retired_sedimohasel

Don't think that's true though. Most of us wants some sort of consistency. If that be the "do what you want, it's your body" as displayed with the transfusion or if it is the "no, you can't kill yourself/do drugs" is a totally different discussion. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe that's your take on it, but the first two pages were largely characterized by, "omg she's so stupid and religious make her live so we can prove how vastly superior our ideologies are!" </BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anyone was saying what you just put in between quotation marks, at least I know I wasn't. I'll side with Mr Wallin on this one as I was arguing the you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want with your body because people are crazy and would end up doing really stupid things like this woman's example or the German canibal article that I posted.

retired_sedimohasel

No, I think she's an idiot but I wasn't trying to prove that any ideology is better than another. All I was saying is that if you're allowed to refuse a transfusion even though it will result in death then you should be allowed to do drugs, eat people... *insert any crazy thing you want that people could potentially agree to*

retired_jhr2211

As a non-practising Jehovah Witness can I point out that we do allow blood substitute plasma products and that research shows this is actually preferable in a lot of cases. The actual red cell platlets which is to be technically abstained from is a small proportion of the actual "blood" content.

We have a form which indicates a numerous amount of recongnised substitute products which a JW can accept in place of blood.

retired_jhr2211

No, I think she's an idiot but I wasn't trying to prove that any ideology is better than another. All I was saying is that if you're allowed to refuse a transfusion even though it will result in death then you should be allowed to do drugs, eat people... *insert any crazy thing you want that people could potentially agree to* </BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you argue that? One is refusing something being done to your body against your wishes and the drugs one is consumption of an illegal substance (you can consume blood you know) and umm eating people, well that's fairly illegal.

Can you not enforce what you want to happen to your human libities when the product being offered is legal (as opposed to your drug theory).

retired_sedimohasel

No, I think she's an idiot but I wasn't trying to prove that any ideology is better than another. All I was saying is that if you're allowed to refuse a transfusion even though it will result in death then you should be allowed to do drugs, eat people... *insert any crazy thing you want that people could potentially agree to* </BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you argue that? One is refusing something being done to your body against your wishes and the drugs one is consumption of an illegal substance (you can consume blood you know) and umm eating people, well that's fairly illegal.

Can you not enforce what you want to happen to your human libities when the product being offered is legal (as opposed to your drug theory). </BLOCKQUOTE>

What I was saying is that if you are allowed to refuse blood on the ground that you are the owner of your body then you should be able to do whatever you want to your body since you own it.
Based on this you can decide to Fcuk up your brain by snorting coke if you feel like it, it's your own brain isn't it? Same thing applies for canibalism. Read the article I posted a link to, a German guy agreed to be eaten by another man if they shared his cooked penis first. If we consider that this guy owns his body then I don't see why he should be forbidden to eat it or feed it to his friend.

Did I make myself any clearer?

retired_khabmth

Then you have been reading some different tread as that idea most definitely hasn't been widely used.

retired_khabmth

Wouldn't that have save this woman then? Or did she want to die?

retired_khabmth

You are missing the point though. Drugs aren't illegal plainly because of their existence, they are because society has deemed them to dangerous for people to use. And if we (society) would take the stance that "anything goes as long as it's my own body" then these drugs could very well be legal.

I'm not arguing some "legalise drugs" standpoint but rather ask why am I allowed to hurt myself in some ways but not in others???

retired_sedimohasel

whs

Thanks for expressing it in a better way than I did :thup:

retired_mauilisa

No, the last sentence of your quote is saying that doctor's can stop treatment against the patient's wishes. The specified circumstances being something roughly along the lines when the doctor deems treatment to be futile and not in the best interests of the patient.

The second sentence says that patients can refuse medical treatment "even if the patient's choices hasten their deaths". A doctor cannot force treatment upon a mentally competent patient.

From your quote the rules in the US and UK are very similar.