Shropshire Star news editor examines issues behind death of JW Emma Gough

by AndersonsInfo 85 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Burger Time

  However religion does exist, for better or for worse, and so we have to make simple situations into complex ones. Again the question is: Does the mothers right to do what the hell she wants with her body because its hers, supercede the right of the newborn child to their natural mother?

  100% yes. I think Scotsman has said it best. I would also like to add that what kills your argument is that in the U.K. and USA the laws state we have the right to supersede that of the newborn....so case closed.
• 

  M.J.

  Interesting discussion. It just so happened I had insomnia last night and watched a special on the Heavens Gate cult.
  
  Now these folks fully bought into the premise that if they committed suicide, they would be transported to that spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet. They were convinced that Earth was about to be wiped out and this was their only recourse for eternal salvation.
  
  Check this out from their website!
  http://www.heavensgate.com/misc/vt100596.htm
  
  The programming/conviction/belief here was so strong that a member who was "left behind", i.e., did not commit suicide with the rest of the cult, committed suicide at a later date along with another member (who wasn't successful):
  
  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E7DD1E30F934A35756C0A961958260
  very interesting story.
  
  So, I guess the question is, did these folks have the right to take their own lives? If a mother of young children was involved in this cult, would she have the right to take her own life and leave her children motherless?
  
  Especially in the case of the members who attempted to carry out the suicide on their own, it is obvious that it was done of their own free will, and they were fully aware of what they were doing.
  
  I'm not sure I fully know the answers to these questions myself, but it's some good food for thought.
• 

  Gadget

  Mrs. emma gough DIED THANKS TO THE WTBTS, IT WAS THE WTBTS THAT BRAINWASHED HER TO DIE... nOT HER OWN CONSCIENCENCE. I'M 100% AGAINST many posters that try to say EMMA GOUGH made her own choice. THE WTS MADE HER CHOICE. AFTER YEARS OF BRAINWASHING. NOW SHE'S DEAD THANKS TO THE WTS. I DON'T SEE ANYWAY POSTERS HERE CAN DEFEND HER DEATH. BASED ON WTS DOCTRINE/ OR CHOICE OF TREATMENT.

  I think this is an important point everyone is missing in their arguements. Do people have a right to make an informed choice about what happens to their bodies and what treatments they receive? I think they do. The problem is, the influence techniques used in groups like Jehovahs Witnesses don't allow for an informed choice to be made. They are conditioned to believe everything they are told by the wbts and to discount all infomation to the contrary.

  Did Emma Gough make her own decision with regards to her treatment, or was she influenced by a lifetimes worth of conditioning to make the choice the wbts wanted her to make?
• 

  Burger Time

  Gadget case in point we are all here because at one point or another we decided for ourselves to look into things we "were not supposed too". Or some of the people here just left. None of us allowed the WTS to control us. We simply let them control us. Some of us never let them control us. As I stated before it's emotional pressure which is hard to deal with, but at the end of the day it's the Adult's choice. They are not physical forced in to these things.
• 

  besty

  http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

  "Nothing is more human than the readiness to kill and die in order to secure a meaning in life." John Gray - Black Mass : Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia

  I apologize, but I don't accept that humanity is defined by its readiness to die as John Gray asserts above. In Emma Gough and similar cases yes they are ready to die, but I see them as victims, in this case of mind control techniques applied by a publishing company to its unpaid recruits.

  What is the natural extension of the right to self-determine withholding life-saving medical treatment in the case of parents? Should we be able to drop our kids at the social work department and ask them to take care of them indefinitely as we just don't fancy it any more? It is our body after all, and we don't have to be parents if we don't want to be. Right?

  in the U.K. and USA the laws state we have the right to supersede that of the newborn....so case closed.

  Which laws are you referring to specifically Burger Time?
• 

  scotsman

  Gadget

  a lifetimes worth of conditioning

  That phrase can be applied to so many repellant aspects of human society that I find it hard to apply to the blood doctrine as if it makes the Witnesses exceptional. My father made an informed choice about whether or not to accept blood and he knew the risks. He refused and died. Whether or not a blood transfusion would have increased his life expectancy I greatly doubt, but I would rather he had made the decision he did than have the law force him otherwise. He was an intelligent adult who had converted over the age of 30, and despite 30 years of brainwashing was a sentient individual. His beliefes lead him to make what some may percieve as an irrational choice, but hey, the irrationality of humans is what results in love, delight and culture and i'm all for it.

  My niece also required a blood transfusion when only a days old and despite her parents refusal, it was administered by the doctors without fuss or court and with a lot of respect for her parents position. I'm glad the law overruled her parents but if she chooses to refuse blood at 16+ (when it's highly likely that she'll need another operation) to run the risk of losing her life through the want of a blood transfusion then I respect her right to do so, as much as it would grieve me to lose her.

  Hope all that makes sense, I've just knocked back a bottle of Veuve Cliquot (6year anniversary with the BF!).
• 

  besty

  Hope all that makes sense, I've just knocked back a bottle of Veuve Cliquot

  grin.

  Makes sense insofar as the situations you describe don't involve a mother dying and leaving children behind, so are for another thread perhaps?

  Should cult members be allowed to commit suicide by voluntarily refusing lifesaving medical treatment in any and all circumstances? Discuss.
• 

  scotsman

  involve a mother dying and leaving children behind,

  Once more, that's an emotive reason for intervention, but not an ethical reason... where is this "right to your birth mother" inscribed?

  (I'm on to a nice cuppa tea now!)
• 

  scotsman

  Should we be able to drop our kids at the social work department and ask them to take care of them indefinitely as we just don't fancy it any more?

  lol, that's exactly what we can do, and have been able to do in the West for oo, 500 years plus.
• 

  flipper

  BURGER TIME - You stated , " None of us ALLOW the WTS to control us . We simply LET them control us . " WTF ? What's the difference ? You contradict yourself in 2 straight statements there. If we ALLOW the WTS to control us or LET the WTS control us - it's the same damn thing. They still control us.
  
  And that is the point BESTY is trying to make here ! Emma Gough was " controlled " by the Watchtower society whether she " ALLOWED " herself to be controlled, or " LET " herself be controlled ! Control is control. The point is to stay approved by the people she associated with , and identified with - she either refused the blood transfusion - or would be told she would die at a " fictitious " armageddon by this " mind control cult " ! So- if someone is holding what " you consider " to be a gun to your head saying if you accept this blood transfusion - " you are a dead woman in God's eyes " - what choice did Emma Gough have ??
  
  The answer is - She had no choice. She was coerced by fear of rejection by God who would kill her - to refuse a blood transfusion. Seems pretty clear to me ! Peace out, Mr. Flipper