I had the said discussion with the misses. We were seated on our terrace, with a cup of coffee, enjoying the view and the sun......
We discussed the matter and agreed that this story is a real tragedy. We also agreed that administering blood is not a guarantee to the salvation of life. (In the programme was invited an ex-witness with apparently the same problem but survived without a transfusion). We also agreed that the current state of affairs of the blood ban is a shadow of what is used to be because in effect all components of blood may be administered, at least not in it's original form. We also agreed that in this case everyone lost. Mr. Cough lost his wife. Mr. and mrs Cough in law lost their daughter, kids lost their mother and medical personal lost a patient on whom they could not administer treatment to the utmost of their ability. We also agreed that it had caused grief, discontent and sorrow for quite a number of people. We also agreed that the kids itself would not have any recollection from it. If they would be brought up in a loving environment they probably will be ok. (see adoption of kids). Apart from that, if they were to grow up without a mother, they would know nothing else. It would however pose a problem to mr Cough ability to spent time with his kids.......We considered it to be likely he may marry again with some "fine sister", given his presumed age (mid twenties)
We felt it to be an even worse matter if kids were depending on their mother to be there, e.g. our own two of 7 and 9. What bearing should the rule: to love God above all else and your neighbour as yourself have on the issue? What bearing does 1 Joh. have when it says that by claiming "to love God" but "hating our brother" by our actions renders us a "liar" have on this issue? My wife did not answer. I said I felt that she and I had an obligation to our kids to take care of them, they were entrusted to us as a precious gift, and to let them grow up into decent adults who would contribute to society in a reasonable and ethical manner. I concluded I would consider her stance on blood an unethical act, counter to Christian law, because our kids would suffer traumatically from it for the rest of their lives, leaving them bereft of the emotional, physical and spiritual support they were entitled to. I said I could not bear the fact I would, by consenting and upholding her stance on the blood ban, to knowingly and wilfully traumatise my kids and turn everyone directly involved to become a loser.
I asked her if she thought that it was ok if someone, who wanted to go to paradise because of his believes about the afterlife of believers and unbelievers, was allowed to blow up himself plus a bunch of unbelievers? She said, that if someone wanted to blow himself up, he could go to the desert and by all means blow himself to smithereens. I agreed, but how about the unbelievers. Was it ok to blow them up? NO! Was it ok to harm them? NO! Then why is it ok to harm kids in such a way as mrs Cough has done, I inquired?
It remained silent for quite a while.
Then I said that our English friends were quite upset about the whole matter because no matter how you look at it, I could not explain it any more and maybe she could ......
Silence........
Anyway, we resumed our conversation about a different more practical issue. But I was glad she did not go bezerk or anything but we will have to discuss this matter another time when the new cards arrive in January. It will be interesting to see, who she will authorize to make live altering decisions......
to be continued.....
Cheers
Borgia
