by Bangalore 12 Replies latest watchtower medical
I note that this case was in 2009 , and the poor girl was very ill as well. But if the medics say that blood would give a chance and you refuse....the life is on the head of the WTS....(in my opinion anyway)
I note that there is a new checklist for elders ,called "Supporting Our Brothers With their Stand On Blood "... this says that
"Pregnancies can prove to be particularly dangerous for our sisters when complications arise. "
That is out of their own mouth...
Family defend pregnant Jehovah's Witness Who Died With Baby
.......
........................
Well what else would the family do at this point?
No surprise here (sigh) theyve got to find a way to make themselves feel better about such a devastating loss.
The further I move away from the epicenter of this religion (its been 5 months this week since I attended a meeting - does that sound a little like AA terminology?) the more I see one simple thing...
the HUGE amount of natural human behavior and common sense that has to be suppressed to make it all work.
I truly didnt realize.
"Pregnancies can prove to be particularly dangerous for our sisters when complications arise. "
Or they could put it this way...
"Jehovah's and His ban on blood transfusions has made pregnancies particularly dangerous for our sisters when complications arise."
Or they could put it this way...
"The Governing Body and their ban on blood transfusions have made pregnancies particularly dangerous for our sisters when complications arise."
Message to the WTBTS: STOP WITH PUTTING THE BLAME ON PREGNANCIES!
This makes me so sad and mad! I have recently had a baby by c - section and if I had the option of saving my baby's life over mine I would of damn well done it.
What I really don't understand (apart the obvious being her refusal of blood) was If she really didn't want a transfusion why not have the section anyway, save the baby and deal with the consequences of not having that transfusion. She was going to die either way by her choices. She definitely was not putting her baby first. It makes me sick to my stomach hearing of all these unecessary death that could easily of been prevented.
Shame on you Watchtower.
I understand how a very frustrating outcome is doubly so in light of having a new baby yourself Feelingfree and many congratulations to you also on your new child.
How wonderful that your child will be free of this religion thanks to you!
___________
As for the issue of why they couldnt at least do a C-section, it sounds as though the red cell count and clotting factors were too low to permit surgery as it would have killed the mother.
In those cases most hospital ethic committees decide in case of the mother over the baby if a life choice must be made.
It seems that is what happened here.
If the mother had died first with a live fetus, no doubt they would have done the c-section right then.
a side point -
The article mentions the push for a law to give more rights to the fetus. These legal challenges come up every so often and what stalls them is the abortions rights.
When trying to decide who has the right to live and who doesnt and who can decide that, it gets very tangled and political.
The family are utterly wrong in their spin on this extremely sad story.
She so did NOT put her baby first. Rather she put her religious beliefs first - for if she had put baby first she would have agreed to any available medically-sanctioned procedure that could have increased the likelihood of a safe labor and birth.
The family left behind have to 'make sense' of their tragic loss. I understand that and feel for them. But my God! Their putting a positive spin on the avoidable tragedy entrenches the blood-refusal doctrine nto some sort of ghastly qualification for entry into the Watchtower Hall of Sainthood.
The stark truth is that her religious beliefs cost more that her own life; her innocent baby's life went down the gurgler as well. This is religious madness and shame writ large.
