Religious Woman Sues Kansas for Trying To Save Her Life

Agreed, maybe she should pray about winning the lottery for the money. God is listening after all. Right? I love it when religious types run to science when their life depends on it.

I really hope the state wins the appeal as well…what she is asking is absolutely ridiculous at best

Wait, what?

She can get a whole organ transplanted… but not blood?

Is that actually the thought process here?

She needs to pray harder. Perhaps she isn’t scrunching her face up enough. God likes that.

You are all overlooking a very important element here. The position of this woman is not her own, she is a member of a high control cult. She will be willing die for maintaining the strict code the JWs are forced to comply with.

Do you know that if she does take a blood transfusion her entire family and all her friends will have to cut her off entirely? She will loose all her social network and be abandoned.

I understand that her position is irrational but the way you are going on makes it seem that she is pushing for this personally without any outside factors influencing her. Any JW would behave like this. It’s not the individual it is the organisation they are trapped in.

Try doing research on the horrendous human rights abuse track record of the JW leadership and you may be able to understand this poor woman’s unfortunate position. It will give you pause for thought.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses urges its members to refuse to accept blood transfusions and to not allow them to be given to their children. This is primarily based upon four passages in the Bible which they interpret as prohibiting the consuming of blood:

Genesis 9:4 “But flesh (meat) with…blood…ye shall not eat”
Leviticus 17:12-14 “…No soul of you shall eat blood…whosoever eateth it shall be cut off”
Acts 15:29 “That ye abstain…from blood…”
Acts 21:25 “…Gentiles…keep themselves from things offered to idols and from blood…”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness13.htm

When it comes to religion (especially in the religion v. science debates), I find that Kansas is the oddest place of all.

It’s sad that JW’s would risk their lives in this way. I have some in my family and worry about how far their faith might take them to death.

I cannot fathom how being so close to death you can still follow these kinds of doctrines that PREVENT the saving of lives. I feel immense pity to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who feel they need to do this and more than likely end up dead for it.

The Jehovah’s Witness stand up for what they believe.

They uniformly opposed Hitler when other groups did not, like elements of the church.

And the universites. And the students. And the Professors. And the Scientists.

Der Fuhrer could not have gotten as far as he did without them.

But the silly Jehovahs Witnesses resisted.

Go figure,

I am always surprised that those who loudly proclaim their faith in a god accept any medical intervention. It seems a true believer would either pray harder for personal attention or accept that their god wants them done. And if she doesn’t use the liver, there are loads of people out there who will…no strings attached.

In many ways humanity has defeated Darwinian natural selection.

It is amazing the power belief holds over people. If the choice comes down to either/or I wonder which she’ll choose?

Thank you, Bertram, for fulfilling Godwin’s Law. Now are we supposed to all believe that Jehova’s are kind-hearted critical thinkers?

I’d say we may soon have a candidate for a Darwin Award. I hope she hasn’t reproduced yet.

@Muxika

What’s even more sad is that the legal system has had to develop systems to force JW’s to allow their children to have blood when needed.

It’s sad that JW’s would risk their lives in this way.

Well, that’s one level of sad, and if she wanted to die instead of having a Kansas transplant; I would say: “She’s an adult, that’s her perogative.”

But this case goes a step farther in that she wants a different procedure, and wants the citizens of Kansas to pay for it.

Wait… God has the power over life and death, right? He’s clearly wanting to take her life away (otherwise she wouldn’t have liver troubles), and getting the transplant – bloodless or otherwise – goes against that, right?

And even if Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only ones brave enough to stand against the evil of Hitler, that doesn’t mean they’re in the right about everything else they ever do. They can be right on Hitler and wrong on transfusions.

the biblical prohibitions against blood mostly relate to sacrifice and blood rituals that were common in competing cults of the time. it’s historically incorrect to apply them to medical procedures that didn’t exist at the time when those injuctions were written down. not to mention bone stupid for apply rules and laws from a bunch of primitives who lived thousands of years ago. and color me skeptical. a liver transplant? i’m pretty sure there are many passages in the Buybull that prohibit drunkeness and gluttony. guess she doesn’t think she has to pay attention to those.

and why am i not at all surprised she’s on Medicaid?

@littlejohn That is a really mean thing to say. You may think it is ridiculous, but she is still a person with family and friends. She may not have legal standing, but hoping she can’t afford the help she IS willing to take and that she fits the right criteria so you can put her on a list is disgusting.

not only does it misrepresent evolution, it is just plain mean.

Also. Shaming people for taking advantage of a system that is in place to help is hurtful to all those who use it. health care is expensive for those with chronic illness. I have lots of friends with medical debt, it is likely that paying for her treatments led her to being on medicaid, or that this classifies as a disability. She is almost at the age when everyone gets the benefits.

The important part of this story is how accommodating the government must Legally be in treating people with religious objections. And if they will accommodate certain objections, who would judge which beliefs are “reasonable enough” to get special treatment. it is an untenable situation.

I hope she finds the private funding needed to save her life.

Littlejohn did not say he hoped she couldn’t afford help or that he wanted her dead, or even imply such. Noting that a stupid person is apt to suffer for his stupidity, even in a snide way, is still only an observation.

It’s absolutely no different than saying, “Geez, the way that guy drives, he’s going to end up dead in a wreck.” In both cases, the person is being dangerously unreasonable, is actually trying to harm others through his or her actions (one directly, one indirectly), and is noted to be a fool for doing so.

I take the “reproduction” quip as meaning “I hope she doesn’t leave behind children, either to miss her when she could so easily stay alive, or to be twisted by her beliefs and cause suffering to themselves and others later,” sentiments which I find very reasonable.

Nothing new here. Stinemetz is trying to become a martyr. Christians have been martyring themselves since the very beginning of their religion. To intentionally die for Jesus is the ultimate way of saying, “I’m holier than all of thou.”

Yes, it is arrogant, narcissistic, and immature. But Christians have been pulling this sort of thing for a long time. My guess is there will be plenty more Stinemetzes in the future.

@coyotenose. are you not familiar with the darwin awards? They are supposed to be “funny” so implying that she might be one, is associating her death with humor.

it is about people who “take themselves out of the genepool” so if she had kids she wouldn’t be a darwin award.

I stand by my interpretation. The whole concept is disgusting. I get uncomfortable when anyone says who should reproduce or not. it is distinctly anti-choice.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If this somehow wins and the government has to bow to her religious whims, then from now on all my treatments for minor aches and pains, according to my religion, are hookers and booze. Will they support that too?

Kinda interesting corollary here. I read an interesting article recently on Cracked.com that the rumor is Prince (the “Purple Rain” one) is in dire need of a double hip replacement, but refuses to agree to it because the procedure(s) would require blood transfusion. He’s JW now, after all. (Yes, the man who wrote and performed such ditties as “Darling Nikki” and “P*ssy Control” has found God and is pretty smug about it.)

I’m slightly familiar with TDA, and am no longer a fan of the term. I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s been a pop culture meme for a while now, and no longer strictly means THE Darwin Awards. Rather, it’s a catchall for suicidally reckless behavior undertaken for spurious reasons. Invoking it doesn’t mean somebody enjoys the real TDA.

(Yes I know, sporting a Confederate flag and claiming it isn’t a symbol of Slavery doesn’t fly, but I think scale and culture apply here.)

As a tangent, it’s interesting that people like the one in the article above actually strike us as stupider than, say, mountain climbing enthusiasts. I feel that the transfusion denier is an illogical fool and the mountain climber is not, but I’m not sure how to express why. It’s not just that the transfusion is such a minor compromise, because “not having fun in a horribly dangerous fashion” is a pretty minor compromise also.

If she wants to forego a procedure covered by Medicaid in her home state in favor of an alternate procedure in a different state, that’s fine. But expecting the state to foot the bill is unreasonable. It’s amazing the sense of entitlement some people have.

I’m fascinated to see what would happen legally! In Canada we have a similar-ish Charter case from about 15 years ago: a group of parents of autistic children did a Charter challenge saying that the BC government’s refusal to fund behavioural therapy for autistic children was discriminatory. However, they decided for the BC government based on the fact that at the time, behavioural therapy wasn’t yet recognized in the medical community and the government was funding other types of autism care. And there was also no religious component, which makes it significantly different. However, American law as a general rule favours the plaintiff/individual far more than Canadian law does, so I’m fascinated to see what would happen.

Why exactly doesn’t the church cover this kind of thing? If they’re going to go about deluding their members into believing that blood transfusions are terrible but that this other method is okay, then rather than expect the state to foot the pointless bill, they should set up a fund to help members get the coverage that fits their religion. I hope the state shuts her down on this. Religions deserve equal rights, not extra rights.

dyke:

and color me skeptical. a liver transplant? i’m pretty sure there are many passages in the Buybull that prohibit drunkeness and gluttony. guess she doesn’t think she has to pay attention to those.

The liver is the most complex organ in the human body and there are literally thousands of things that can go wrong with it. “Liver disease” is a very broad term that encompasses a broad range of these conditions. Since your comment is so medically uninformed, I won’t “color you skeptical“. I think the term to best describe you in this case is ignorant.

Nakor:
“Why exactly doesn’t the church cover this kind of thing… Religions deserve equal rights, not extra rights.”

Because the extra rights of the religious have gone unchallenged for so long that to them, that is equality. Further, there are believers in all religions who don’t want mere equality but as much power as a given society will permit them.

Those are the really dangerous ones, and modern communications let them preach to millions at a time.

But it’s a great idea: let the church that insists on its followers adhering to outmoded laws support that out of its own resources. What lovely backpedaling and reinterpretation of doctrine we’d see then!

If she wants the procedure that the state offers, she can accept it. If she wants the procedure her church prescribes, let her church pay for it. The church can pay for it out of their tax exempt fortune.

My wife spent most of her childhood in a small and conservative Christian cult. This cult had a prohibition against seeking medical help for any sickness. Of course, medical help was sought secretly for people higher up in the church leadership, but it was covered up very well. In many cases, when someone was dying, church leaders would set up camp at the family’s house to ensure that no one called for medical assistance, and if any help arrived or a family/friend from outside the cult tried to visit, the ‘trespassers’ were escorted off the property. No outsiders were allowed at the funerals, either. Even though the local church is fairly small, my wife can list many people (including young children) who have died of easily preventable or correctable conditions.

The tactic of a home sit-in was also used to coerce people in other ways, like enforcing correct doctrine.

As you may have gathered, anyone who left or was kicked out of the cult was completely cut off from any friends and family still inside. The prohibition on medical help seems a measure to gauge/complete the trend of putting allegiance to the cult above everything else in life.

If she’s dumb enough to believe that getting an organ transplant will piss off an invisible sky man who can’t even be proven to exist, they should have just let her die. The less stupidity there is on this planet, the better.

Chicago Dyke said, “and why am i not at all surprised she’s on Medicaid?”

What a nasty thing to say! Medicaid exists because there are people who need it. Are you suggesting that poor people should be deprived of medical care? That’s no better than what conservative funditards promote.

Hemant left out her third choice. Stay where she is and be a good Jehovah’s Witness by not getting the transplant/transfusion and just pray that it goes away.

One less idiot to worry about.

Of course, she has been paying for Medicaid through taxes all her life. How is it fair to force her to pay for a program that allegedly will give you the medical care you want at the time you need it and then refuse to give her what was promised to her? Yet another reason that basic fairness demands that participation in Medicaid be made voluntary.

Ron in Houston:

What’s even more sad is that the legal system has had to develop systems to force JW’s to allow their children to have blood when needed.

The state didn’t have to do that. That was a voluntary choice by busybodies that decided it was appropriate for them to force people to do stuff that they didn’t want to do, “for their own good.” What’s sad is not that the state “had” to do this, but that the agents of the state chose to do it.

Wow, of course I agree the state can’t pay for this, because that would mean we’d have to capitulate to all kinds of weird religious costs. Government funding can’t be expected to cover weird cult demands.

But the comments section is really disturbing. You realize JWs are not “stupid”, they are part of a cult. They have a worldview that is so different from ours, it is rational to not want a blood transfusion. While they are not free of responsibility for their beliefs, saying “who cares, let her die” is pretty horrible sentiment.

And the comments about medicaid are just profoundly stupid for obvious reasons. Yeesh.

There is a real paradox with Jehovah’s Witnesses and their behavior on this issue and their behavior toward military service. It’s really easy to get riled up and angry with this woman because she wants a different procedure than the one the state is willing to pay for. (To a lot of people the reasons don’t make sense, and that makes them angry.)

This woman is willing to die for her beliefs. She believes the creator of the universe is telling her she can’t have blood, and because of that, there is a possibility that her life would be cut short unnecessarily. That makes us sad. We don’t want her to die for a stupid reason.

At the same time we, as a society, celebrate the deaths of all the American soldiers that get killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. People are sacrificing themselves on an altar of patriotism or some sense of national duty in a war that arguably was started for the wrong reasons and is doing more harm than good. In my opinion those soldiers are dying unnecessarily and stupidly, just like this lady will die if she refuses her only available medical options.

Also, there aren’t Jehovah’s Witnesses serving in the military. Not one of them is killing an Iraqi or an Afghan on purpose or on accident. Jehovah’s Witnesses have members in nearly every country in the world, and as a general rule they would rather be put to death then serve in the military and kill others.

It’s stupid. As a culture we have made a decision that it’s a good idea to spend over 100,000 dollars on a missile that will be fired into Libya to kill and possibly maim innocent children, while at the same time refusing to pony up the extra cash to allow this woman medical treatment that is consistent with her non violent religious indoctrination.

Whether this woman dies as a result of stupidity, or another soldier or civilian in the middle east dies as a result of stupidity, at the end of the day it doesn’t make a difference to me. Both are wasteful and moronic. We are all guilty of sending people to die for ideas of dubious quality.

I feel for this woman being under such social pressure from her “brothers and sisters” that supposedly love her, however… perhaps she should ask them for the money to have the bloodless transfusion done since the state (rightfully so) will not foot the bill. There is a medically necessary procedure available to her that her own state WILL pay for… it is HER choice not to accept it. No one should be responsible for this decision but her, and perhaps her church members should contribute to her hardship, since it is apparent that they are the pressure here.

Maybe I’m thinking crazy here – but why not let her go to Nebraska and get the bloodless-liver transfusion?

She has paid into Medicare all of her life, and now she relies on it like many others do. If the other procedure is the same price, let her do it, or let her pay the difference. It isn’t like the other procedure is acupuncture or mystical healing or something – it is a medical procedure that accomplishes the same goal in a medically verifiable way. I do not see what it accomplishes to tell her she has to chose between no-procedure and a procedure that she disagrees with when there are other procedures available.

I wish that the law was written in such a way that they say – Hey, you have problem X (bad liver), we prescribe remedy Y (liver transplant), and since procedure Z (standard liver transplant) is available for $Q, we will reimburse you $Q to get remedy Y via whichever procedure you prefer.

Miko says:

Ron in Houston:

What’s even more sad is that the legal system has had to develop systems to force JW’s to allow their children to have blood when needed.

The state didn’t have to do that. That was a voluntary choice by busybodies that decided it was appropriate for them to force people to do stuff that they didn’t want to do, “for their own good.” What’s sad is not that the state “had” to do this, but that the agents of the state chose to do it.

What you mean to say is that the state is forcing people to not force people to do stuff that is both incredibly stupid and possibly fatal.

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH CONSENTING ADULTS IN POSSESSION OF ALL THEIR FACULTIES MAKING DECISIONS THAT AFFECT ONLY THEMSELVES HERE.

It’s to protect KIDS from being FORCED by their brainwashed fucktard parents to forego possibly life saving medical treatment.

This is not about bodily autonomy. If you think it is, here’s a thought excercise for you. Would you say the same if the parents were advocating euthanasia for their kids on religious grounds?
I sure as fuck WOULD NOT; even though I would advocate for a consenting adults right to make that choice; and I think it’s pretty clear WHY.

@ K. Syrah

“When it comes to religion (especially in the religion v. science debates), I find that Kansas is the oddest place of all.”

I would agree, especially since I get to experience it first hand!

@Lauren S: @littlejohn That is a really mean thing to say. You may think it is ridiculous, but she is still a person with family and friends. She may not have legal standing, but hoping she can’t afford the help she IS willing to take and that she fits the right criteria so you can put her on a list is disgusting.

I stand by my interpretation. The whole concept is disgusting. I get uncomfortable when anyone says who should reproduce or not. it is distinctly anti-choice.

Jesus H. Christ, I am sick to freaking death of atheists who get their egalitarian panties in a bunch because they think some of us aren’t nice enough to the fundies.

This is one of the reasons I don’t come around here much any more; I can’t abide the appeasement. These people believe we deserve to be tortured unimaginably for all of eternity, and most of them can’t wait for it to happen.* They’ve also spent the past thirty years voting into office the criminals and lunatics who are chiefly responsible for our current economic crisis, from which aren’t going to recover – and, as we continue to go down, we’ll be taking the rest of the world down with us. Moreover, in case that isn’t enough, they’re also hell-bent on destroying our already inadequate educational system, so that if there is any hope of recovery, our kids won’t be able to compete in the global marketplace. They’ve already made us an object of ridicule and derision to all of the other developed nations. Just ask any European; he’ll be happy to confirm it, if he can stop laughing at us long enough to catch his breath.

However, let someone suggest that it might be a good idea if they were to stop breeding and passing on their idiot genes – and that offends you?

Un-fucking-believable.

(*And before someone corrects me – yes, I know Jehovah’s Witnesses believe we’ll all be annihilated. Just another flavor of crazy.)

Random notes:

This is a case of a religious believer demands special accommodations, which is what this really is. I try to not make other people pay for my idiosyncratic choices, and I don’t think it’s too much to expect other people to pay for their own idiosyncratic choices. If you want something better than the baseline, fine, raise the difference yourself. She demands the state to pay more than the best procedure to get a riskier procedure, and that’s the wrong way to go about it in my opinion.

From a religious perspective, isn’t it better to be persecuted and die a martyr?

A blood transfusion isn’t even close to drinking or eating blood, none of the four passages noted above apply. The prohibition on drinking blood was because it was a ritual of other religions, which is nothing like life saving surgery.

From what I understand JW doctrine, the morality of organ donation is left up to the individual’s conscience. I must ask though, what if a drop of blood was inadvertently left in the organ? I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that 100% of the blood has been drained. Can she really afford that risk?

The main issue here is that Kansas DOESN’T HAVE a “bloodless” facility, in fact only 16 states do.

While she has the right to not get the transplant, and she has the right to pay for it in Nebraska (or one of the 15 other states that haves the facilities and staff), and she has the right to get a regular transplant; she doesn’t have the right to force an ENTIRELY new facility and staff JUST FOR HER.

Her loss is someone else’s gain. It is sad when someone refuses treatment for a medical condition on spurious religious grounds but, as an adult, we should respect their decision and give the organ to someone else. Her example will surely be a lesson to other JWs.

The idea of the insurance company is one I struggle with in general. If I had been paying all of my working adult life into an insurance policy, for the amount I use it the insurance company would have made buckets of money from me (yeah, well, drops in the bucket anyway, but a lot for me to be paying for something I never use). So, if I had put that same amount of money into a high-yield savings or investment account instead, which I did not, I could probably afford to pay for a lot of my own treatments if I were to fall acutely ill. And if I could not pay, I would be okay with being dead. Perhaps a person who chooses to put their life in “god’s hands” should be okay with whatever decision comes down the line to them, and just consider it to be “god’s will.” Why do they pick and choose the message they receive and accept or reject from their “lord and master”? If their god wanted them well, he would provide. And if they choose to let god decide what their fate is, that is none of my business. And it is my opinion that it is not the government’s business either, and I think it is wrong for government to pick and choose who they are going to force a quality of life on, considering that there is currently no general standard for quality of life being upheld for all, many live in brutal poverty and squalor and disease. I have a little trouble with how this issue was presented, in declaring that the state “rightfully so” denied the request of the individual seeking alternate-but-equal care provided in another state for services not provided in her own state. I would have preferred it be presented in a more open-ended manner, such as just expressing that the state has chosen not to pay, and let me decide if I feel it is rightfully so in my own mind. Just as I will say that in my opinion, maybe it is not rightfully so. If it is a medically accepted alternative to transplant that is rejected by a paying policy holder, or in this case qualified medicare recipient, for whatever reason, then I would be of a mind to say that she pay her own travel expenses, or the church should donate them (a good point by the person made above that they should foot this bill) but the procedure itself, if curative or palliative for her condition, should be covered.

she’s a Jehovah’s Witness and she think God will hate her if she gets a blood transfusion.

I’m reminded of a line from M*A*S*H: “Let’s hope it’s a long and healthy hate.”

…the bloodless procedure wasn’t developed for people with religious objections to blood transfusion. If an athiest were requesting the bloodless procedure, would we be as quick to call the request unreasonable or indulgent, and tell them they should “die for their cause”?

From Portia:
the idea of the insurance company is one I struggle with in general. If I had been paying all of my working adult life into an insurance policy, for the amount I use it, the insurance company would have made buckets of money from me (yeah, well, drops in the bucket anyway, but a lot for me to be paying for something I never use). So, if I had put that same amount of money into a high-yield savings or investment account instead, which I did not, I could probably afford to pay for a lot of my own treatments if I were to fall acutely ill. And if I could not pay, I would be okay with being dead. A person who chooses to put their life in “god’s hands” should be okay with whatever decision comes down the line to them, and just consider it to be “god’s will.” they cannot pick and choose the message they receive. if god wanted them well, he would provide. and if they choose to let god decide what their fate is, that is none of my business, and it is my opinion that it is not the government’s business either, and I think it is wrong for government to pick and choose who they are going to force a quality of life on, considering that there is currently no general standard for quality of life being upheld for all, many live in brutal poverty and squalor and disease.

And nothing of value will be lost. Just another brainwashed zombie…

@Bill: The problem is that she’s demanding the insurance cover her for something much more expensive than is necessary, which if the insurance company was to begin doing, would raise everyone’s rates.

I’ve never understood the reluctance of some Americans to accept any form of universal health care. To me it’s almost alien to imagine not wanting a system where anyone can get the care they really need. If it costs a part of my paycheck to make that happen, then so be it.

If a person wants to say no to a medical treatment then the state has no right to step in. She knows she might die. So be it. Let her choose.

Besides, it would prove yet again that praying is a ridiculous waste of time.

Medicaid not Medicare
Medicaid is a state run program designed to provide health care for mostly poor people. This woman has not been paying into it all her life or at all as some of you claim. It is a safety net system. People don’t have a right to demand that a charity program pay for whatever their crazy religious system thinks is a better option.
Medicare is a federally run program that is funded with tax contributions. And while it’s different than a private insurance policy, it’s more comparable to it than Medicaid.
The reason people smirk and say “ha, of course she has Medicaid” is because these fundy people who are often conservative and republicans want to shut down out government but will happily take benefits for themselves while they elect people who fight to get rid of those benefits.

portia Says:

the bloodless procedure wasn’t developed for people with religious objections to blood transfusion. If an athiest were requesting the bloodless procedure, would we be as quick to call the request unreasonable or indulgent, and tell them they should “die for their cause”?

Absolutely. You take what the state says they can give you. If you don’t like it then pay for it out of your own pocket. If you can’t afford to then shut up and take the offered standard and effective treatment. I have no problem letting anyone who refuses this die a painful death, religious or not.
On a personal level If anyone is too stupid to accept the offered treatment yet refuses to shell out the cash for better then then I sincerely hope they do die and stop watering down the gene pool.

[T]hese fundy people who are often conservative and [R]epublicans want to shut down ou[r] government but will happily take benefits for themselves while they elect people who fight to get rid of those benefits.

Except that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t get involved in politics, don’t vote, and don’t try to force other people to live by their beliefs. In many ways, both culturally and theologically, they’re very very different from the standard “Conservative Christian” stereotype you’re thinking of. (In other ways, both culturally and theologically, they’re very similar.) I respect the Witnesses for taking seriously Jesus’ remark that his kingdom is “no part of this world”. They have very strict beliefs, but they genuinely don’t try to force non-Witnesses to live by them. In that, they’re very different from the fundies you’re thinking of. Your stereotypes really don’t apply here.

I’m an ex-Witness. Many of them are good and compassionate people, but they do have a bit of a martyr complex, much as they’d deny it. (The “I love life” bit is a standard phrasing in these situations.)

TRiG.