If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Originally posted by Scatter:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by The Rafalution:
my point is (and this goes to Meitheisman man too) is that she has decided her beliefs are more important than what is medically best.
which brings me back to my very first post - is she exercising her 'freedom of choice' when it's possible she's been indoctrinated with this belief her entire life? </BLOCKQUOTE>
yes, she has a choice, she has made it. we are all a product of our environments, as are our choices. she has the choice of rejecting her religion if she wants to.
And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people
Leviticus 17:10
...yeah how do you translate that into no transfusions mates?
Originally posted by Scatter:
same all round the (western) world mark. but afaik, those rulings are applicable to individual cases - none of them have actually been challenges to the law itself.
although I could stand to be corrected on that (in fact, i'd really, really like to be).
I'd have thought given the weight given to precedent in british law, a high court ruling would go some way to deciding the law in itself? I'm no lawyer though, so that could be (and probably is) complete ********.
Originally posted by The Rafalution:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Scatter:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by The Rafalution:
Hmm, is it really 'medical advice' though? I mean her decision isn't about what is medically best for her
precisely my point. it's like that john cleese sketch with the woman crying "what should i do? what should i do?" in panic during labour, to which cleese replies "nothing! you're not qualified!".
know you're playing devils advocate here - just not really seeing why tbh... </BLOCKQUOTE>
my point is (and this goes to Meitheisman man too) is that she has decided her beliefs are more important than what is medically best. It's no longer really about medical advice at all, the law is there to stop people recieving bad medical advice, not to stop people being able to make decicions based on the advice they recieved. if you are saying she is giving medical advice to herself, that would stop everybody being able to go against what the doctor says is best, no? </BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand what you're saying but then the "sound mind" argument comes into play, can we consider someone who believes in UFOs and says that if he gets a transfusion some Marsien will come and rape him at night before sending him to hell? I don't think any doctor would not give a transfusion to this person while logically there's no less proof of the raping Marsiens existing than God.
Martians? Anyway, there is a difference between belonging to an established religion and following those beliefs, and believing Martians are gonna get you. You must be able to see that?
Originally posted by Andy Jordan:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by LFCfan:
I don't know what the law is on that situation.
However, it doesn't matter if it's on religious grounds or not - everyone has the right to refuse medical treatment/advice if they are considered to be of sound mind.
Aren't religious people by definition the opposite of "sound minds" since they obey beliefs over facts? </BLOCKQUOTE>SIGH </BLOCKQUOTE>
Where religion is concerned, logic often flies straight out of the window. The JW's are a strange lot, but they have their beliefs and I guess that should be respected. I hope the two little un's involved are cared for. My guess is that they will already be of that faith by the time they are able to understand the choice their mother made.
Originally posted by Red_Hector:
The passage of the bible in question mates...
<BLOCKQUOTE>And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people
Leviticus 17:10
...yeah how do you translate that into no transfusions mates? </BLOCKQUOTE>
People in obscuring the bible into crazy beliefs shocker.
Originally posted by mark g:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Scatter:
same all round the (western) world mark. but afaik, those rulings are applicable to individual cases - none of them have actually been challenges to the law itself.
although I could stand to be corrected on that (in fact, i'd really, really like to be).
I'd have thought given the weight given to precedent in british law, a high court ruling would go some way to deciding the law in itself? I'm no lawyer though, so that could be (and probably is) complete ********. </BLOCKQUOTE>
as australian law is based on the law of our mighty, benevolent and utterly hopeless at sports masters, the same would apply here i think. and there have been plenty of high profile cases in this country where the decision has favoured the medicos - but the law still stands in terms of who has the right on behalf of a minor.
Originally posted by The Rafalution:
Martians? Anyway, there is a difference between belonging to an established religion and following those beliefs, and believing Martians are gonna get you. You must be able to see that?
No I really don't see the difference between believing in God and the fact that Jesus can walk on water and come back to earth after being dead and believing in Martians (sorry for the spelling error) or in Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Prove me that it is more "rational" to believe in any religion than any of these things and I'll accept your argument until then because some dumb beliefs have been around for longer doesn't give them any value to me.
Linear Mode
