lrsafari said:
This thread is aptly titled. The kid is dead, and he need not be, except for some religious brainwashing. Stupid, very stupid. The upside of this story is that the world now has one less fruitcake.
This thread is aptly titled. The kid is dead, and he need not be, except for some religious brainwashing. Stupid, very stupid. The upside of this story is that the world now has one less fruitcake.
Not to get further off topic, but how are blood transfusions barbaric? I agree that they shouldn't be handing them out like candy, but there are hundreds of situations every day in every emergency room where a pint of blood can and does save a life. If anything refusing medical treatment, or worse yet refusing to give treatment to your child is barbaric.
As far as calling people stupid based on their beliefs, what if I beleive that what they are doing is stupid? If I believed that the only way to reach enlightenment was to wear a crown while running down the street naked, wouldn't that be pretty stupid, or since it's my belief does that make it not stupid? It mite sound like a silly argument, but this is America, you have the right to believe whatever you want, and other people have the right to believe you're stupid for it, that's how it works.
Somebody refusing to undergo a relativly painless medical procedure that has the potential to add years to their life ranks as pretty stupid to me, just like allowing your teeth to fall out because you don't like the dentist, or basing your whole life on somebody else's interperatation or a book, that's been changed to suite the reigning power's beliefs and political goals throughout the century seems pretty stupid to me, and my choice to not go to church and live by the teachings of some book that may or may not have been handed down by a diety would seem stupid to you.
As far as calling people stupid based on their beliefs, what if I beleive that what they are doing is stupid? If I believed that the only way to reach enlightenment was to wear a crown while running down the street naked, wouldn't that be pretty stupid, or since it's my belief does that make it not stupid? It mite sound like a silly argument, but this is America, you have the right to believe whatever you want, and other people have the right to believe you're stupid for it, that's how it works.
Somebody refusing to undergo a relativly painless medical procedure that has the potential to add years to their life ranks as pretty stupid to me, just like allowing your teeth to fall out because you don't like the dentist, or basing your whole life on somebody else's interperatation or a book, that's been changed to suite the reigning power's beliefs and political goals throughout the century seems pretty stupid to me, and my choice to not go to church and live by the teachings of some book that may or may not have been handed down by a diety would seem stupid to you.
It isn't the refusing of treatment, it is this particular treatment. There are a diverse set of options available. Check out Wikipedia under Bloodless surgery. Not where our doctrine comes from but in a quick read, has some interesting notes.
Here is a highlite:
"Benefits
Bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion. Additionally, it is cost-saving. The cost of blood in the US hovers around $500 a unit, including testing.[12] These costs are further increased as, according to Jan Hoffman (an administrator for the blood conservation program at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pennsylvania), hospitals must pick up the tab for the first three units of blood infused per patient per calendar year. By contrast, hospitals may be reimbursed for drugs that boost a patient's red blood cell count, a treatment approach often used before and after surgery to reduce the need for a blood transfusion. Geisinger Medical Center began a blood conservation program in 2005 and reported a recorded savings of $273,000 in its first six months of operation."
That being said, aside from the decision based on my research, it is a moral conviction based on my understanding of the bible. Again, nothing requires you to follow it, just respect the decision. But, nothing requires me to follow yours either. I have a set of non-religious convictions that I won't break either. Will I share them with the general public, not usually. But I will do my best to follow what I believe.
Funny enough, I don't think your choice is stupid. In fact, I generaly refrain from voicing those opinions because, well, thats what they are. And often carry the same value as the quantity of air required to voice them, or the electrons to tranfer them from keyboard to wierd little bits of code on the web
I am speaking here of my opinions, yours may be of higher specific value density, or not
So, all this being said, I will try to refrain from follow-ups. there is more material than can ever be read, let alone agreed upon without further beating of the dead quadraped.
Have a great morning,
Scott
Here is a highlite:
"Benefits
Bloodless medicine appeals to many doctors because it carries low risk of post-operative infection when compared with procedures requiring blood transfusion. Additionally, it is cost-saving. The cost of blood in the US hovers around $500 a unit, including testing.[12] These costs are further increased as, according to Jan Hoffman (an administrator for the blood conservation program at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pennsylvania), hospitals must pick up the tab for the first three units of blood infused per patient per calendar year. By contrast, hospitals may be reimbursed for drugs that boost a patient's red blood cell count, a treatment approach often used before and after surgery to reduce the need for a blood transfusion. Geisinger Medical Center began a blood conservation program in 2005 and reported a recorded savings of $273,000 in its first six months of operation."
That being said, aside from the decision based on my research, it is a moral conviction based on my understanding of the bible. Again, nothing requires you to follow it, just respect the decision. But, nothing requires me to follow yours either. I have a set of non-religious convictions that I won't break either. Will I share them with the general public, not usually. But I will do my best to follow what I believe.
Funny enough, I don't think your choice is stupid. In fact, I generaly refrain from voicing those opinions because, well, thats what they are. And often carry the same value as the quantity of air required to voice them, or the electrons to tranfer them from keyboard to wierd little bits of code on the web
I am speaking here of my opinions, yours may be of higher specific value density, or not So, all this being said, I will try to refrain from follow-ups. there is more material than can ever be read, let alone agreed upon without further beating of the dead quadraped.
Have a great morning,
Scott
Well, I don't think you are stupid. You have your belief system and make decisions based on it, that is your right. I respect that. You don't try and shove your beliefs down my throat, and I respect that, too. I am not a JW or a particularly religious person, but I do think that the 10 commandments are for the most part good rules to live by, religious or not. I also strongly support an individuals right to choose, as long as it does not impede my rights to make my choices, which may or may not be different from yours.
As for blood transfusions - I would personally not want one, unless absolutely necessary, i.e. trauma with rapid blood loss. This is not based on a religious belief, it is based more on percieved short and long term risk. For example, prior to the HIV virus being discovered in the 1980's, blood was not routinely screened for HIV, because you can't screen for something unless you know what you are looking for. However, the virus obviously existed prior to being identified. The first tissue sample known to contain the virus was taken in Congo in 1959. The first known sample from the US, came from a 15 year old male in St. Louis who died in 1969. So, who knows what else may be lurking out there in the blood supply that has not been identified yet. The odds of catching some unidentified disease from a blood transfusion is probably about the same as hitting the lottery, but why take a chance if not necessary. If I ever needed major surgery, I would rather deposit a few pints of my own blood ahead of time if possible, just in case.
Thinking about this brings up a question for Scott: What is the JW opinion on receiving transfusions from yourself, i.e using your own blood donated prior to surgery? Or a child receiving blood from a parent if the parents blood is compatible? I am just curious, no attack on your belief system intended.
As for blood transfusions - I would personally not want one, unless absolutely necessary, i.e. trauma with rapid blood loss. This is not based on a religious belief, it is based more on percieved short and long term risk. For example, prior to the HIV virus being discovered in the 1980's, blood was not routinely screened for HIV, because you can't screen for something unless you know what you are looking for. However, the virus obviously existed prior to being identified. The first tissue sample known to contain the virus was taken in Congo in 1959. The first known sample from the US, came from a 15 year old male in St. Louis who died in 1969. So, who knows what else may be lurking out there in the blood supply that has not been identified yet. The odds of catching some unidentified disease from a blood transfusion is probably about the same as hitting the lottery, but why take a chance if not necessary. If I ever needed major surgery, I would rather deposit a few pints of my own blood ahead of time if possible, just in case.
Thinking about this brings up a question for Scott: What is the JW opinion on receiving transfusions from yourself, i.e using your own blood donated prior to surgery? Or a child receiving blood from a parent if the parents blood is compatible? I am just curious, no attack on your belief system intended.
That is a pretty ignorant view. Just because someone has a different value system than you, does not make them stupid. To use an extreme example, do you think muslim extremists are stupid? I don't. I don't agree with their views, but I am not going to underestimate them by calling them stupid. The events on 9/11 were not executed by idiots.vray said:
Axel said:
In 1983 I had open heart surgery to receive an artifical valve at the Mayo Clinic. I was given a blood transfusion and 11 years later when I gave blood discovered I had hepatitis C. After twice having to go through treatment and get sick as a dog (I lost 20 pounds the first time, 10 the second, my hair was very thin and my stomach was always upset and I spent a lot of time vomiting) it is in remission.
At the time in 1983 I was 8 and my parent's made the decision give me the blood transfusion becuase the doctor's said I would heal better. I did, but years later I discovered I had a virus that wasn't even identified at the time. My mom has agonized over this before I went into remission.
The funny part of this is my Great-grandmother was a JW and when she was old and a little out of it she overheard someone ask me about my treatment and blood transfusion. She basically said something to the effect of, "that's what you get for having a blood transfusion."
Today I would still get one IF it meant saving a life, but I would have to think about it real hard.
To criticize another religion for their believes is hypocritical at best, at worst it's judgemental and mean spirited.
There are many paths to God but zealots are convinced that thier brand is the fast track. Religion is a political self sustaining bureucratic money making corporation that seeks control of the population by threatening eternal damnation to those that oppose the tenets of that particular faith.
You don't need to religion to be a good person just as a religious person can't be bad.
What I'm trying to say is a little tolerance would be nice and the spiritual thing to do.
Most religious corporations don't encourage free thinking but enforce a close minded approach to spirituality. "Believe this because we say so or leave the church."
I dated a spiritual girl and I told her how it frustrated me that as soon as you entered the asp you where to turn off your brain.
Good for this boy for sticking to what he thought was right, I won't condem him or his religion.
There are many paths to God but zealots are convinced that thier brand is the fast track. Religion is a political self sustaining bureucratic money making corporation that seeks control of the population by threatening eternal damnation to those that oppose the tenets of that particular faith.
You don't need to religion to be a good person just as a religious person can't be bad.
What I'm trying to say is a little tolerance would be nice and the spiritual thing to do.
Most religious corporations don't encourage free thinking but enforce a close minded approach to spirituality. "Believe this because we say so or leave the church."
I dated a spiritual girl and I told her how it frustrated me that as soon as you entered the asp you where to turn off your brain.
Good for this boy for sticking to what he thought was right, I won't condem him or his religion.
Axel said:
What Axel said reminds me of my favorite George Will quote:
"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory. Many liberals are "pro-choice" only about killing unborn babies. Not about owning guns, driving large cars, wearing fur, smoking cigarettes, privately investing a portion of their Social Security taxes, saying the unedited (by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit) Pledge of Allegiance, and on and on and on."
Axel said:
I don't know Axel, though I see where you are coming from. Regarding Muslim extremists, I think it is stupid to believe that they will get 72 virgins etc. etc. if you die for the cause, but from a military perspective it is not stupid at all. Sacrificing one man to take out an M1 makes one hell of a lot of sense.
It just seems to me that in this kids case, his death is so needless and pointless. I am all for him making his own decision, but was he really capable? If he wasn't brought up in that family/religious environment, would he have made that decision? Each to his own, I guess.
Axel,
Thank you, much clearer. As for the self transfusion, it is based on our view of the bible an commands regarding blood. Once removed from the body it is to be disgarded (I won't run around throwing donatedblood on the ground, not mine nor my place.
There are though tools that will temporarily replace the heart anc curc system while a patient is undergoing surgery. This is a personal decision, and can be considered an exension or artificial heart/circ system.
For me and my family I would more look at the expanders and medications that increase the red blood cell count prior to surgery. That is for a planned event. But for an emergency, the body can funtion on an amazingly small cell count. I think Wiki said in some cases as little as "2". I assume (perhaps incorrectly) this is the number the Doc refered to as below an hcts of 20. I seem to recall a friend in Phx whos got below 5. Was scary but he made it without a BT.
As you said, the chance for AID was relatively recently scanned for. Hepatitus is (last time I read) a serious risk, and statisticly high one. My mother in law died from the effects of hepatitus following a blood transfusion steming from a BT. It destroyed her body. True, that was in the 80's, but is that really that long ago? (She was a Baptist, not a JW).
Axel, as a footnote, in reading your responses, I dodn't think you were on the attack. In fact you seem to point out that is an ethical choice. Questions aren't wrong, not do I feel they are an attack. Apologies if I indicated it was you, sorry.
Scott
Thank you, much clearer. As for the self transfusion, it is based on our view of the bible an commands regarding blood. Once removed from the body it is to be disgarded (I won't run around throwing donatedblood on the ground, not mine nor my place
.There are though tools that will temporarily replace the heart anc curc system while a patient is undergoing surgery. This is a personal decision, and can be considered an exension or artificial heart/circ system.
For me and my family I would more look at the expanders and medications that increase the red blood cell count prior to surgery. That is for a planned event. But for an emergency, the body can funtion on an amazingly small cell count. I think Wiki said in some cases as little as "2". I assume (perhaps incorrectly) this is the number the Doc refered to as below an hcts of 20. I seem to recall a friend in Phx whos got below 5. Was scary but he made it without a BT.
As you said, the chance for AID was relatively recently scanned for. Hepatitus is (last time I read) a serious risk, and statisticly high one. My mother in law died from the effects of hepatitus following a blood transfusion steming from a BT. It destroyed her body. True, that was in the 80's, but is that really that long ago? (She was a Baptist, not a JW).
Axel, as a footnote, in reading your responses, I dodn't think you were on the attack. In fact you seem to point out that is an ethical choice. Questions aren't wrong, not do I feel they are an attack. Apologies if I indicated it was you, sorry.
Scott
Good question. Would you have made that choice in a similar situation with that up bringing? Are you pro choice? Believe in the death penalty? Drink the blood of Christ in holy sacrament? Take the host?vray said:
Do you think he went to hell for his choice?
Just curious as to why people think JW's are stupid and not the other religions that practice equally bizarre (to them) rites.
RoverCanus,
I think you would be surprise if you went to a JW meeting. No priests, everyone nicely dressed, calm. Nothing ornate or otherwise ostentatious. Encouraged to look up and read scriptures and research for yourself. No rituals outside of baptism really, and that is for persons able to understand and decide that it is for them. And even that is a calm event. We don't baptize infants or dead people for example.
But I have very close friends and associates who are Catholics, family who are Baptists and even a Mormon or 2
To each thier own.
Scott
I think you would be surprise if you went to a JW meeting. No priests, everyone nicely dressed, calm. Nothing ornate or otherwise ostentatious. Encouraged to look up and read scriptures and research for yourself. No rituals outside of baptism really, and that is for persons able to understand and decide that it is for them. And even that is a calm event. We don't baptize infants or dead people for example.
But I have very close friends and associates who are Catholics, family who are Baptists and even a Mormon or 2
To each thier own.
Scott
You guys are only seeing part of the story. JWs believe in a resurrection and that God is going to eventually bring an everlasting paradise to earth where those that have been faithful will reside eternally. Enough proof is in the bible to make that a very real promise.
If you strongly believe in that promise, and your family does too, then both parties have faith in seeing each other again.
SO the choices are weighed... 1) Accepting the blood transfusion and dissapointing God or 2) pleasing God bybeing faithful and living with your family in an eternal perfect life.
If you strongly believe in that promise, and your family does too, then both parties have faith in seeing each other again.
SO the choices are weighed... 1) Accepting the blood transfusion and dissapointing God or 2) pleasing God bybeing faithful and living with your family in an eternal perfect life.
Ok, I'll give you that one. 72 Virgins is stupid. I'd rather have 72 sluts who know what the hell they are doing, but that's me.vray said:
Axel said:
Someone has been watching Jeff Dunham and Walter......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cCspBW8O8c
If there are virgins, it'll be seventy-two guys, just like you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
Scott:
Thanks for answering my question on self transfusion. Now that I know what JW's stand is, I can't say I agree with them on that topic as far as it concerns myself if the need should ever arise, but I can also see why self transfusion is not an option for you. You make your choices based on your beliefs, I make my choices based on mine.
I didn't feel that any of your earlier comments were directed at me, by the way - just to clear that up. I do respect anyone's right to have a religious belief system, as long as they respect my right to have a different view. I don't see you forcing your views on anyone in your posts, so you are ok in my book.
I also think we can all agree that the death of a 14 year old kid is a tragedy. That being said, by allowing him to make the decision to refuse the transfusion, he was allowed to die in peace and with dignity. Given his belief system, who knows what it would have done to him mentally if he had been forced to accept the transfusion instead.
Thanks for answering my question on self transfusion. Now that I know what JW's stand is, I can't say I agree with them on that topic as far as it concerns myself if the need should ever arise, but I can also see why self transfusion is not an option for you. You make your choices based on your beliefs, I make my choices based on mine.
I didn't feel that any of your earlier comments were directed at me, by the way - just to clear that up. I do respect anyone's right to have a religious belief system, as long as they respect my right to have a different view. I don't see you forcing your views on anyone in your posts, so you are ok in my book.
I also think we can all agree that the death of a 14 year old kid is a tragedy. That being said, by allowing him to make the decision to refuse the transfusion, he was allowed to die in peace and with dignity. Given his belief system, who knows what it would have done to him mentally if he had been forced to accept the transfusion instead.
ptschram
Well-known member
After having just (barely) survived at the hands of a supposed good physician, I will definitely agree that we should not blindly accept what our physicians may tell us. sadly, too few of them recognize that they have an educated patient who is knowledgeable on the operation of the body and able to be an active participant in treatment.
Modern medicine and pharmacology are wonderful things, but it does come down to the individual and their comfort level as to what treatments are appropriate.
withholding treatment from one's child is barbaric. Making the decision for yourself may be less so if you are willing to accept the consequences.
We do many things that may be of benefit or detriment to our children. I would prefer to not have to vaccinate, but I see a difference between vaccinating against something that might strike, versus treating an acute illness/injury.
Being a Buddhist, whatever I do here and now is temporary at best.
OK, it's somebody else's chance at the soap box.
Modern medicine and pharmacology are wonderful things, but it does come down to the individual and their comfort level as to what treatments are appropriate.
withholding treatment from one's child is barbaric. Making the decision for yourself may be less so if you are willing to accept the consequences.
We do many things that may be of benefit or detriment to our children. I would prefer to not have to vaccinate, but I see a difference between vaccinating against something that might strike, versus treating an acute illness/injury.
Being a Buddhist, whatever I do here and now is temporary at best.
OK, it's somebody else's chance at the soap box.
And how much has been (literally) lost in translation? Do you speak a foreign language? If so, then surely you must realize translations are seldom literal.TurdFerguson said:
1)Stories are passed down verbally for generations.
2)Somebody finally begins writing them down (as they remember, of course. Chinese telephone?)
3)These written stories are later found and translated, and translated, and translated, and translated...
How many languages has the word of God been passed along as before now?
Hebrew? Greek? Latin? Aramaic? Koine Greek? Hoch Deutsch?
And then, from English, how many translations? As of 2005, it is reported that AT LEAST one book of the Bible has been translated into 2,400 of the 6,900 languages recognized by SIL International including 680 languages in Africa, followed by 590 in Asia, 420 in Oceania, 420 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 210 in Europe, and 75 in North America.
And this is to be taken literally? :banghead: