Mother dies after refusing blood

retired_kimmymarlo · 11-05-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark g:
So abandoning your kids is fine as long as you can dress it up as freedom of religious expression?

I'll skirt your loaded rhetoric and simply say yes.

it sucks for the woman, it sucks for her husband, it sucks for her infant children. we're not here to play mommy and daddy to grown adults, however. there are much larger issues at hand.

retired_sedimohasel · 11-05-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LFCfan:
It's personal choice.

If someone doesn't want a transfusion, it's their right to refuse it.

With that reasoning all drugs should be legal, it's my personal choice if I wanna shot heroine down my vains, right?

retired_bball3378 · 11-05-2007, 03:49 PM

If a person refuses medical treatment because of a fear of needles their wishes can be overturned as that fear is deemed irrational. For me, if a person refuses medical treatment because of a fear of hell their wishes should also be overturned as that fear is equally irrational.

If we're already going down a route that suggests the GMC advocating going against the wishes of patients in some circumstances why should religion get an opt out? Shouldn’t medical law and ethics be governed by cold hard logic and science?

I'm perfectly happy for people to do unto themselves what they see fit...that's their choice, but I'm not sure the law should have the same attitude. The law as it stands seems to be somewhat contradictory, in that it allows people to refuse treatment in circumstances such as this, yet does not allow people to choose the timing and circumstances of their death in other situations.

(I’m expecting to be summarily dismissed in less than a full sentence).

retired_kimmymarlo · 11-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James07?:
If a person refuses medical treatment because of a fear of needles their wishes can be overturned as that fear is deemed irrational. For me, if a person refuses medical treatment because of a fear of hell their wishes should also be overturned as that fear is equally irrational.

If we're already going down a route that suggests the GMC advocating going against the wishes of patients in some circumstances why should religion get an opt out? Shouldn’t medical law and ethics be governed by cold hard logic and science?

I'm perfectly happy for people to do unto themselves what they see fit...that's their choice, but I'm not sure the law should have the same attitude. The law as it stands seems to be somewhat contradictory, in that it allows people to refuse treatment in circumstances such as this, yet does not allow people to choose the timing and circumstances of their death in other situations.

(I’m expecting to be summarily dismissed in less than a full sentence).

if the laws are changed, then so be it. in that case, she gets the transfusion against her will and her entire worldview is irrevocably shattered.

hyperbolic? probably. nonetheless, I really, really don't like the precedent being set for forced medical procedures. that's really where euthanasia and this instance diverge - action v. inaction. do I agree with the double standard? no. do I think that changing laws to make inaction impermissible is right? no.

retired_derek · 11-05-2007, 03:53 PM

What James said.

retired_rmschaffer · 11-05-2007, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lermon:
I think it is at an instinctual level that something like this is included in the religion. To have someone else's blood they have seen as disgusting and made it a shared principle of the religion..which is really silly when people die from it.

I wonder what a Jehovah's Witness thinks of that person who died. A hero? or do they have their doubts. Oh yeah I got a question next time one of them Witnesses knock around doors.

They should make them all donate blood. And then keep the blood somewhere in case they have an accident. That way they can be transfused with their own blood.

Though it would still be impractical getting the blood to them in time. Maybe they can carry it around in their car or store it in their house which means a relative can bring it to the hospital.

retired_kimmymarlo · 11-05-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean M:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Lermon:
I think it is at an instinctual level that something like this is included in the religion. To have someone else's blood they have seen as disgusting and made it a shared principle of the religion..which is really silly when people die from it.

I wonder what a Jehovah's Witness thinks of that person who died. A hero? or do they have their doubts. Oh yeah I got a question next time one of them Witnesses knock around doors.

They should make them all donate blood. And then keep the blood somewhere in case they have an accident. That way they can be transfused with their own blood.

Though it would still be impractical getting the blood to them in time. Maybe they can carry it around in their car or store it in their house which means a relative can bring it to the hospital. </BLOCKQUOTE>they're against all blood transfusions.

retired_derek · 11-05-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean M:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Lermon:
I think it is at an instinctual level that something like this is included in the religion. To have someone else's blood they have seen as disgusting and made it a shared principle of the religion..which is really silly when people die from it.

I wonder what a Jehovah's Witness thinks of that person who died. A hero? or do they have their doubts. Oh yeah I got a question next time one of them Witnesses knock around doors.

They should make them all donate blood. And then keep the blood somewhere in case they have an accident. That way they can be transfused with their own blood.

Though it would still be impractical getting the blood to them in time. Maybe they can carry it around in their car or store it in their house which means a relative can bring it to the hospital. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Their beliefs mean that even blood transfusions where their own blood is used is not permissible.

retired_musiclova31 · 11-05-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LFCfan:
It's personal choice.

If someone doesn't want a transfusion, it's their right to refuse it.

i'm not certain it is about personal choice though. i think you could make a good argument that the woman has been brainwashed to the point where she's ignoring her own natural survival instincts. and let's not mistake the amount of influence that would take btw - humans possess a considerable natural survival instinct.

james' point re: euthanasia also extremely pertinent btw. and, at what point does a patient rejecting treatment become a suicide attempt?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Bert Preast:
Like if someone doesn't want a baby it's their right to refuse it.

****ING YAS.

wp sir. :thup:

retired_sedimohasel · 11-05-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean M:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Lermon:
I think it is at an instinctual level that something like this is included in the religion. To have someone else's blood they have seen as disgusting and made it a shared principle of the religion..which is really silly when people die from it.

I wonder what a Jehovah's Witness thinks of that person who died. A hero? or do they have their doubts. Oh yeah I got a question next time one of them Witnesses knock around doors.

They should make them all donate blood. And then keep the blood somewhere in case they have an accident. That way they can be transfused with their own blood.

Though it would still be impractical getting the blood to them in time. Maybe they can carry it around in their car or store it in their house which means a relative can bring it to the hospital. </BLOCKQUOTE>

You're applying logic here which is great imho but with religious people it's the last thing they care about, it's like explaining a scientific theory to an oyster.

Mother dies after refusing blood

Grab a beer, sit back and relax.

Mother dies after refusing blood