Why not drop the pretense that blood is bad for you?
Are you asking me this question? I no more believe that blood is bad for me than I believe any other treatment has a certain degree of risks.
Unbelieving spouses and blood treatments.
by garyneal 20 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
garyneal
-
jgnat
Finally found the conclusion. A Supreme Court judge found that the parent's rights were not infringed when they temporarily lost custody of their infants so that they could receive blood transfusions.
"This case lies at the intersection of the rights and responsibility of parents to make sound health-care decisions for their children and the duty, indeed, the obligation, of the state to override that right in appropriate circumstances, the judge wrote....In the decision, the judge said, the four babies’ blood transfusions were medically necessary. Because he deemed the transfusions necessary, the judge said he found it “difficult to see how the decisions of either the provincial court or the director can be said to have been incorrect” and concluded the parents’ rights were not infringed upon.”
AND - Virginia Medical Directive form:
-
jgnat
Garyneal, my question was not directed at you (smile). It's rhetorical.
-
keyser soze
Why not drop the pretense that blood is bad for you?
Pretense is right. They make such assertions in an attempt to give their no blood policy a certain level of credence in the medical community, so people don't see it for the religious zealotry it really is.
-
garyneal
Wow, jgnat, thanks for finding that directive in Virginia.
I believe in keeping an open dialog between myself and my wife on every issue in our marriage though I will have to admit that some things like this may be best left unsaid. Unfortunately, this whole topic involves a lot of emotion on both the religious front as well as medical front.
I'm glad to see that the judge did not find that the rights of the parents were 'infringed upon.' I believe that even though the parents may have rights to choose medical procedures for themselves based on their religious beliefs even if it endangers their lives, this same directive should not be forced on minor children. Therefore I agree with any court actions that protect children under these circumstances.
-
garyneal
They make such assertions in an attempt to give their no blood policy a certain level of credence in the medical community, so people don't see it for the religious zealotry it really is.
Agreed, it is amazing the cognitive dissonance that persists over their rules regarding blood. Stored blood bad, but blood fractions that come from stored blood is okay. Autologous transfusions bad, but perfectly permissible to have blood the leaves the body during surgery be pumped back into you. Their blood video that was shown me was full of double-sided thinking.
-
nelly136
I've asked my wife's elder about this and he told me that there are laws to protect children. .....uh...oh again
theocratic warfare....those who deserve/need to know...or not, guess in your case that would be a not.
jws will fight those laws designed to protect children. he was giving you the standard fob off.
-
AudeSapere
This important subject comes up periodically. Always a good reminder to update our Advance Medical Directives with physicians and local hospitals so we are not caught off guard when emergency occurs.
That said, I wonder if anyone has come up with a 'Yes, Blood!' card to take the place of the JW 'No Blood' card? Might not work with spouses of non- and ex-JWs but you never know... It might be beneficial. It would also take the pressure OFF the active or apologetic JW. They do not need to give consent, just turn over the wallet with a 'Yes, Blood!' card signed and validated. This may work especially if on the card there is noted that an AMD is on file with personal physician and local hospital.
For those who are interested, here is one of my experiences (using my first JWD account):
and a thread I started on Blood vs NoBlood:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/medical/98275/1/Blood-A-Balanced-View
I didn't post last year's experiences, but last year I was hospitalized twice (for completely unrelated issues). BOTH TIMES blood transfusion was a top recommendation for treatment. For the 2nd hospitalization (internal bleeding of lacerated liver as result of trauma), surgery and/or transfusion was presented. Other option was complete 100% bedrest in ICU with close monitoring. I was excellent, non-moving patient. (You move the arms, you move the body, which moves the liver, which makes it bleed more. )
The other hospitalization, I had option of alternative treatment that would likely have taken 6-8 weeks to give results. I opted for my doctor's #1 recomendation and was back to near normal by the time I left the hospital the next day.
Blood is not always the best or first choice of physicians. But taking it completely off the discussion table is completely irrational - and, in my opinion, shows a complete LACK of respect for life.
-Aude.
-
garyneal
jws will fight those laws designed to protect children. he was giving you the standard fob off.
Well, I pray that it will never get to this point but if it does any JW elder who tries to stand in my way over this issue and causes harm to my child as a result will be sued for every penny that he has. He can pretend that he is being persecuted if that will help him sleep better at night but I plan to do whatever is in my power to protect the ones I love.
-
Married to the Mob
Hi Gary
We don't have children, but its blood all the way for me. We had the dicussion over this, and if we had children and she is clear that for me blood is route if needed. On the children front if we ever have them that they will get blood if it is necessary.
For her blood is her last option. She would rather have bloodless treatment, but knows that sometimes that just isn't an option. It also says the same in her living will.
Okay this is all said when she is calm and unemotional, could be completely different when it coems to the crunch.
But for me, life is more important and becomes before any religious law.