Sad:
A teenage Jehovah’s Witness crushed by a car as it crashed into a West Midlands shop is thought to have died after refusing a blood transfusion.
Joshua McAuley, 15, was airlifted to hospital from the incident in Smethwick on Saturday but died later that day.
Elder at Smethwick’s Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses Clive Parker said Joshua, who worshipped there, had “made a stand on the blood issue”.
Joshua is believed to have told doctors at Selly Oak Hospital not to give him a blood transfusion on religious grounds.
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse transfusions because they believe the use of products derived from blood is forbidden by God.
Should the parents be held responsible for his death?
He’s 15, not 5. He’s old enough to make his own decisions about religion and medical care.
At this age he still lives with his parents and his parents are responsible for his well being.
I thought the first rule of practicing medicine is to “do no harm.” This was a pretty basic scenario for the medical staff—doesn’t the staff bear any responsibility? If a person entered the hospital and wanted to kill themselves in the waiting room, wouldn’t they be obligated to stop them? Think about Kevorkian.
There is a whole new discussion. Why shouldn’t a person have that right? Sure, it’s dumb to do it in a hospital, but I see no reason why there ought to be a mandate that a human be obligated to prevent or stop another from their own life choice.
A person has a right to do what they wish to their own body. Let’s put it this way: Should a hospital be allowed to strap a person down and administer whatever treatment the hospital wants to give, regardless of the person’s wishes? That’s exactly what they would have been doing in this case.
Not as clear cut as you think. If the patient is trying to kill themselves?
He was probably brainwashed from birth, and likely in shock from the blood loss. He obviously was not able to make an informed decision.
I have to agree with this. Indoctrination is a powerful thing. It’s scary to think that at one time I might have made a similar decision. If you think you are going to heaven anyways, then whats to worry about?
If he was a baptized Witness, he no doubt had a notarized Advance Medical Directive that stated his beliefs. These documents are not filled out at the hospital where his senses might have been compromised.
As for the “do no harm” idea, no doctor did harm in this case. A doctor does not do anything wrong if a) he respects a patient’s wishes, and b) does nothing as a result. I can assure you that neither the doctor, nor the staff, will be sued by the young man’s parents. All Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the risks associated with refusing whole blood products, which is why we make a concerted effort to promote the use of bloodless medicine – methods that are both cheaper and safer for the patient.
In the U.S, there have been a number of cases where minors his age (and younger) have been declared mature minors, and thus, their wishes were respected. Indeed, no human should be forced to have ANY procedure performed on them against their will. Refusing one type of medical procedure and simply allowing natural processes to run their course is NOT suicide, which is a conscious attempt to murder one-self. Stay focused, people, and resist the urge to attack that which you do not understand, or else you are no better off than those who would condemn you to hell for denying God. (For the record, I hold no such view of anyone).
His senses were already compromised by his own parents.
He was still a young man who was convinced that dying was the best way to please his imaginary god.
And that’s the problem.
You even doubt it? Absolutly. They should be charged with homicide.
I’m on the fence about this one. I’m sure the doctors told him that he’d die without it. If he still disagreed, then, I think, it is his right.
But, then again, he was only 15.
You can’t legally make any decision at the age of 15 in this country.
Yes you can.
To expand, a 15 year old can certainly accept medical care that his/her parents want them to refuse (and though I’m not as sure about the reciprocal case, they can probably refuse medical care their parents want them to accept), and can make medical decisions for themselves in situ if parents are unavailable, such as when life-or-death decisions need to be made immediately after an injury.
I think the US followed the UK on this one: If a healthcare professional, through conversation, deems that somebody below the age of majority is capable of understanding the decisions that need to be made and all the possible consequences, then the decision is theirs to make and the wishes of the parents can be ignored.
Why not charge the entire JW church structure? Its all guilty of homocidal stupidity.
Good idea! Lets all write a big long logistical muse for them to enlighten them on their obvious stupidities… I’m sure that’d go real far! No shot at you busterggi I understand your humor and I feel the same way. If only there was a way <.<
If I were to be oversnarky, I’d say, “Natural selection at work.” But I’m not. Just sad.
While he was 15, lets not pretend that every fifteen year old is capable of making informed medical decisions after a traumatic accident. Few adults are capable of that, and I know I got plenty of bad advice from adult authority figures that I had to shake off as the years went by. Even at that age the words of authority figures in your life can have tremendous weight, regardless of how wrong they are.
It raises an interesting issue of ethics: are the doctors, bound by their Hippocratic Oath, allowed to simply do nothing because the patient is making a terrible decision? Its one thing if someone turns down medication because of a reaction they have to it, or for the terminally ill to end their own life, but for a 15 year old to decide that he would rather die than take blood is delusional. Would they refuse medical treatment to a person claiming aliens have poisoned the blood with mind controlling microscopic robots? Of course not, they would save the persons life and let them deal with their mental problems AFTER they are physically well.
Its another example of how our societies deferment to ‘religious decisions’, i.e. specific delusional mental states, ruins lives. There was no reason for this boy to die, all of the medical equipment and professionals we’re at his disposal, but he was allowed to die because he was indoctrinated to believe that blood could transfer some sin upon him. This is one of those situations where I completely agree with Dr. Dawkins premise that religious upbringing is child abuse. He died because his church, his parents, and his community told him to, and for nothing else.
well put.
I’m with you here, “He died because his church, his parents, and his community told him to, and for nothing else.”
Exactly what I was thinking.
I agree totally with a religious upbrining to be child abuse in a lot of respects, this is a QED moment. I don’t think doctors should be allowed to allow decisions to be made on religious or otherwise non medical purposes personally
This was supposed to be under Sundog…
No because you can have a DNR request and the docs should/must abide by it even if the doc disagrees with the DNR.
As far as the kid goes let’s be honest here. How many think if the kid was 18 he would refuse the blood?
IMO the kid’s opinion/brainwashing would not change from 15 to 18. If the kid had concerns he would have voiced them at age 15.
Actually, doctors (and nurse) aren’t bound to abide by DNR requests at all. They normally do, but there are all sorts of reasons why they can disregard them if they really want to.
Well if they ignore it I assume/hope they can get sued. I mean if they ignore the DNR and the patient is now pretty much brain dead the family should be able to sue the doctor and hospital.
Also then what is the point of a DNR if a doctor can say screw you I am not following your wishes and allow you to die with dignity?
Remind me never to get hurt severely while visiting the USA.if the doctors can ignore such a request.
Actually I’m in the UK. Living wills / DNRs have to fit a few different rules before a doctor will fill in a NFR form: They have to be regularly reviewed, they have to be made by somebody while they still have capacity to make the decision and the consultant signing the NFR has to be sure it’s in the patient’s best interest and is not a decision being made by family members for financial or other gain.
It’s pretty hard to sue the medical profession for ignoring a living will / DNR request – we only really ignore them for good reasons. I can give you an example from my own experience: had a patient who’d had a massive haemorrhagic stroke and was unable to communicate or even move. her daughter arrived waving a living will and demanding we cease all treatment at once, but the consultant took the view that since it was signed and dated seven years prior he couldn’t be sure the patient would still want to abide by it – so he put in an NG feeding tube and we treated the lady’s stroke aggressively. She recovered her ability to talk after a few weeks and told us she wanted all the treatment we could give her, that she thought she’d torn up her living will years ago (as it turned out, her daughter took it and kept it) and that her daughter would have inherited and awful lot of money if we’d let the patient die. The daughter got written out of the will for her trouble, and we reported the whole thing to the police but I have no idea if they ever followed it up.
A.) If the patient is that clueless to not update their wishes…. How hard would it be for the patient to give the hospital a current copy or keep something in their wallet (like i do)
2.) This incident seems like the exception and not the norm.
D.) I do NOT want doctors thinking/deciding what is best for me. That is the entire point of the DNR/Living will.
H.) Ok add the UK to my list of places I don’t want to get hurt severely.
Well, first of all you always assume that the patient has the mental capacity to make their own health decisions unless they are assessed by doctors and deemed to not have capacity. There could be all sorts of reasons for that – confusion, disorientation, intoxication etc. In 99.9% of these cases I would expect the attending physician to put the refusal down to confusion caused by hypovolemia and go ahead and transfuse anyway – particularly in a child/adolescent. Religion adds a whole new dimension to that, though – fear of getting sued by a church for saving somebody’s life sees to that.
First, Doctors aren’t necessarily bound by the HIppocratic Oath; they are not required to take it. They are bound by the tenets of their Medical Association and the laws of their nation and state
Second, I don’t care whether we consider him deluded; he is of age to make decisions for himself. The reasons he makes the decisions he does are not something we can reasonably even know, and are most certainly none of our business whatsoever. A person’s life is their own, no one else’s.
I agree with you, but it does raise the question, at what age are children NOT of an age to make decisions for themselves? 14? 13? 12? When you try to put an age on it even 15 seems very young. I personally think adults have the right t refuse treatment for any reason, no matter how stupid it seems to me, and even if it is the result of childhood brainwashing. However, if a brainwashed child shows up in the ER, then then the situation is different. The difficulty is defining when a child becomes an adult.
The problem with setting an age is everyone is different. I have known 14 and 15 year olds that were more able to make decisions then 25 year olds. Of course there are 14 and 15 year olds that are able to make decisions like this. I think most laws based on age are done so because the majority of people can make sound decisions at the age stated in the law. It is the same when it comes to drinking and driving. There are people who can drive just as well as someone sober when they are at .08 but there are others that are a serious danger at .04. They find the standard based on averages I think.
That is suppose to be 14 and 15 year olds who aren’t able to make these decisions.
You’re right, that is a problem. I tend to believe that if a person is considered sufficiently reliable to give evidence in a court of law (full, not Children’s Court), they should be given the benefit of the doubt as regards their own capacity to make decisions regarding medical treatment. Most places I know of, that’s around twelve.
I’m curious as to which procedures exist in such cases. Is it out of the question for the doctors to override the patient’s wishes if they deem it necessary to save his life? Or is it illegal for them to do so if the patient is considered to know what he is asking?
“A person’s life is their own, no one else’s.”
and if the religious community that indoctrinated him believed that, he would still be alive. The whole point is that he can’t make decisions for himself because an organization has systematically undermined his ability to make rational judgments.
A child brought up in an abusive home, will not want to leave that home, even if its in their best interest. As a society we take up the odious duty of removing children from said abuse. To say it’s simply none of our business would be neglectful on a societal level. Once abuse has been identified, society is culpable for allowing it to continue. The unfortunate thing is that the child will most likely fight the process the entire way, but children do grow up, and hopefully as an adult they can reflect on what was actually happening.
What does this story have to do with child abuse? I don’t see how teaching a child to refuse legitimate medical treatment on any grounds, is NOT some form of child abuse. Where the lines should be drawn for religious and individual freedom is a very complicated issue, but the idea that someone is not responsible for teaching this kid to effectively kill himself, is laughable. He did not reach this conclusion on his own, he was led there by people entrusted with his protection, and he died because of it.
As a community we should be taking action against things like this or they will continue to happen and not just in this religious sect. The delineation of fault starts at the church but does not absolve the parents of crime either. I think that if the parents pleaded mental insanity it would be validated on the principles of direct correlation (Being Insanity = Religious dogma) But they should be held accountable if they could have prevented their child’s death
“He did not reach this conclusion on his own, he was led there by people entrusted with his protection, and he died because of it.”
Yes, he did. But it WAS his choice.
NONE of us have any choice as to what sort of belief system, or lack of it, we grow up in. We DO choose whether we believe in it, and whether we will follow it’s tenets. Whether that choice is obvious or hidden, it is there.
What would you say if this young man were a convert to Adventism? Would you then be accusing his parents of neglect for allowing his conversion? Is your problem that he made a choice you don’t agree with, or that he was allowed the choice at all?
I am an Atheist, by choice. I accept no God, no spirit, no supernatural reality, by choice. I do not respect religions, nor beliefs; I do respect people, and the choices they – and ONLY they – make for their lives.
You assume far to much autonomy of choice. Some people have the moral fortitude to buck the religious indoctrination at that age, the vast majority do not. It is especially hard to do so when one is still dependent upon parents of that faith. Lets not pretend this choice was made in a vacuum, he was primed for 15 years to make this choice by parents who you admit he was stuck with by mere circumstance of birth. Do you believe that the parents and church have no responsibility whatsoever in this matter? That its just this poor schmucks fault for believing in the things that he was taught his entire life?
If he had converted to another religion it would change the issue, but he didn’t. The facts of the story do not support such baseless suppositions. You seem dead set on blaming the victim here. From what you have posted so far I would assume you would have no problem with a man selling poison as medicine, hes not responsible for all of the deaths his products cause, after all the victims had a choice in purchasing the product. Apparently deliberate deception of one party does not factor into the misinformed choices of another. Is there moral culpability for deceiving someone into making a life threatening (potentially life ending) decision? Would you consider teaching a child to refuse medical aid in an emergency such a deception?
Abused children could run away, but most don’t. Are the ones that stay behind responsible for the beatings they receive? He had a choice, but his upbringing made it so that he could never have a fair choice. He was taught that a life saving measure was some ultimate sin, and no one was there to persuade him otherwise. To claim its his choice, and thus his fault, is an act of incredible callousness.
You misunderstand, RG. I don’t blame him; I don’t blame anyone, because I don’t see this as a blame situation.
This person’s life has ended. Rather than automatically assume tragedy, I prefer to weigh his death, and his life, and try to determine whether or not he lived a fulfilling life and died a death worthy of him. By HIS standards, since, those are the only ones that actually matter.
In this case, while I have little doubt he would have wanted to live longer, this young man chose to die by the belief system he lived by. If there is any tragedy there, it is that it was a less than rational belief system; but I have no right, and YOU have no right, to decide the beliefs of anyone else, nor to say they cannot proseltyze and spread those beliefs as they can. Consider, after all, who would be the first group denied such rights if anyone could. So, I cast no blame here, and I see no tragedy, only the end of a life.
I can’t sit back and not blame someone, to me that would be consenting to this practice by my silence.
I believe in generous personal rights. A persons rights assume in good faith that they not use them to cause real harm to others. We draw the line at free speech with yelling “fire” in a crowded building, or the right to protest when it becomes destruction of property and rioting.
In my view the family and churches right to freely practice their beliefs ends when they teach self destructive behavior to juveniles, and those behaviors cause actual harm to the juvenile. Its not a matter of me arbitrarily choosing that their rights are forfeit, this is a case where those beliefs caused actual demonstrative harm. I’m not advocating closing churches or banning the Jehovah’s Witness religion, I’m saying that in this case, in particular, criminal charges should be brought against those who misled this kid, perhaps neglect upon the parents, and possibly more severe charges against the leaders of his church.
The problem with belief systems is that they self propagate, it is difficult to determine where the belief’s of the parents are held by the child in earnest. But who holds what beliefs is immaterial, the issue is the harm caused. To continue with the status quo means more dead children, more wasted life. I’m not naive enough to believe that a dead child is punishment enough, because no matter how many times these things happen these beliefs continue to exist. I believe that we as a society give a criminal level of deferment to religious beliefs.
If it was the parents who had refused the transfusion, I would agree with you; that would be imposing their beliefs on Joshua beyond the act of proseltyzation or of upbringing. Joshua’s choice, however, was his own.
To me, to consider the upbringing more important than the decision is a trap. Ultimately, it fails the subject by denying him free will, and it fails society by denying us the right to praise or punish particularly good or bad choices, and thereby regulate acceptable behaviour.
As to bringing charges against those who taught him, well, frankly, that goes against every code of justice I’m familiar with, and would pretty much fall under the term “Police State”.
“That its just this poor schmucks fault for believing in the things that he was taught his entire life?”
Yeah, that’s just the brass tacks truth of the matter. I if I choose to end my life (regardless of the reasoning) that is my choice. If I choose to refuse treatment for ANY medical condition, that is my right and my choice.
If I make my choices based on my fathers faith in the Flying Spaghetti monster that is still my choice.
Your rules do not and never will apply. The individuals right to choose what to do with their body and how they want their body to be treated is sacred ground.
The moment that you believe that you have a higher priority then their right to choose for themselves, is the moment you become their warden.
I need more info. I don’t understand why a 15 yr old was allowed to make this decision. I can’t imagine a doctor cooperating with this. His parents must have ultimately made the decision and that is just sick. People frequently give lip service to certain particularly wacky religious beliefs, but often are able to override them when necessary. Too bad this didn’t happen here. Such a tragedy for the young boy.
I’m with you Rechelle. Being a minor the boy should not have been aloud to make such a decision.
Nonsense. A fifteen year old is no child; though he may be below the age when he can make all decisions regarding his life, he is certainly of age to decide about his own body and the treatment therof.
would his parents making the same decision have made it any more or less tragic? we would hope they were hypocrites and act to save their sons life, despite their religious inclinations. but any reader of this blog knows that far too many parents are perfectly willing to let their child die to satisfy religious beliefs.
“Such a tragedy for the young boy.”
Why is this a tragedy???? Death, no matter how young is the conclusion to every single life. How is this any more tragic then my father in laws death at 82? Cuz, he’s so young? Imagine all of the people that my father in law leaves behind. Now, imagine all the people that this 15 kid leaves behind. Huge disparity there.
Thousands of peoples lives will be impacted by my father in-laws death. While it’s a pretty good bet maybe dozens will be effected by the 15 years old death. So honestly where is the tragedy?
We all get the life that we get. What is tragic in that?
In America, where law requires parental consent for medical treatment on those under the age of 18, the decision would have been in the hands of his parents (which isn’t to say that, had they chosen as he did, they wouldn’t have been charged with a crime after the fact). I’m ignorant to whether England has similar laws, so if anyone could shed some light on that I would appreciate it.
This isn’t anything new, unfortunately. As a former JW, I know; but the Society has been relaxing it’s standards on blood components for a while now. I wonder if it was truly necessary that he avoid the transfusion or if something more could have been done if the parents understood the new policy correctly? Many JWs don’t. Maybe they didn’t either.
Related:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teen-talk/teen-pregnancy/parental-consent/parental-consent-notification-laws-25268.htm
Medical decisions are left to teens in many cases, in several states. I see no reason why this case should be an exception.
If we are giving teens sovereignty over their own bodies, it is par for the course.
If we are giving teens sovereignty over their own bodies, it is par for the course.
This, in spades. I do not understand the hand-wringing about teens “not knowing what they’re doing” in a crisis or elsewise, when it comes to medical care.
Yup. Heck, you can get married at 15 in Oklahoma as long as you’re marrying someone under 18. That’s without your parent’s consent!
I’m okay with that.
“Should the parents be held responsible for his death?”
As in, charged with a crime? I don’t really think so. Regardless of how insane it looks to outsiders (which it does), you have this group of people struggling with these two desires that sometimes come into opposition with one another: the instinctual desire to continue living (present in most, if not all, humans) and the desire to remain spiritually pure before their god. So while here in the “real world” a terrible decision has been made, from their (what I assume to be earnest) point of view they were justified in allowing their son to refuse a blood transfusion because, in following a Christian tradition, they feel obligated to submit to the will of their god (which in JW circles includes refusing blood transfusions). Personally, I (and don’t hate me) feel that earnest, sincere ignorance is a valid excuse. It doesn’t diminish the fact the whole situation is terrible, and in reality they pretty much allowed their child to die, but taking into account their set of beliefs that they hold to be true, they were simply trying to follow the orders of their god, which by most Christian standards would be acting as logically as possible.
Not to mention the fact that they just lost a child, which is probably worse than any punishment they could receive in a courtroom.
I know this is taking it a bit more extreme, but what about honor killings then? To the parents of the girls it is necessary, by their set of beliefs/dogma/tribal rules to kill their own female children in order for the family to be accepted back into the (albeit sick) community. They truly feel in their conscience that this is their duty. So is there a difference here?
No, honor killings are an imposition of one individuals beliefs onto another. Not ok.
I have the right to believe that the KKK, White Pride and Hitler had the right idea. I even have the right to espouse that belief to all who will listen to such trash. However no matter what I believe, or how strongly. I have no right to impose or act upon that belief as it pertains to another person.
Well damn I hadn’t even thought about that. I’ll have to get back to you.
Just to save confusion the West Midlands in not in the US so best to note that when referring to laws that apply to the US …
Ur?
How’s the view from the 51st state, there, chap?
Sunny for once …
Rock on. We’re having a spot of rain up here in Nouvelle Angleterre.
What will happen if the teenager is kept alive there?
TBH I was surprised that this had happened in the UK. There have been a number of cases where doctor’s wishes override those of parents (this includes taking the case to court to get a legal order) and I would have assumed that this was a simliar case. Maybe the age of the boy or because it was a relgious objection?
Hey Jabster, was I the only one who got worried about GWB nuking the East Midlands by mistake instead of the Middle East?
No, you weren’t. And I say that as an American.
noted. Which is another reason for the term “related”. Pretty sure someone did mention the U.S. in this thread.
Regardless, England allows for abortion without parental consent in some circumstances as well.
I originally sent Daniel this link, and would like to add a little story to it:
I currently have a patient who had a stroke some years ago, and who is now unable to communicate his health needs. He has a very low platelet count and is in dire need of a blood transfusion. The patient isn’t (or wasn’t last time he was able to communicate) religious, but his son is a Jehova’s Witness – and is fighting to stop us from giving the transfusion. This all kicked off yesterday; I was going to write an article for Daniel about it but this seemed an opportune place to share.
If you tell me that ignorance doesn’t make these people evil, I will disagree.
I would only argue with you on one point, that of making somebody evil. I hate specific words because they diffuse an otherwise logical statement entirely and evil is one of them. There is (and people back me up if you agree) no such thing as definitive good and evil because they are based on beliefs that are inherently non-logically oriented. The good/evil scale is tilted at different angles for every society and so the argument would be that his son isn’t evil he’s just inherently wrong (even if he doesn’t know it) again it’s not a “bad” decision to prevent his father from getting a blood transfuse but a logically incorrect one. If we continued to prevent logically/medically/justplainsencecally incorrect choices to be made then we would allow the doors of progression to unhinge but if his son makes the decision to not have his father get the transfusion that he needs then he is not acting with intelligence but with upbringings and stupidity. These are not things to be proud of in the least
I was with you up until you said “isn’t evil he’s just inherently wrong”
Wrong is subjective. The same way good/evil are.
There is no such thing as a definitive right or wrong thing.
There are no absolutes, no. But there are things which we as a species have evolved to hold are right and wrong.
they aren’t universal in the slightest.
all one needs to do is realize that when we claim we as a species evolved to call murder wrong, or theft wrong… clearly people still steal and murder others. So, apparently, we as a species haven’t evolved to hold it as right and wrong. Because many in the species do it, whether they personally find it right or wrong to do so.
There is something to be said for the idea that those few who still engage in those behaviors are morally defective, rather than simply in disagreement with the society. Lots of circumstantial evidence points to moral reasoning being a province of certain specific brain structures; damage, malformation, or incomplete formation of these structures leads to anti-social behavior. The existence of such shouldn’t be taken as evidence against moral consensus.
It’s a circular argument you make based on the premise of innate morality.
that these individuals do not share your moral, and yet, some masses do, doesn’t necessarily make them immoral, it simply makes them unfit for your chosen social norms.
“The existence of such shouldn’t be taken as evidence against moral consensus.”
You are right on.
I’d explain why you’re just… Fucking…. WRONG….. But you’re really not worth the effort.
I’d explain why you’re just… WRONG….. But you’re really not worth the effort.
Ad Hominem is not an argument.
If you can show me evidence of a moral gene, go for it. Since you can’t… I’ll trust all you have is the ad hom attack.
I guess you’ve never heard of mirror neurons, have you?
Oh- and you should also read up on Joshua Greene’s fMRI research (Harvard).
Mirror neurons are not a moral gene.
To suggest they are in any way is just silly.
I’ve already stated on the forums the position regarding the brain and behavior. And no, there is zero evidence of universal morality or morality being innate in the brain. All the evidence points to input and output based on observations and expectations that are “learned”. We make the value judgments we do to survive.
And Greene does not suggest a moral gene either.
LOL! You don’t even have the most basic understanding of genetics do you? That’s not how genes work. You should look it up and educate yourself.
BTW, here’s what Nope actually said:
“Lots of circumstantial evidence points to moral reasoning being a province of certain specific brain structures; damage, malformation, or incomplete formation of these structures leads to anti-social behavior.”
There was no mention of a “moral gene” there. And also, VS Ramichandran, cognitive neuroscientist at the Salk Institute would be inclined to agree with Nope. Morality does have an innate property insofar as it arises from the human brain:
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
That’s not how genes work? What exactly are you arguing?
I stated that there was no universal morality or moral gene. You cited mirror neurons as evidence of a moral gene. That is absurd. You also went on to site Greene… who very clearly states that he is NOT making a case that it is hardwired, innate or that there is a “moral gene”.
The claim that as a species we evolved to basic agreement as to right/wrong is absurd.
It’s a complex process of decision making LRA. And if you call yourself studied in neuroscience and can’t understand that the brain is all about input/output/prediction and expectation for the primary purpose of survival… you need to ask the school for your money back.
You clearly have reading comprehension issues. Nope never mentioned a moral gene and neither did I. I was responding to the issue of whether or not morality has an “innate” component. Read it again.
You aren’t even commenting on the correct line of the thread.
My comment was to CRUSADER. Regarding absolute right/wrongs and those being innate as an evolved species.
Catch the fuck up.
Who the fuck is Crusader????
And YES I am on the right thread. No, morality is not universal. Yes, it has an innate component– namely empathy which comes from mirror neurons.
Catch up!
OH! You mean CUSTADOR? Wow! Your reading comprehension issues are so profound that you can’t even get his name right.
LOL!
CUSTADOR. Typo. Deal with it.
So, you enter here to say EXACTLY what I did regarding no universal morality?
The claim that was made was that we as a species evolved to absolute right and wrongs.
It’s bullshit.
Empathy is not morality. That we are constantly *as I already said here* inputting information and our brains are hardwired to observe predict and act based on expectations of those observations and input… doesn’t in any way mean that we are hard wired with morality. We are hard wired in a complex process to evaluate and decision make based on the greatest benefit to survive.
We cry when another cries not because we are making a moral judgment about their circumstance being good or bad or right or wrong, but because we are mimicking them.
Also, if we are to call “morality” a set of behaviors which can be analyzed by looking at brain structures, then at their base, they are genetic insofar as they are polygenic traits.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Polygenic_traits
Of course the situation is more complex than than, but as CUSTADOR said:
“here are things which we as a species have evolved to hold are right and wrong.”
Catch the fuck up.
WOW! “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you” is not morality???
I think the major religions of the world would disagree with you.
And just to be clear:
em·pa·thy
Pronunciation: \ˈem-pə-thē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek empatheia, literally, passion, from empathēs emotional, from em- + pathos feelings, emotion — more at pathos
Date: 1850
1 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
So, yeah. It is morality. So, as CUSTADOR said you are WRONG.
Seriously. Get your money back. They failed you.
Mirror neurons are in play to assist in body mapping. It is, exactly as it sounds, mirroring an action. Or, as I said, mimicking it. They fire when we perform an action and when our brain observes another perform it.
Empathy as it relates to the brain is automatic. That we later use that information our brains have processed to relate to another is not making a moral judgment when we initially copy it.
LOL! You really need to watch the TED link of the talk that VS Ramichandran gave over mirror neurons. You clearly don’t understand the scope of them. And if you think you are smarter than Ramichandran, then again you are WRONG.
Here is the link AGAIN:
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
“WOW! “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you” is not morality???”
Strawman.
And this concept is just that, a concept. That is learned. Babies don’t pop out of the womb with this “standard” as instinct. At all.
Morality is learned. Based on the information we observe and meeting the expectations in order to survive.
Watch the Goddam video! YOU ARE WRONG!
LRA:
You quoted webster’s in an attempt to suggest that empathy in the brain is the cultural use of the word as it pertains to relating through understanding.
That is totally incorrect. Empathy is AUTOMATIC. Get that? It is hard wired and instant. It is mimicking actions. It is part of body mapping and ascertaining the difference between self and another. Empathy in the brain and the role of these neurons is to give understanding after the fact.
Again, you cry when another cries not because you sat there and had time to evaluate their circumstance, but because your brain is mimicking the action and then sending that information throughout so you then can understand them. It is *relating* to their tears because your neurons fire too and therefore, you can “get it”. They are found in regions of the brain that deal with memory and also movement selection. Again: observation, prediction based on expectation. The brain is wired to use the information and translate it. And it mirrors by default, not because it takes a few minutes and says “hmmm… how should I feel about those tears that I see.
It is involuntary.
Again, get your money back.
Further, the SEP specifically discusses mirror neurons in terms of empathy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy/#MirNeuSimPhiRevEmp
And empathy in terms of moral psychology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empathy/#EmpMorPsy
So again, I say you are wrong.
Well, I guess VS Ramichandran should get his money back too. Or, OOH! how bout this… YOU ARE WRONG!
No LRA:
I am not wrong on this. That you deny that mirror neurons are automatic and used by the brain in body mapping is hysterical.
That you think mirror neurons aren’t about mimicking behavior is also hysterical.
That you don’t realize that empathy is hardwired in order to “feel what others feel” is laughable, and that you think this means we are born with obvious “right”/”wrong” is astounding.
That you think that the brain isn’t working from an observe, input, predict based on expectation to maximize survival is just sad. Since you said you studied neuroscience.
Empathy in the human brain is NOT morality. It is a mechanism by which to we tell ourselves apart from others and then relate, and then make appropriate decisions.
Suggesting that mirror neurons prove innate morality is just… silly.
by the way, you keep appealing to authorities that in no way agree with you.
All the studies show that empathy’s purpose in the human brain is to relate and better read another. And that it is involuntary.
We are mimicking LRA. Sorry you don’t like that, but it isn’t evidence of innate morality or universal morality or absolute “right” “wrong” hardwired.
“LOL! You don’t even have the most basic understanding of genetics do you? That’s not how genes work. You should look it up and educate yourself.”
LRA don’t fall for the bait. She was just trolling you with the gene remark. Nobody mentioned genetics before. She’s just trying to confuse things. Just like in the thread where I caught her using the phrase “high esteem”.
speaking of baiting… oh, the irony.
biting: respect deals with high esteem. High being a very subjective word, but it most definitely deals with elevating beyond tolerance to a higher level than just mere acknowledgment.
I did say it wasn’t worth the effort explaining it to her, LRA. You have a masters in neuroscience, I believe? When I wrote the comment about evolved morality, I had just finished a long chat about it with my fiance (who graduated St. John’s Oxford 2:1 in Human Sciences).
On the other hand there’s Liz. Who is a fucking idiot.
I did say it wasn’t worth the effort explaining it to her, LRA. You have a masters in neuroscience, I believe? When I wrote the comment about evolved morality, I had just finished a long chat about it with my fiance (who graduated St. John’s Oxford 2:1 in Human Sciences).
On the other hand there’s Liz. Who is an idiot.
@Custy
Sounds like an argument from authority to me!
Better than Liz’s argument from deluded ignorance.
omg.Custador:
Listen carefully. Mirror neurons in no way support your claim that the human species evolved to where we have innate right/wrongs and they don’t in any way support universal morality.
Empathy deals with mimicking. It is an involuntary thing. Neurons are firing without our being aware it is even happening. We aren’t experiencing the feelings of another because we’ve processed whether or not it is right or wrong, but because we are *relating* and mirroring the experience. Every link LRA posted even supports this.
Your claim about evolving to the right/wrong being innate is absurd.
If what you say is true, then every single person in the species would have the same concept of right and wrong. There would be a universal standard and universal morality. There isn’t.
I wasn’t talking to you, Liz. You’re a dick and beneath contempt. If somebody posted on here that the sea is wet you’d declare yourself an expert oceanographer and try to tell us all how your superior knowledge had proven to you that it’s actually dry.
What’s really making me laugh is that your last post just proves that you don’t even know how evolution works, and yet you continue to waffle utterly absurd bollocks about it at great length. I’m not detailing complex arguments for you because you are utterly incapable of conceding a point and I really couldn’t care less about the opinion of an intellectual peon like you.
I also never mentioned anything about mirror neurones, by the way. That was LRA – whose word I’ll take over yours in a biological sciences debate one hundred percent of the time.
“You’re a d!ck and beneath contempt”
Cue the Team America World Police d!ck speech.
Custador:
Your claim:
“there are things which we as a species have evolved to hold are right and wrong.”
No. This claim insists that we as a species evolved and that there are innate right/wrongs within us. That there are universal morals we all share as a species. It is bullshit.
What things? What things have we evolved as a species to hold as right/wrong?
NOTHING.
Then you claimed LRA’s argument was correct. She claimed mirror neurons proved your argument.
It is absurd.
OMFG! Your ability to twist meaning and out-and-out LIE about what people did and did not say is matched only by your utter LACK of ability to grasp the subject you are talking about!
There ARE things which we as a species have evolved to regard as right and there are things which we as a species have evolved to regard as wrong. That is a FACT. That you are so totally unaware of it shows your total inability to grasp the concept of evolved instinct and behaviour, and also that you’re a gaping arsehole.
Read and improve yourself instead of continuing to make yourself look bloody stupid.
You would argue that the Sun is chilly if somebody else said it was hot, then when you contradicted yourself later you’d claim they misinterpreted you and say it was “on them”.
AAAAARGH YOU’RE SUCH A GODDAM MORON!!!!!
Of course, Custador, she’s going to ignore/fail to read the material that you included, then claim that they have nothing to do with the evolution of morality and that they don’t prove anything, except maybe her point.
Cuz she’s always right. Nya nya nya.
What things have we evolved to know as “right/wrong” . Name ONE. You can’t.
LRA insisted that mirror neurons proved your point. Clearly that is just silly. And no source cited even supports that absurd position.
If you can’t name ONE proven through evolution universal right or wrong, your argument is bunk.
I have never once claimed that humans don’t have or haven’t developed concepts of decision making and that we don’t decide on mores and norms.
However, no human being is birthed with a universal “this is right, that is wrong”. EVER.
The material you cite does not prove your claim that humans evolved to agree on things that are innately right or wrong.
Neurons only show that the brain mimicks others as a part of body mapping and development of “self”. That’s it. We relate to others based on similar patterns and experiences.
The brain observes, identifies, predicts based on the expectations according to input it recieves.
You cry and laugh not because you have evaluated the experience in minutes or hours or seconds, but because your brain identifies with an experience, and fires the INVOLUNTARY impulse.
We ape it. We mimick it. We copy it. Whatever term suits you. We basically, mirror it in our minds.
But there is ZERO EVIDENCE that any “right” thing or “wrong” thing exists outside of SURVIVAL for that brain.
We are NOT born with universal morality innate or instinctively in us.
PERIOD.
“There are no absolutes, no. But there are things which we as a species have evolved to hold are right and wrong”
I agree as right and wrong is not timeless.
But probably as old as thought.
There is also malice. Sometimes inexplicable. Willfully, callously causing harm, knowing full well immorality of ones action. No malfunction of the brain! What is this?
Usually repeating a pattern of behavior, or projection, or just drive for self to the extreme.
I’m going to vote though and say that malfunction here can be a strange term to use…
serotonin levels or changes in the pre frontal cortex… anything that alters the way the brain regulates aggression, emotion, decision… all these could be contributing factors as well.
The brain of a person who harms another, without regard to the moral implications is different.
Then of course, you might just have a free thinker or a nonconformist. And “harm” is another loaded term as well.
I mean, would causing harm to Hilter (in those early days) be problematic to you, even though the morality he proposed was widely accepted?
“The brain of a person who harms another, without regard to the moral implications is different.”
Do you even grasp how that totally contradicts a bunch of other things you’ve said on this thread?
No it doesn’t. Do you always rip from context?
It make sense that a person with low levels of serotonin would act differently than a person without low levels of serotonin. Goes to decision making. I never claimed we don’t make decisions.
That in no way contradicts the claim that there is no universal morality or moral gene.
You seem to not be grasping what you argued and what was countered.
I mean, would causing harm to Hilter (in those early days) be problematic to you, even though the morality he proposed was widely accepted?
That would be causing harm for a reason; even a moral one, to save the lives of others. What I’m talking about is volitional sadism. Choosing “evil”.
The origin of evil:
Theists – The devil made me do it.
Atheists – A malfunctioning brain made me do it.
Evil is highly subjective. That was my point about Hilter.
Everyone has a reason for doing something, even if you don’t agree that reason is merited.
“Evil is highly subjective.”
Subjective maybe. But not highly. There is a remarkably consistent consensus across cultures. Causing unwarranted harm. This is why various religions have their own version of the golden rule. The harm you do not want done to you, do not unto others. It’s practically universal.
But my question remains: from whence comes evil?
This was a problem with my language lol You are absoltely correct, right and wrong are subjective and fall into the stupid word category. English is horrible with conversations like this, what I meant was his desision would be inhearantly mislead really… thanks for catching this!
“If you tell me that ignorance doesn’t make these people evil, I will disagree.”
You are not wrong.
Appreciate it, man. The argument with that mofo has not been fun.
Does it make me a complete douche to suggest, oh well, one less religious sheep available to procreate?
Well, it makes you less optimistic about theists eventually converting.
Being glad for the death of a theist is still being glad for the death of a human being. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if you think that is a douche thing.
Being glad for the death of a theist is still being glad for the death of a human being. I’ll leave it up to you to decide if you think that is a douche thing.
It’s unambiguously douchey. I’m just surprised it’s you pointing this out, since you argued vehemently on another thread that people have no intrinsic worth bound to be respected.
there is no contradiction. I didn’t state whether it was or wasn’t. Just that “theist” is just a qualifier.
I’m leaving it up to him to decide if it’s douche.
I didn’t say there was a contradiction. Just saying its a surprising thing to point out for a person who has staked out the position you have.
It actually shouldn’t be surprising at all. Explain what is shocking about it, since it is apples and oranges. You seem to have some assumptions in operation suggesting it was pointed out by a person who doesn’t state all humans should by default be respected.
Respect is something you EARN, Ms. Damaro. It’s not an automatic given.
Damn Kitty, bet you didn’t even realize you just AGREED WITH MY POSITION.
idiots.
Hmm, then you might want to try earning our respect, instead of being a flaming twatwaffle.
you are an individual kitty. You speak for YOU.
and if you think i give a shit if you respect me, you are an idiot, since clearly you can’t even pay attention enough to what I say to get my statements correct.
THIS is a great example of how you entered this discussion just to slam me, without even knowing what I had said. That makes you the problem here, not I.
I’m curious how you inferred some sort of happiness on my part when clearly my words imply indifference?
No, beacause that’s what of JW.
I wouldn’t go that far, at least not in this case.
As a former JW I know Joshua McAuley will be held as a positive influence within the organisation. They will probably publish his story in the Watchtower as a shining example of faithfulness. He will be a martyr for the faith sad to say!
Oh, fuck, the troll is ruining another thread. *sigh*
Oh well, on to business:
If this kid wanted to be an idiot and refuse life-saving medical care FOR HIMSELF, he had every right to it. One less idiot in the gene pool.
I can’t help thinking that he could not have known the full consequences of his decision. The JWs indoctrinate their little zerglings very, very well – if you’ve never seen any of their propaganda about how you can use beetroot juice instead of blood, look it up and watch in awe of the stupid. Next time you get doorstepped by one of them, bear in mind just how powerful is the stupid in them.
Beet juice? SERIOUSLY?!
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaa *cough* *choke*
Seriously. I had a colleague in my old job who was (is?) a JW – she spent *hours* trying to convince me of it. She couldn’t actually point to any medical evidence, amazingly.
What’s the logic, there? That beet juice is a red fluid, and blood is a red fluid, therefore you can substitute the one for the other?
Who knows? I don’t pretend to understand the stupid, just to be aware of it :-)
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=109220&start=0
Scary.
“What’s the logic there?”
Keeping in mind we are talking about people who think Jesus is going to come back in 1975, yeah, I would guess red fluid is exactly the logic.
And here I was just pulling that out of my ass!
I’m ambivalent here; I’m hesitant to say “one less idiot in the gene pool” because for some of us who’ve transitioned out of monotheism, we probably held equally ludicrous beliefs at the age of 15. The boy had been thoroughly indoctrinated into his religion–unfortunately, his belief in the imaginary sky friend overwhelmed logic.
I believe that some states have child protection laws which could have prevented this death. It works this way: The state child protection agency gets a court order which does several things: 1) establishes that the child is in immediate danger; 2) establishes that the parents are unfit to care for the child because the withholding of medical care has put the child in danger; 3) makes the state child protection agency the legal guardian of the child. At that point the parents have lost control over any decisions about the child. The state then authorizes the transfusion. After the child recovers the state can then step out of the picture.
I can’t pity the loss of one more fanatic, but it sure is a shame his parents raised and brainwashed him in this crazy religion. If he had had a different upbringing, whether by his own parents or by an adoptive set of parents, things could have turned out much differently for him. His outlook on life and reality could have been an entirely different picture. His dreams, values and goals could have changed the world…or not…but at least he would have had a running chance. Instead he was molded from the time he was born into a Mr. Potatobrain. He lived his entire life believing a pack of stupid lies, and he died for absolutely nothing. I hope the emotional pain his zombie parents suffer will cause them to rethink their ideology, but I don’t expect to hear they’ve renounced their faith. I think the parents deserve to be bled out and left to die, but such an act of barbarism would accomplish nothing. Are the parents responsible? On many levels, yes! Should they be held responsible in the eyes of the law? I don’t know, but I want to say yes.
Here’s what happens when the law recognizes the gullibility of people and places common sense and the people’s welfare before religious none-sense:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/24385/court-orders-jehovahs-witness-boy-be-given-blood-transfusion
Unfortunately there’s no time for court orders in an emergency room.
I think it is interesting that they tout that he died because he refused a blood transfusion and not to the fact that he had severe abdominal and lower extremity injuries because of being pinned to a wall with an automobile. Those injuries were so severe that he had to be AIRLIFTED to the hospital. Also, it is never the headline of people that die from actually receiving a blood transfusion.
People don’t want the facts, they just use buzz words to get attention and cause people to flame at one another without getting the facts first. The truth is “The Truth, You can’t handle the Truth!”
Pitiful
His death from trauma was preventable if the physicians had been allowed to do their jobs. They weren’t. He died. You can spin that any way you like to make yourself feel better about your bullsh!t religion, but that’s the reality of it.
Now go and have your mind controlled some more by your phukked-up “Elders”, why don’t you?
Can you prove he would have survived just by receiving blood?
I mean, his death was totally preventable had automobiles not been invented as well….
I’m taking it to the point of the ridiculous for a reason.
Can you show beyond any reasonable doubt that he would have survived just if he had the blood?
“I’m taking it to the point of the ridiculous for a reason. ”
Yeah, Trolling.
Learn what words mean. You keep using that one incorrectly.
Can we all just agree to ignore her?
I’ve advocated this position before. If we don’t feed the trolls perhaps they will seek out another food source.
you also should learn what words mean.
calling me a troll is ignorant and not backed by evidence.
Yep, cause three threads (if not more) have been ruined by your idiocy and that’s… somehow NOT trolling.
Bitch, PLEASE!
Yes Bill, that is a good idea. She’s a frikkin’ moron who isn’t worth talking to. Daniel’s patience is beyond legendary for not banning her IP already, frankly.
I’ve asked Liz to limit her comments to 10 max per post. I don’t want to ban anyone but I also don’t want to let things get out of hand.
Well, at 30 (so far) I’d say she’s not complying.
It’s a new rule, starting today.
Even if his death was not preventable, he refused a blood transfusion which could have saved his life. Any sound medical treatment that could prevent a death should be used. We sit here discussing if the treatment could have worked while the real issue is that people refuse something that is beneficial. Who cares if it would have worked in this specific case. It works in many similar situations so it is a smart thing to do.
Here is an additional link, showing a hospital, congressman and the military supporting the bloodless care program.
http://www.themarketingbeast.net/577/bloodless-medicine-military-doctors-to-learn-the-procedures-subtitles/
Okay, what part of massive blood loss due to trauma do you not understand? This discussion is not about a planned, surgical wound in a controlled environment with fifteen highly skilled professionals and ten million pounds worth of equipment kicking about to stop you dying. It’s about somebody who BLED TO DEATH and who didn’t have to BLEED TO DEATH if it wasn’t for his retarded parents indoctrinating him into a CULT.
1. It’s not about trying to feel good about a religion, it’s about what is the truth. There was nothing in that article or anything that I have read since that leads me to come to the conclusion that even if he had been given blood that he would have lived. Then there is the young man who was in a motorcycle accident, broke his leg, was given a blood transfusion and died. What was on his death certificate for cause of death???? Broken Leg. What really happened was he was transfused with too much blood and drained into his lungs and he drowned. If he had been given too much volume expander (not blood), then the excess would have drained into his kidneys and he would have urinated it out and not died. People have been brainwashed to believe blood is the panacea. The fact is blood is big business, it makes money.
2. What don’t you understand about the ravages of war? I believe on the battlefield it is considered blood loss due to trauma, not a planned surgical wound that the goverment is planning to deal with using bloodless medical care. There is much information about the negative outcomes from use of blood, not from the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Have you actually done the research or are you just interested in bashing a religion you don’t agree with?
If it is so far fetched and unreasonable not to use blood, If it so vital that blood be used and available because that is what is working well, then why in the world is our goverment looking into using it for the troops? (Who by the way are not Jehovah’s Witnesses)
Hmmmmmm, maybe because there IS sound reason for not using blood.
There is a sound reason for not using blood in military field hospitals that has nothing to do with natural blood’s effectiveness or safety. It has everything to do with the logistics. Natural blood is hard to come by (you need to maintain a steady supply of donors), must be kept refrigerated, has a very limited shelf life, and is difficult to transport. Anything that can overcome one or more of these factors is a plus on the battlefield. If these factors did not apply to natural blood, no one in the military would be looking for an alternative.
The medical scenario you laid out is so full of outright lies and complete impossibilities that I’m not even going to bother dissecting it. Really. Seriously. It’s a load of crap.
Incidentally, penetrative wounds such as those typically seen on a battlefield are far easier to treat than the blunt-force trauma wounds seen in road traffic accidents etcetera. There are good reason to not give IV fluids in any form for certain types of both injuries; dislodging clots, compartment syndrome etc. Those cases are the extreme minority, however. The fact that some physicians didn’t spot them in some cases doesn’t in any way detract from the fact that where transfusing a fluid is desirable, blood is almost always better than any alternative.
Also: Sudden and violent deaths are autopsied by the coroner by law (true in both the UK and the US), and it is the coroner (not the attending physician) who calls the cause of death. They do not lie about it. Your “example” shows an utter ignorance of the simple anatomy of the lungs, by the way – I’ll let you look it up for yourself, though, since I can’t be arsed to explain it to you. If he died of a “broken leg” then he almost certainly had compartment syndrome and bled all of his body’s own blood into his leg – in which case the only thing that could have saved his life by the time he was critical would have been a MASSIVE transfusion of blood (no other fluid would work) and amputation of the effected leg – and that (obviously) doesn’t guarantee preservation of life, but it gave him a chance he would not have had if morons like you had their way.
“Hmmmmmm, maybe because there IS sound reason for not using blood.”
Maybe there is maybe there isn’t, but your reason is because god told you it’s wrong so stop trying to pretend otherwise.
THIS.
Exactly. I have no problem if someone feels compelled to follow a religious doctrine that states receives a blood transfusion is a sin. That is your right, Denise, and as a U.S. citizen I will defend it vigorously. I DO have a problem with someone lying to people and telling them that blood transfusions cause more harm than good in order to convince them to follow that doctrine.
Personally I wouldn’t be in the least tempted to follow a religion that feels that it must lie to people in order to convince them of the truth of their doctrine- that just hurts my brain- but that’s another discussion.
Denise, I couldn’t agree with you more. In 2001 I underwent a double by-pass, Although I am not a baptized witness, I chose NO BLOOD, What was I thinking! Let me tell you, I knew I would either wake up a few hours later, or I would wake up in the new system. Either way I knew I would wake up and not know or care how long I was under. Praise Jah!
oh good grief
You may not be a “baptized witness” but you are a full-on imbecile. While I might cut a 15 year old a bit of slack, I can only assume that, given that you had a double bypass, you are an adult and should know better. Either that, or you need to be under the full-time care of medical professionals.
Actually for planned surgery with no complications going bloodless is increasingly an option. The problem is that as soon as your surgeon or his houseman make a teeny, tiny little error, you’re going to need transfusions but quick; in effect that means that Jehova’s Witnesses don’t survive surgical complications that the rest of us would wake up from.
Here’s something that popped into my head–and I’m sure someone else has brought this up before too–wouldn’t it make sense for this “Jehovah” to make this whole prohibition about consuming blood a bit clearer? After all, a blood transfusion is not a person dumping blood into a thermos and knocking it back with a blood chaser. One would think that the deity would make allowances for—or give some kind of clear guidance when it comes to technological advances.
“One would think that the deity would make allowances for… technological advances.”
Sarcasm?
I have a medical question about blood consumption too. Our blood cells die, part of them then are assimilated again by our own bodies, aren’t they? I mean, our body “is designed” to blood consumption anyway, isn’t it?
JW are allowed to accept transfusions of synthetic blood? -if we eventually develop it
Yes, your blood cells are constantly being replaced. Old dead ones get broken down and eventually passed in the urine.
Heh, if he wants to gamble his life for fantasy sky kingdoms, that’s his prerrogative.
The world will be short one kook, that’s for sure.
Gusee you must be a Dr. to make a diaganosis. do you have a on-line degree?
No, I just recognize woo-filled idiot babble when I see it. “Wake up in the new system” and “Praise Jah”? Yeah, kooky talk.
Yes, I think these parents should be charged with a crime. Had this happened in the US, there is precedent for charging a parent for the death of a child because they sought religious rather than medical care. Last year in my state a father was found guilty in the death of his 11 year old daughter because he prayed over her rather than taking her to the hospital as she died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32252045/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Who gives a fuck. It’s one less JW in the world. That’s a good thing.
In related news, Australia’s supreme court has made a decision on this topic.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/court-orders-jehovahs-witness-boy-be-given-blood-transfusion/story-e6frea83-1225875658322
A 15 yr old kid is dead and you could care less because he was (or thought he was) a Jehovah’s Witness? Who gives a $#@%?
Kinda heartless, kinda sick and very, very sad.
Yeah. Children dying is sad no matter what!
How sad?
Enough for you to do shit about it besides make some stupid claim that you care?
You are no hero LRA. Neither is anyone on this blog or forum:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
EVIDENCE that as a species, we don’t really give a shit.
PREVENTABLE deaths LRA.
How “sad” is it. So sad that you “care” *enough*.
Don’t for one second believe you are an exception. The evidence shows that if our species thought is was *wrong*, it would not happen. Unless, we just don’t give a rip.
Get it yet?
Go back to your privileged life. But spare us your sentiments about how *sad* it is that children die…
PEOPLE die daily
Because we are SELFISH and don’t really give a shit.
Well, I know you are going to say you didn’t mean that, anyway…
We DO care. As a society. The problem is that we can’t really understand it. We care about the poverty we see around us and about the members of our “family” -in a wide sense of family. The evolution of our society has given us ways to avoid caring too much.
1.- If it happens in Africa, is so sad when we read the last statistics. But we can forget it pretty easily.
2.- Besides, as somebody said, “a death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just statistics”.
3.- If it happens around us, they are not “like us”. They deserve it, they choosed it or…
4.- We can’t do anything about it. It is the way our society works and it is too hard to change society.
Individually we all care. As a society we are avoiding to face the problem and apply solutions.
mmm… not my best comment. Pretty contradictory.
Getting an ealry start on that 10 (troll) posts per day, eh?
LOLWHUT?????
I’m… I’m… stunned…
I’m not.
She’s banned now, so I feel safe to comment on her response now. She doesn’t seem to understand that I cared enough to become a sp.ed. teacher and help kiddos directly through that work. Then I cared enough to get a master’s degree in neuroscience in order to participate in medical research that could improve the lives or save the lives of these kiddos that I have a special place in my heart for. She doesn’t know me well enough to know that two of my students were terminally ill in my class and have since died of their disorders. She also doesn’t know me well enough to know that I’m going into a PhD program to study the impact of science on society and to go on to a career in which I fight fundamentalist bullsh*t like this. So yes, I care. Enough to build a career on it.
See that, IN YOUR FACE, liz! Go back to your privileged life, getting drunk, breaking laws, and failing to take responsibility.
Even by her standards, that`s pretty outrageous. Sounds a little like Projection to me. She couldn´t give a shit about anyone else, so nobody does. The very idea of sitting at your computer, getting drunk and tearing into people for caring about other people is just disgraceful.
Does she still do talk radio? I have a mind to phone up the show and quote some of the things she´s said. Let`s see if she`s ready to own what she says.
I don’t give a shit. Millions of people day every day on this planet, and neither you, nor I, care about them. It’s sad, sure, but until you actively try to save them(their physical bodies), don’t lecture me about how you care about them.
I wasn’t lecturing anyone, merely contrasting natures. And yes, I spent many years trying to (physically) save children, adolescents and adults. You picked the wrong man to make that argument against friend. All the very best to you.
So you stopped caring? Nice.
He’s not an infant, and certainly capable of directing his own medical are – though as a minor his parents should have been consulted as well for a possible override if they were available (not always possible at the moment of crisis). Freedom of conscience includes freedom to make stupid choices when they don’t hurt others.
But the driver, if found guilty of recklessness, can’t also be charged with manslaughter when the victim refused appropriate treatment.
We are not speaking about different options to cure a cancer; he choosed to die. How is that better than euthanasy?
Darwin wins; he always wins. Between refusing blood transfusions and vaccinations JW’s should already be extinct – we need to put an end to their recruiting processes…
Darwin always wins. Even when we see that reproduction rates of fundies are higher, natural selection is always working.
The balance between the birth rate and the death rate is what is important. If JWs produce more surviving offspring on the average than other groups in society, then by definition they are more fit, and evolutionarily successful. It is just as valid a strategy to have a lot of offspring and give them little individual care as it is to have a few offspring and care for them carefully.
And btw, the general population is protecting the JWs from preventable diseases by getting themselves vaccinated, which reduces the chances of any JW contracting such a disease. Ironically, the more people who reject JW teachings on vaccination, the safer the practice becomes for the JWs.
/biologist
Herd immunity comes back to bite us all in the ass!
Maybe so, but I’m still going to stay up to date on my vaccinations. :)
Wish I didn’t have to. Just started my course of Hep B inoculations for the second time and my immune system has decided it’s having none of it.
Parents responsible? HELL yea. I see some people said, he’s 16, he can make his own decisions? Get real. Think back to when you were 16. I know I was clueless, led a totally sheltered life. My time thinking was about equally split between, when will I ever get the hell out of here, thoughts of sex, & wondering what kind of sex I’d have when I got the hell out of here. And I’m not a guy. Teenage guys in some states can’t even get full privilege driver’s licenses because it’s now proven that their judgment skills are, like 9 years old while their bodies are 17. I’m not sure the parents would be charged with murder, I can’t imagine they wanted their boy to die, but…give me the boy & I’ll give you the man, you know?
And what the heck were those drs thinking? “well, his arm’s about to fall off, but he only likes red duct tape & all i have is gray so…my hands are tied here.” Whu??
I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that if he wasn’t a Jehovah’s Witness, the doctors would almost certainly have ignored him assuming he was delirious from hypovolaemia and transfused anyway. Unfortunately, medical professionals (who’ve seen just how much legal muscle large organisations of stupid people like the JWs can flex) have to protect themselves.
Wow. Just the concept of medical professionals having to protect themselves by letting a possibly incompetent minor die makes my brain hurt.
It’s an unfortunate result of a (continuing) backlash against the medical profession that started in the late ’60s. Prior, Doctors had always had the last word in treatment – and that resulted in some serious medical mistreatment and more than a few bad faith failures to diagnose. When the media picked up on this, and started treating doctors as less then little tin gods, the general populace lost faith.
Personally, I think it is to the good that people have much more input and control over their treatment and options, but the side effect – that doctors hesitate to act in any situation where they may be sued – isn’t helpful.
That’s entirely subjective; in the case of the Jehova’s Witness, he got what he wanted (no blood), the side-effect was an unpleasant death. The medical professionals didn’t get what they wanted (to save a kid’s life), but they also didn’t get sued. Did this particular kid have capacity to make that decision? I don’t know. I highly doubt it, since very few 15 year olds have that level of maturity – but his parents would have made the same decision anyway and the hospital would have had to fight them on it.
I just want to say, where in the article does it say the reason he died was because he refused blood and that if he did accept a blood transfusion he most certainly would have lived? There is no guarantee that a blood transfusion will save your life! In fact it causes more bad than good these days with all the diseases and a fear of the body rejecting it and having a bad reaction causing death. There are many alternatives in our day and age and the doctors would have been made aware of his wishes but his injuries must have been that bad that nothing would have helped, not even a blood transfusion. Imagine if he did take one and still died, how his family would have had that on their concience or felt bad that he died without his wishes being met. As Jehovah’s Witnesses we put all our trust and our faith in God, death is not the end for us, sure it’s a terrible thing for the remaining family members to go through but we have faith in the ressurrection hope that is promised in the bible and not just “our” bible, look in any bible and it’s there.
Wow. Just wow.
“There is no guarantee that a blood transfusion will save your life!”
True. But a blood transfusion greatly increases your chances of survival, at least by a factor of 100. The odds are not in your favor if you do not receive a transfusion when you need one.
” In fact it causes more bad than good these days with all the diseases and a fear of the body rejecting it and having a bad reaction causing death.”
False, and false. Donated blood is screened for pathogens; very few contaminated units slip through. You are thousands of times more likely to die from a lack of blood when you need it than you are contract a disease from a blood transfusion.
As for the body rejecting it, there are these things called “blood types”. If you give the recipient the correct blood type in a transfusion, no adverse reaction will occur. Blood types have been known (at least outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses) for many decades. Hospitals are very, very, very good at giving the recipient the correct type of blood.
” There are many alternatives in our day and age”
False. If you have lost a lot of blood, the only thing that can replace it is blood. There is research going on to produce synthetic alternatives, and has been going on for decades. No blood alternatives have been perfected.
“In fact it causes more bad than good these days with all the diseases and a fear of the body rejecting it and having a bad reaction causing death.”
This is a fractaly stupid thing to say. Whoever has been telling you this is purposefully ignorant or lying to you.
“There are many alternatives in our day and age ”
The Doctors must not have had any Jehovah’s Witness brand beet juice on hand. Maybe you can start a donation drive. That would be wonderful! You can collect cans of juice and give them to your local hospital so they will have plenty of “Blood Alternative” on hand in case a disaster occurs and real blood supplies run low.
“As Jehovah’s Witnesses we put all our trust and our faith in God”
All of your trust? Lock your doors at night? Walk alone in bad parts of town, Look both ways before crossing the street?
Melanie, I have given or helped to give hundreds upon hundreds of blood transfusions. It is done very carefully with constant monitoring. I have never, ever seen a single transfusion reaction. Not one – and if I did, I know how to spot them and treat them in order to prevent them from becoming life-threatening.
Oh please sunny day, I don’t comment just for the sake of my health I actually do know a thing or two about this, we get given countless talks and many different dvd’s are handed out, not made by Jehovah’s Witnesses but dvd’s with real surgeons and specialsts commenting on how they favour bloodless surgery and all the dangers of receiving blood regardless of receiving your own blood type or not, no one can match YOUR blood, and regardless of all the screenings done, new diseases develop on a daily basis, are you guaranteeting they every single one of those is going to be detected flawlessly? I doubt it. A Jehovah’s Witness brand beet juice? Um no, bloodless surgery can be for anyone, ever heard of erythropoietin or Epo? How about a cell salvage machines or how about non blood products and blood fractions? Get your hands on any dvd that educates people about bloodless surgery and a patient’s alternatives JW or not and see that you could learn a thing or two aswell.
We don’t WANT to die, we don’t numbly walk down the street and put all our trust in God and walk with our heads in the clouds thinking nothing bad is going to happen to us or sleep with our doors and windows open, we aren’t stupid, of course this world is wicked but when it comes to obeying God and abstaining from blood as it is a command from him in the bible then yes all our trust IS in him because he knows what is best for us, that is what I meant by putting our trust in him.
“we get given countless talks and many different dvd’s are handed out, not made by Jehovah’s Witnesses”
Given by? Handed out by? If the answer is any branch of the watchtower organization, then those DVD’s might as well be “made by” JWs since they have passed through a JW information filter to get to you.
Yep. I can pretty much edit footage of you to make you say anything I want. It is not difficult.
“and all the dangers of receiving blood regardless of receiving your own blood type or not, no one can match YOUR blood, and regardless of all the screenings done, new diseases develop on a daily basis, are you guaranteeing they every single one of those is going to be detected flawlessly?”
I see you just shifted the goalposts away from, “In fact it causes more bad than good these days “. You don’t have to shift the goalposts, they are heavy things, you could hurt yourself.
“about bloodless surgery and a patient’s alternatives ”
The topic was Transfusions specifically emergency blood transfusions, not regular old surgery with a coulple million dollars of blood recovery technology at hand. Be careful with that Goalpost you could hurt your foot.
“obeying God and abstaining from blood as it is a command from him in the bible ”
I didn’t realize your god was so petty and small to wish to hurt people who just wanted to live.
Refusing a blood transfusion when you need it is NOT what’s best for you. The choices are:
(a) take the transfusion with the very, very small chance that you may get some disease (which is likely treatable) from it
(b) die
Which one do you think is best for you? C’mon, use your head and think common-sensically. Arguing against blood transfusions is just stupid.
My comments were to Sunny Day and UrsaMinor
That must be your way of ignoring the advice of medical professionals. Custy is one of those bloody heathens you can’t trust anything Custador says.
It’s true. I’m basically a lying barsteward.
Melanie, I see that medical information has been presented to you out of context, and in misleading ways, by people who do not fully understand that information, and whose agenda is to actively discourage you from accepting a blood transfusion. Now, I have absolutely no problem with you personally making a decision to refuse a blood transfusion, on whatever grounds you like. That is your right and I support it. I do, however, have a huge problem with your church feeding you misleading, distorted or false information and half-truths on the topic in order to influence your opinion and behavior towards accepting a blood transfusion. That is unethical, and it is wrong. I might even use the word evil.
As for all of the medical buzzwords you have been fed: did they explain how, exactly, you would use erythropoietin to help someone who has just lost six liters of blood in a car accident? Or how receiving blood fractions differs morally from receiving whole blood? Were the surgeons in the videos who were talking about bloodless surgery talking about bloodless surgery in emergency trauma cases, or other sorts of less critical surgeries? And the church *did* carefully explain to you that non-blood products are still in development and the ones currently available do not perform all of the functions of real blood, right?
No one in the medical profession has ever claimed that blood screening is 100% effective. That is a red herring. The fact is, if you receive a blood transfusion that is not your own previously stored blood, you run a finite risk of contracting a disease. That risk ranges from 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 2,000,000 in the U.S. blood supply, depending the disease in question. It means that your chances of benefiting from the blood transfusion are much higher that your chances of catching a disease from it. If you’re bleeding out in the emergency room and it’s a question of survival, the choice is crystal-clear.
“New diseases develop on a daily basis”. Wow, the irony of Jehovah’s Witnesses invoking evolution in order to condemn blood transfusions just hurts my brain.
Look, Melanie, honestly, you need to seek medical information and education outside of religious circles.
And I care? That’s one less Jehovah’s Witlesses to bother me and one less to breed more of the useless jerks!
@Michael
Then you are no better than the people you are putting down, sir.
Look, I don’t agree with JW teachings either, but the fact remains that they are people. If you have no compassion for other people, then you scare me as much as JW theology does.
Oh but I do have compassion! I have a problem with people who feel that they have to die for their “faith”. What a waste! All life is sacred! It’s a shame that the JW would rather die than be healed by doctors that could have been guided by God.Doctrine sucks! And be quite assured that when the Fundamentalists come knocking at your, or your neighbour’s door with stones(Deuteronomy authorized) in hand to punish unbelievers(they already do that in Iran), I hope you have enough compassion to not want an Uzi sub-machine gun to plow them down…..some one WILL lose! I am not uncaring…..I am mad at the useless stupidity and the loss of a young person. SHAME!
“All life is sacred” is hardly the message a reader draws from “that’s one less JW to bother me and one less to breed of the useless jerks.” That sounds waaaay too much like the sentiment behind “I’m glad the fornicator died of AIDS like he deserved.”
Why should we be forced to like our own species? That seems a bit closed minded.
I don’t have to like somebody to feel compassion. I will admit, some people make it very, very difficult for me to be compassionate.
Try to have compassion when the Jesus-storm-troopers march you of to an extirmination camp or take you to be burned alive for just being a liberal thinker. Sounds extreme? History shows that this has happened when extremists get into power and unleash their intolerance on an unsuspecting people. The Catholic Church, the Nazis and many others have all shown their compassion and humanity in their very own special way. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “religion is just an excuse to beat up your neighbour”. You want me to be more compassionate? Suggest where I might find it…..in a church? Political party?
Oh and by the way, I am gay and have had friends and lovers that have died of the complications due to AIDS! I don’t have to adore idiots that follow and die needlessly for stupid doctrines and care only for the dollar in my wallet!
@Michael
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that your attitude towards the poor kid who died from lack of a blood transfusion seems to be no different than that of the Jesus storm-troopers towards gay people.
I am aware of the history of religious and ideological pogroms. They are ugly. The first step common to all of them is demonizing your opponents.
A difference is the statement “And I care” compared to “I’m glad the fornicator died of AIDS like he deserved.”
Both statements are dismissive of the need for any concern for someone who does not share your beliefs.
Both statements divide the world into an ingroup and an outgroup- “Us, the people who count” and “Them, the people who don’t count”.
I have to give the Jerry Seinfeld version of “That’s a shame,” myself. In the big picture this shouldn’t have to happen to anybody, but it does, and other people die all the time. 2.5 million people die in the US every year of something. (data 2006).
The US is ranked 96th in the world for deaths per 1000 people (8.38 deaths per 1000 crude death rate):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2066rank.html?countryName=United%20States&countryCode=us®ionCode=na&rank=96#us
Gaza Strip, near the bottom of the list is only 3.36 per 1000. Russia, near the top, 16.04 per 1000.
The bottom line is a lot of people die. Very many in tragic ways with preventable conditions. We get one kid in a news story who refused blood transfusion because of the stupidity of his religion, I’m not going to feel too much for that. Stupidity of religions causing death shouldn’t happen — to me, that is the bigger picture. When it does, oh well. Movin’ on.
@UrsaMinor
“Both statements are dismissive of the need for any concern for someone who does not share your beliefs.”
They are not they same thing … not being overly bothered if someone dies (not being concerned if they do) compared to actively wishing someone dies (being concerned that they do).
Perhaps that wasn’t the best thought-out example, but I posted it and I’m stuck with it.
But to consider michael’s original statement on its own merits: did you really read it as a statement of unconcern about the topic? I realize I’m going out an a limb here because of the text medium, but it sounded rather hostile to me. Damn the Internet for not conveying tone of voice or body language.
Compassion? Try this on for size: There are some who believe that present day child molesters were once victims. Do you feel for the molesters or the molested. It’s not hard to guess! But who spoke for the victims 20, 30 or longer years ago….nobody! That infuriates me because now we are punishing them! Don’t get me wrong, I abhor even thinking about child molestation! And what of today’s victims, will they become the future molesters? This disease of violence must stop somewhere! Is there anybody out there that has any compassion for yesterday’s victims(today’s pedophile).
Now, can we talk about compassion? I think compassion is a good thing but when a child dies needlessly for a doctrine, I find myself wishing that all of it’s proponents suffer the same fate just to see if doctrine is more important than life!
Michael, after three replies from you, I am now very well informed about how angry you are at people who espouse or follow stupid doctrines, people who go door to door to stone unbelievers, Storm Troopers for Jesus, extermination camps for liberal thinkers, the Catholic Church, the Nazis, political parties, and the way child molestation has been dealt with in this country- but that’s about all. The buzzword “compassion” pops up in your posts, and then you’re off adding to the long list of injustices that make you mad.
Maybe I used the wrong word. Maybe “empathy” is better. It is empathy allows me to imagine the struggle that that kid must have felt, having to choose between his beliefs and his life. I can imagine the pain and loss that the parents he left behind must feel, even though their son did the right thing according to their beliefs. I think their beliefs are stupid too, but that doesn’t lessen the human tragedy of it.
But at any rate, we’re talking right past each other at this point. Maybe we should bring this to an end.
I do completely understand and agree with you, but it is mankind’s inability to empathize one another. Any loss of life is tragic and regardless of what you think, I sincerely believe that all life is sacred(I will do no harm to anyone). Perhaps a short explanation will clarify my stand: Jesus answered a wise man’s question regarding the greatest commandments by saying(paraphrase)….”the first is to love God, the second is to love one another. All the law and prophets hang on these two commandments”. I believe this totally and when I look out onto the world it dismays me to see such intolerance, especially from groups that call Jesus their savior. The JW are no different in their blindness and ignorance, but to allow a child or young man to die when medical help could have saved him/her is truly disgusting and I’m outraged. Since when is doctrine or law more important than life? Look again at Jesus’ simple requests, where do you find the command that sends a young person to the grave! Where do you find the command that says it’s okay for Christian’s to judge and condemn people who don’t agree with their views?
I do have compassion but in the face of stupidity and ignorance of the simple “truths” of love and brotherhood of mankind prescibed and “commanded” by Jesus, it is hard to feel anything but utter contempt not so much for the followers but for their idiotic, life denying doctrine! I hope we can find a peaceful conclusion to this argument. For the record, please forgive me for my initial statement…I’m sorry if I upset you but I will remain resolute in my contempt for ignorance and hatred.
@UrsaMinor
Empathy … now that’s the right word to use!
Now then back to the question … having looked through this sub-thread I tend to agree that replies where indeed hostile and not just apathetic. Probably just me assuming that don’t care was meant in the same way that I personally don’t really care.
Word choice can be critical.
To make it even more of a minefield, “empathy” and “compassion” have parallel etymologies, both meaning, more or less “sharing/understanding suffering”. So does “sympathy”, for that matter.
My Dad is a doctor and worked in Harlem for a while. He said that they got a lot of Jehovah’s Witnesses and what they usually did was that they phoned up a district judge and said that in their medical opinion the patient needed the treatment to live. The judge would then approve a court order, allowing them to give the patient the treatment. This would also free the doctor and the hospital from any liability since this was perfectly legal. This is what the doctors in this case should have done.
Wrong country, alas.
There’s nothing that proves he would’ve lived if he’d had a blood transfusion. He might’ve just been injured too badly, anyway.
Of course it’s possible it wouldn’t have helped, but that’s not particularly relevant. What matters is what is *likely* to have occurred given different courses of action (in this case, receiving vs. not receiving a blood transfusion). From past evidence, especially oodles of medical experience, doctors can say with confidence that in such a situation getting the transfusion is much more likely to help than not getting it.
How is any of this theorizing “relevant”? How does what is “likely to have occurred given different courses of action” “matter” when he is dead?
Because other people may find themselves in a similar position. Knowing what occurred can help others when they face similar circumstances, for governments to write better policies, for doctors to develop better procedures, and for potential patients to be aware of their options.
Joshua McAuley tragically died what in all likelihood was an easily preventable death. Not repeating that mistake twice is “relevant” to us, the living. Wouldn’t you say?
The simple facts are he refused because it’s against his religion. I’m sure if you felt that strongly about your beliefs you wouldn’t want your will violated. What mistake was made? He should’ve been forced to accept some stranger’s blood? I’m sure it’s not relevant to you because your beliefs are different. So, how exactly would the same “mistake” happen twice? The only people finding themselves in the same position are people with the same beliefs, which make up a very minimal portion of the population.
Doctors.
So what you’re saying is that the whole conversation is pointless because it comes down to religious belief and the integrity of that belief trumps all?
That’s damn silly.
So, what? Belief should be disregarded?
That’s mighty ignorant of you.
His belief was ridiculous and he only had it because his deluded parents instilled it in him. Should it be disregarded? When it’s that patently fucking stupid and a child, yes it should.
People really should grow up and not believe in sky daddy anymore if their beliefs are going to kill them. That’s what is ignorant. They deny themselves what is best for their health and ongoing life because they are clutching onto a belief in something imaginary that they think is more important. We do reserve the right to observe the sequence of events and call the person stupid for making a really stupid choice.
Do you know what site you are posting on? It is called Unreasonable Faith – when you believe in god, who doesn’t exist, and you would rather die for that belief than trust that science will save your life, then you are mentally handicapped somewhat, and we’re going to say so.
So, what? Belief should be disregarded?
That’s mighty ignorant of you.
Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge. Whatever else may be going on here, that isn’t it. I know why JWs don’t want blood transfusions.
I just happen to think that in some circumstances, beliefs of a religious nature do not override the more general ethical commitment to preserve human life. Religious beliefs are a right until they become malignantly harmful; then they become an ill-afforded luxury.
Now, do I believe the law should compel an adult to take treatment they don’t want? No, probably not. I have some qualms, but in general the freedom for people to kill themselves ignorantly is one that is a painful but important one. This position rapidly disintegrates the further away from the legal age of majority one goes. Should a sixteen year old be able to kill themselves over religious scruples? A fourteen year old? A ten year old? Society necessarily draws bright lines to demarcate fundamentally messy things, like the age at which a person is cognizant enough of their world and their options to kill themselves for the greater glory of God, and opinions on the rational age to do so diverge rapidly the further one gets away from majority, so it’s a decent line all things considered.
Mumbles should we respect all beliefs then? Do you respect the many other beliefs that go against yours? It seems to me that you want your beliefs on a pedestal above everything else. When did belief become more important that people?
I think you ignore the meaning of “ignorant”. And yes, in this case the stupid beliefs of the parents should have been disregarded. If you want to risk your life on your beliefs that’s fine, but when it affects somebody else, they shouldn’t be allowed to make that decision.