Pregnant women refuses blood

by Giordano 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Giordano

  http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refusal-of-blood-transfusion-mother-and-baby-die#more-4001

  A 28-year-old woman and her unborn child have died because of the woman’s decision not to accept a lifesaving blood transfusion.

  Doctors at the Royal Hospital for Women and Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick, Sydney, Australia, have described the “harrowing” effect on hospital staff of two otherwise avoidable deaths.

  The woman, a Jehovah’s Witness, was seven months into her pregnancy when it was discovered she had leukaemia.

  Amy Corderoy, health editor, reporting in the Sydney Morning Herald states,

  “More than 80% of pregnant women suffering from the cancer, called acute promyelocytic leukaemia, will go into remission with proper treatment, and the outlook for their babies is good.”

  
  
• 

  FayeDunaway

  Extremely sad situation. Do witnesses even realize the HORRIBLE 'witness' this gives to the whole hospital, the city of Sydney, and whoever reads this case worldwide? their stupid blood policy not only kills people but shows how heartless they are, and no amount of door knocking or cart sitting will undo it.
• 

  JW GoneBad

  So, so very sad! This is just another example of the consequences of Jehovah's Witnesses weird and cooky behavior!
• 

  The Searcher

  "Doctors at the Royal Hospital for Women and Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick, Sydney, Australia, have described the “harrowing” effect on hospital staff of two otherwise avoidable deaths."

  I'm sure the same health professionals also suffer "harrowing effects" when involved with deliberately causing the deaths of unborn children via abortions.

  A death is a death! The door swings both ways.
• 

  nicolaou

  Sascha Callaghan, an expert in ethics and law at the University of Sydney, said the law as it stands allowed the mother to make decisions that would affect the fetus, even if it probably would have been able to survive outside her body.

  "This isn't to say it isn't a tragic event … but we live in a society where, within reason, we let citizens be the authors of their own lives," she said. "If you are going to grant women full rights as citizens, are you going to dilute those rights for women who are carrying fetuses?"

  Dr Callaghan said Jehovah's Witnesses were often unfairly criticised for their religious stance against blood transfusion despite it being a thoughtfully and strongly held belief.

  "This woman had a long-held commitment to the Jehovah's Witness faith and that's how she chose to die. We are all entitled to die with dignity," she said. "When your fetus is in utero, it is inextricably tied to your life." [emphasis added]
  

  These are the views of 'an expert in ethics'? It can't be that difficult to find her email address and write to her, to politely inform her that however strongly held these beliefs are 'reason' and 'thoughtfullness' have less to do with them than indoctrination and coercion.

  I'll be writing, perhaps more of you would like to as well . .
  
• 

  nicolaou

  [email protected]

  https://twitter.com/SaschaCal
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  This is the kind of publicity the Watchtower organization hoped to avoid with its move to relax its blood taboo in year 2000. But in this case Watchtower's change didn't help because this JW refused anything and everything extracted from blood that might have otherwise helped save her life and that of her unborn fetus. According to the published article in Internal Medicine Journal, "The patient was a Jehovah’s Witness with an advanced care directive refusing the transfusion of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, and all minor fractions including albumin, immunoglobulins and clotting factors."

  I've been in the room more than a few times when JWs died over this god-damned teaching. Watchtower's Governing Body members, and all those who support this particular doctrinal position are guilty of crimes against humanity insofar as I'm concerned. I know what they're doing, and so do they.

  More than 50,000 dead, AND COUNTING!!!
  
• 

  The Searcher

  Sascha Callaghan, being a legal expert, is clearly covering all the bases for women who can have an abortion on demand.

  Can one section of womanhood be targeted for "apparently" not "preventing" the death of their unborn child, and yet say nothing when millions more are "deliberately" having their unborn child slaughtered?

  A minefield into which the legal expert did not wish to venture.
• 

  millie210

  The Searcher has hit on the heart of the issue.

  If women have the say over their body and its passengers then who is going to go case by case and take that right away?

  I was once involved in a case where non JWs were expecting a child. The woman decided to abort and there was nothing the man/husband/father could do.

  It was a much wanted child by the father and the mother didnt feel the same way.
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Just finished reading about this case in the Mail. Two more avoidable deaths because of stubborn adherence to retarded religious beliefs. The GB has a lot to answer for.

  It has to stop. When human life under 18 is involved, government must force blood transfusions on the person(s) in need. No ifs or buts.

  My thoughts also go to the woman's family.

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027599/Jehovah-s-Witness-baby-die-refuses-blood-transfusion-seven-months-pregnant-cancer-80-chance-surviving-treatment.html.