearly some kind of clotting agent would have been necessary
if she had clots then how do we know that one of these was not the cause of her death
either way merely throwing blood into her was not going to be a solution.
all medical procedures are risky...cutting someone open is fraught with danger...and even someone with years of experience doing this knows that it is not an exact science. people will die in seemingly 'safe' scenarios and live thru extremely hazardous ones and it has nothing to do with blood transfusions
there is also the consideration of the effect that a life sustaining treatment that went against her faith would have had on her psyche.. if she had taken or been forced to take the blood against her wishes she could well have 'lived' the rest of her life in a depressed and suicidal state. how much good would she have been then to her children. some mothers have killed their children while suffering in this way.
i must add that it is also ironic how many living contributors to this forum make the point that they nearly died as a jw because they didnt take a blood transfusion..don't you realise that is making their point. you nearly died..you didnt actually die.
for the record if i was in a life threatening situation and i wanted to survive it then i dont think i would take blood - too many risks and much better alternatives. fact is i dont care that much if i live or die at the moment..so i dont care if i get blood or not. my objection to the wts is their claim that their whole blood doctrine is bible based and guided by holy spirit when it is clearly nothing more than guesswork albeit educated guesswork on occasions (like all thier beliefs)..paul gillies uses the argument of the abstain from blood command being in the same context as abstain from fornication and then says that both are forgivable with genuine repentance - but there really is no comparison....
jws condemn any form of fornication whilst allowing plenty of leeway in decisions regarding blood... blood fractions, blood testing, eating meat, organ transplants, dialysis..these all (whilst being reasonable) break the command to let blood return to the ground..and in a much bigger way than the alchohol argument.. this line of reasoning would be similar to saying with regard to fornication that it is acceptable on occasions..or that minor excursions are to be recommended..(for all their argument that blood fractions are a matter of conscience there is no doubt that they are saying that your conscience should be telling you that they are acceptable because they are saying they are acceptable - you couldn't e.g. be a missionary if you refused innoculations) ...try using that reasoning the next time you are hauled in front of a j.c. bacause you went to 2nd or 3rd base when you were dating.
-
seven006
.
-
fifi40
One of 12
Anti D is considered a matter of conscience...........or in other words were a JW to accept it they would not be viewed badly or be disfellowshipped................I had it after my pregnancies whilst a JW.
Fi