by Not_Culty 12 Replies latest watchtower medical
Feb 26 2019 Jehovah's Witness parents prevent blood transfusions for three children
The father said he was entitled to refuse to consent to the administering of a blood transfusion as he firmly believed that there were "medically acceptable alternatives that are as effective, if not more effective".
Thanks for posting. You beat me to it
People that feel Russia banning this cult religion is cruel and evil should read stories like these.
While I don't agree that Russia should use torture I completely agree with their banning for extremism.
When it comes down to life-and-death matters I really don't care one bit about what someone believes as far as religion or spirituality goes. Allowing a 3 year old, 5 year old, or 10 year old to die because Nathan Knorr came up with some bizarre, anachronistic interpretation of a scripture in Acts 50, 60 years ago is despicable, and it's despicable that the only people who could change that interpretation without getting disfellowship for apostasy, the Governing Body, refuse to do so anyway. If the alternative treatment fails, and the father still refuses to allow them to receive blood transfusions, doctors should give them blood transfusions anyway. These kids will thank the doctors one day for saving their lives after their father chose his religion over them.
My understanding of sickle cell anaemia is that it is not only life-threatening but is horribly painful. The blood gets congested in the blood vessels and the results dreadful.
There should be no automatic right for a parent to impose their wacky beliefs, religious or otherwise, upon their children.
An adult is free to choose to endanger their life any way they want, a child has no such choice. The Courts should ignore anything but extremely solid Scientific evidence for treatment, the mere opinion of one Doctor, or even a few, is hardly relevant, unless backed by Science.
In the case of children, doctors should be granted permission by courts to administer blood without hesitation. The state has a duty to protect children from neglectful parents.
i think if a parent refuses a child a blood transfusion--and the child dies--then the parent should be charged with murder.
I don't know if I would go that far, manslaughter maybe, but I understand why you would say that.
cofty : In the case of children, doctors should be granted permission by courts to administer blood without hesitation. The state has a duty to protect children from neglectful parents. [My italics]
Why should the parents not have the choice of alternative treatment ?
In responding papers to the Durban High Court, the child's father said a private hospital had been willing to administer an alternative treatment to their child when doctors learned that the family's religious beliefs did not allow blood transfusions.
He said unlike the state doctor, the doctor at Netcare Mulbarton had accepted that his child's condition could "viably be managed using a non-blood based treatment".
"He implemented and persisted with an erythroprotein-based treatment. In deciding on this programme, he formulated a working diagnosis of her condition."
Nigerian-based haemologist Marcus Asuquo said in his affidavit that there were other ways to treat sickle-cell anaemia. These include administration of oxygen, fluid management, electrolyte balance and use of folate.
Earnest Nigerian-based haemologist Marcus Asuquo said in his affidavit that there were other ways to treat sickle-cell anaemia. These include administration of oxygen, fluid management, electrolyte balance and use of folate.
lThese are all routinely used to treat sickle cell but sometimes only blood transfusion is effective. Even then the poor little souls are likely to be in agony and require frequent doses of pethadine, such as they frequently incur an inevitable addiction to it. So sad.
