Jehovah's Witness Mother dies after refusing blood

[volatile]

A young mother died after giving birth to twins because her Jehovah's Witness faith prevented her from accepting a blood transfusion, it has emerged. Emma Gough, 22, from Telford, Shropshire, gave birth at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital on 25 October.
From: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm)

This enrages me. Some sanctimonious, Bible-thumping "spokesman" for this evil, twisted little cult is currently making a case for the refusal of transfusions on Biblical grounds, and I want to shake him by the lapels.

I lived with a JW for a while, and it was her tortious take on religion that finally pushed me into fully-fledged atheism. The way this cult brainwashes young people and adults alike is truly terrifying, and...

Well, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I just needed to rant, and this seemed like an appropriate place.

[AgeGap]

Hi, I am a nurse working on a neurology/neurosurgery ward. I am aware of cases where possibly a worse outcome occurred due to refusal of blood products. It is very sad that people are left with unnecessary disabilities because of this end-of-the-world cult. I am also aware of situations where it has caused a family rift.
If a death occurs because of this, that poor person is just as dead as if they were to die from religious terrorism or drinking poisoned cool aid.

[volatile]

Hi, I am a nurse working on a neurology/neurosurgery ward. I am aware of cases where possibly a worse outcome occurred due to refusal of blood products. It is very sad that people are left with unnecessary disabilities because of this end-of-the-world cult. I am also aware of situations where it has caused a family rift.
If a death occurs because of this, that poor person is just as dead as if they were to die from religious terrorism or drinking poisoned cool aid.

Hear, hear.

The follow-up phone in has been pretty strongly against the JWs, but some have called in to say that we shouldn't "question this woman's faith".

:mad:

It seems that her husband was given the chance to over-rule her signed form rescinding consent, and refused. This is cult-sanctioned murder.

[timhau]

It seems that her husband was given the chance to over-rule her signed form rescinding consent, and refused. This is cult-sanctioned murder.

The hell it is. It's cult-induced suicide. She was a legal adult, she made a choice that cost her life. It's stupid, but that's all.

When adults do this to themselves, I don't think there's anything anyone can do (except make a plea for common sense). Doing this to kids is the part where I draw the line.

[Soapy Sam]

A 22 year old made a decision that resulted in her death.
While I would disagree with her reasons, I respect her right to make that decision , no matter how foolish I think it was.

You know those threads here about "are memes real?"
Memes are real. And sometimes lethal.

[volatile]

The hell it is. It's cult-induced suicide. She was a legal adult, she made a choice that cost her life. It's stupid, but that's all.

When adults do this to themselves, I don't think there's anything anyone can do (except make a plea for common sense). Doing this to kids is the part where I draw the line.

Assisted suicide is illegal in this country - Doctor's cannot hasten anyone's path to death. Any doctor, or third party, who helps someone die, is guilty of at least manslaughter. Her husband, in this case, is that third party, if you ask me.

Furthermore, though she might have been a legal adult, she was one who was brainwashed, probably since childhood, by a twisted apocalypse cult who use strong psychological coercian techniques to ensure group conformity.

Murder - the actions of the cult led directly to her death.

Consider what would have happened were this a real suicide, and her husband had found her hanging by her neck but still alive. Had he not cut her down, he'd be guilty of manslaughter, as he had a very direct chance to save her but stood by and watched her die. This wasn't suicide, not in any normal sense.

[Blue Wode]

Perhaps even worse is the JW’s refusal to accept life-saving blood transfusions for their children. This is something which I’m reminded of on a fairly regular basis – i.e. before my children can participate in any educational excursion a parental agreement form has to be completed which contains the following two alternative statements of consent reflecting the wishes of the parents in respect of emergency dental, medical or surgical treatment:

I agree to my child taking part in this excursion. I agree to my child receiving emergency dental, medical or surgical treatment INCLUDING BLOOD TRANSFUSION/anaesthetic, as considered necessary by the medical authorities present.
I agree to my child taking part in this excursion. I agree to my child receiving emergency dental, medical or surgical treatment/anaesthetic, as considered necessary by the medical authorities present WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF BLOOD OR BLOOD PRODUCTS. I accept full legal responsibility for this decision
[Upper case used on the original statements]

You can only hope that nothing disastrous happens to the children of the second consent group.

[Soapy Sam]

Assisted suicide is illegal in this country - Doctor's cannot hasten anyone's path to death. Any doctor, or third party, who helps someone die, is guilty of at least manslaughter. Her husband, in this case, is that third party, if you ask me.

Questionable. She was legally competent to make the decision.


Furthermore, though she might have been a legal adult, she was one who was brainwashed, probably since childhood, by a twisted apocalypse cult who use strong psychological coercian techniques to ensure group conformity.

Opinion. The USMC use similar techniques. Is it "suicide by brain torture" if a Marine knowingly puts his life at risk and is killed?


Murder - the actions of the cult led directly to her death.

So who is responsible for the military deaths in Iraq? Seen any politicians being jailed for murder lately?


Consider what would have happened were this a real suicide, and her husband had found her hanging by her neck but still alive. Had he not cut her down, he'd be guilty of manslaughter, as he had a very direct chance to save her but stood by and watched her die. This wasn't suicide, not in any normal sense.

Agreed. It was self killing by stupidity, just like driving when drunk. You could make it illegal, but it wouldn't work.

[Puppycow]

Natural selection in action.

[volatile]

Questionable. She was legally competent to make the decision.

Perhaps. But "living wills" aren't legally binding in the UK - even if I wrote one saying I consented to a doctor injecting me with drugs so as to kill me, the doctor would still be legally culpable for my death. It seems the "faith" of this woman trumped all legal precedent (and indeed, a caller to Radio 5 pointed out that when she tried to commit suicide, she was sectioned). She would not have been allowed to refuse a blood transfusion on any grounds other than religion, as far as I can tell.

In any case, I would argue that her competence was compromised by the brainwashing activities of the cult she belonged to. Most of Jim Jones' followers were adults, but that doesn't excuse his actions.

Opinion. The USMC use similar techniques. Is it "suicide by brain torture" if a Marine knowingly puts his life at risk and is killed?

So who is responsible for the military deaths in Iraq? Seen any politicians being jailed for murder lately?I do think there are serious ethical problems with the military recruiting vulnerable young kids with the promise of financial and educational rewards, actually, just as I have problems with cults recruiting vulnerable young people with promises of spiritual and communal rewards, but that's beside the point. You do make an interesting and pretty valid analogy, but I don't think it really holds - This woman's husband was given the chance to save her life but refused; a more appropriate analogue in military terms would be a soldier's wife refusing to agree to him being given body armour, or even refusing the end of his tour of duty - things that would definitely or almost definitely save their lives.

Agreed. It was self killing by stupidity, just like driving when drunk. You could make it illegal, but it wouldn't work.Well, you're right there. I'd like to work on the cause rather than the symptom though, and that involves a concentrated effort to rid people of the banes of pseudo-religions like the despicable Jehovah's Witnesses.

[volatile]

Natural selection in action.

Hardly. This woman's a victim of the JWs; there's nothing "natural" about it. Plus, she's already had babies, and left them in the care of her Witness husband and the sinister cult he belongs to. You think her death has ended the prorogation of these ideas?

[timhau]

Well, you're right there. I'd like to work on the cause rather than the symptom though, and that involves a concentrated effort to rid people of the banes of pseudo-religions like the despicable Jehovah's Witnesses.

Apart from the 'pseudo' part, I agree with that.

[volatile]

Apart from the 'pseudo' part, I agree with that.

Indeed. I think peseuo-religions like the JWs and Scientology are more pressing concerns than, say, Anglicanism, as the demonstrable harm is more immediate and of greater magnitude, and the roots to success are probably easier for inculcated individuals. But yes, a world free of all such stupefying belief systems would definitely be welcomed.

[Southwind17]

So who is responsible for the military deaths in Iraq? Seen any politicians being jailed for murder lately?

I don't think that's a valid comparison. I don't believe that death arising from legitimate military action of the type you allude to constitutes murder, whomesoever dies as a result.

[Puppycow]

Hardly. This woman's a victim of the JWs; there's nothing "natural" about it. Plus, she's already had babies, and left them in the care of her Witness husband and the sinister cult he belongs to. You think her death has ended the prorogation of these ideas?

Only in the sense that all preventable deaths are part of natural selection. It could be smoking or risky behaviour such as not wearing a seat belt or motorcycle helmet. Is it a silly belief? Yes, of course.

[linusrichard]

I've made bad decisions for stupid reasons before too. I'll leave the criticism of this lady to those of you who haven't.

[cnorman18]

I've made bad decisions for stupid reasons before too. I'll leave the criticism of this lady to those of you who haven't.

Oh, please.

It's wrong to criticize abject (and lethal) stupidity unless one is flawless and always has been?

Shut down the board, guys. No one may ever criticize anyone for anything.

(I know it's fashionable to be nonjudgmental and all, but if we were all THIS nonjudgmental, we'd still be living in trees.)

[linusrichard]

Oh, please.

It's wrong to criticize abject (and lethal) stupidity unless one is flawless and always has been?

Shut down the board, guys. No one may ever criticize anyone for anything.

(I know it's fashionable to be nonjudgmental and all, but if we were all THIS nonjudgmental, we'd still be living in trees.)

All right, all right. I changed my mind. My point was that I too have made stupid decisions for bad reasons that were within my rights to make and that only hurt myself. But then I remembered that this lady's decision also affected her infant twins who now have to grow up without a mother because of her stupidity. So, I retract my statement. If she had died under identical circumstances, except that there were no children involved, I would stand by my previous post, as clarified in this post.

EDIT: Actually, I might waffle even a little more. I think it would still even be fair to criticize the lady if she didn't have children, but I don't think I would do it in such harsh terms, because she wouldn't be hurting anyone but herself.

Or maybe I just was in a really nonjudgmental mood this morning when I wrote that, and now that I'm a little more awake, I'm a little more critical...

[articulett]

I don't think people are criticizing the lady-- I hear people criticizing the notion of faith. This women died, because her religion believes that people will go to hell if they get blood transfusions... they sincerely believe this... and lots of smart, trusting, people truly believe the stuff they've been taught by the people they trust. It doesn't occur to them to question such authority. It is tragic where we live in a time where faith is taught as a substitute for reason--a path to salvation-- a way towards "higher truth" and laws. That is what is sad. All people are subject to the belief systems of the government and religion of the communities they are born into. I hope with the internet, more people can think their way out. I think the whole notion that this life is some sort of nebulous test that determines your eternity is a twisted teaching... and it can't help but lead people to die (and kill) for "higher goals" that it would be "arrogant" to try to understand (afterall, you aren't supposed to question, God, right?).

To me, the women was a victim of her religion... so are the kids now... and the father who will be raising them without their mother-- religion can be a virulent meme that perpetuates itself at the expense of its hosts.

[ponderingturtle]

Assisted suicide is illegal in this country - Doctor's cannot hasten anyone's path to death. Any doctor, or third party, who helps someone die, is guilty of at least manslaughter. Her husband, in this case, is that third party, if you ask me.

Ah but you can do all kinds of nothing to shorten someones life legally. It is a result of putting a very strong emphasis on action vs inaction.

[Soapy Sam]

It's selection all right. Of a meme. The woman gave birth to twins, so if there's a genetic component to belief they may grow up to think like her.
The critical factor is the father. Maybe if I fell in love with a JW I'd want one of us dead too, who knows? Maybe he will now try to "justify " his wife's death by raising the twins with her beliefs, or perhaps he will take a diametrically opposed line.
In either case, my sympathy for the kids outweighs any outraged anger at the mother.
I wish she had chosen differently and I sympathise with those- especially the medics, who must live with the consequences of her choice.

[AgeGap]

In the UK if a JW child needs (beyond a shadow of a doubt) blood products the Consultant/Trust will apply to the courts to make said child a ward of court. They get blood and possibly abandoned by their family.
I have friends who are ex-JWs. I also know of spouses who pretend to be JW just to keep their partners from nagging. It would be scary if any of these were to need a transfusion.

[Safe-Keeper]

The follow-up phone in has been pretty strongly against the JWs, but some have called in to say that we shouldn't "question this woman's faith".So now we should respect even faith that's been proven to lead directly to someone's unnecessary death? Which part of that faith and her actions, exactly, are we to respect? No way am I going to respect her decision just because she happens to have made it on religious grounds:rolleyes:.

The hell it is. It's cult-induced suicide. She was a legal adult, she made a choice that cost her life. It's stupid, but that's all.I truly do not understand people who treat suicide as a personal choice. Suicide directly causes severe grief (which is not a voluntary feeling but a natural process), and puts the victim's loved ones themselves in severe risk of suicide - in fact, the group highest at risk of suicide in the world is currently those who themselves have lost someone to suicide.

Number-wise, the average person in my home county of Hordaland, Norway, has 20 near loved ones, counting friends, colleagues, classmates, and so on. That's 20 people who are directly and severely hurting by your conscious action. Not to mention the toll you place on society when it has to offer aid to those people. By your reasoning, driving drunk could be called a personal choice, because the actions of driving a car and drinking do not themselves cause injury.

If you don't know anyone who loves you, and you know for certain no one will be hurt by your action, then I'm less reluctant to let you kill yourself. It's still a sad event, and if I met a suicidal stranger I'd try to help him, and I still don't like it... but by then it actually is a personal choice.

Opinion. The USMC use similar techniques. Is it "suicide by brain torture" if a Marine knowingly puts his life at risk and is killed?Going to war does not guarantee death. Rejecting blood transfusion when you're mortally ill and need it to live, on the other hand, does.

I don't think people are criticizing the lady-- I hear people criticizing the notion of faith. I, for one, am making an attack on the Jehovah's Witnesses in general, not on this woman as an individual. She was made to reject a treatment she otherwise would not have rejected, based on the teachings of a cult which uses brainwashing as a method of choice for keeping followers.

If a death occurs because of this, that poor person is just as dead as if they were to die from religious terrorism or drinking poisoned kool-aid.Hear, hear indeed.

[Camillus]

But "living wills" aren't legally binding in the UK - even if I wrote one saying I consented to a doctor injecting me with drugs so as to kill me, the doctor would still be legally culpable for my death. It seems the "faith" of this woman trumped all legal precedent (and indeed, a caller to Radio 5 pointed out that when she tried to commit suicide, she was sectioned). She would not have been allowed to refuse a blood transfusion on any grounds other than religion, as far as I can tell.

In any case, I would argue that her competence was compromised by the brainwashing activities of the cult she belonged to. Most of Jim Jones' followers were adults, but that doesn't excuse his actions.


Advance directives (living wills) have been legally binding in the England and Wales since October 1st 2007, and, although not enshrined in law in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are likely to be binding in those places under common law.

The legal position in the UK relating to refusal of treatment is well established: any adult with capacity (the term competence is no longer used) has the right to refuse any treatment, even if that refusal would result in their death.

In order to have capacity a person must be able to comprehend and retain information material to the situation, especially about the consequences of accepting or refusing an offered treatment, and must be able to use and weigh this information in the decision–making process.

Capacity cannot be confused with reasonableness. An adult is entitled to make a decision based on their own religious belief or value system, even if it is perceived by others to be irrational*, as long as that person understands what is entailed in their decision.

The only time a decision which appears irrational can be challenged is if it can be shown to be based on a misperception of reality, as opposed to an unusual value system. The examples often given in these cases are a person denying, despite the obvious evidence, that their foot is gangrenous, or a patient with anorexia nervosa who is unable to comprehend their deteriorating physical condition.

It has also been mentioned that the husband was given the oppurtunity to override her decision. I do not know the details of the case but this is unlikely to be true. Another person, no matter what their relationship to the patient, cannot overturn a decision made by a capable adult in the UK.

It is now possible in England and Wales to appoint someone to hold a Lasting Power of Attorney which allows them to make decisons about healthcare (a similar person can be appointed in Scotland). However that person cannot simply overrule previous decisions and must act in the incapable person's best interests. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) which governs this specifically mentions religious belief and value systems as being considered part of someone best interests.

While this woman's decision was irrational and resulted in her death she, her husband and the medical team acted in line with all currently accepted standards of care. I personally, would not have it any other way since the right of the individual to choose what others can do to you, even if those others "know" what is best, should be held sacrosanct.

*The UK government defines an irrational decision as, "One which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his or her mind to the question could have arrived at it."

[Lucky]

First, are we sure it's true? The refusal of a blood transfusion seems to be 'reports' from unspecified people, nor is there any indication of who is supposed to have done the refusing, so perhaps it didn't happen. If it's true then I would certainly hope that the hospital made every effort to get the patient or her relatives to consent. But I can imagine that any death of a JW in childbirth (or any medical emergency) would lead to rumours that it was due to refusing a blood transfusion.


"living wills" aren't legally binding in the UK - even if I wrote one saying I consented to a doctor injecting me with drugs so as to kill me, the doctor would still be legally culpable for my death.
I'm sure you didn't mean to give misinformation, but your wording was a bit misleading and could give the impression that a living will doesn't provide any protection. It's true that a living will can't oblige a doctor to carry out an illegal act, but an advance refusal of life-prolonging treatment most certainly is legally binding. Any doctor ignoring it can be prosecuted for assault.

I would hate for anyone to get the idea that there's no point in having a living will.

All adults should have a living will – whatever your wishes about requesting/refusing medical treatment should you become unable to communicate, you must make these wishes known in advance. Anything else is just burying your head in the sand.

Anyone who feels strongly about this issue (which should be all of us) should join Dignity in Dying (http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/).

[volatile]

Advance directives (living wills) have been legally binding in the England and Wales since October 1st 2007, and, although not enshrined in law in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are likely to be binding in those places under common law.

Thanks for your clarifications, Camillus. I didn't know the law had changed so recently.

[volatile]

I don't think people are criticizing the lady-- I hear people criticizing the notion of faith. This women died, because her religion believes that people will go to hell if they get blood transfusions... they sincerely believe this...

Actually, fact-fans, the JWs don't believe in Hell, nor do they believe they can enter Heaven. They believe in the chance for re-incarnation on a cleansed Earth under God's government, and if denied that, continuing non-existence.

To me, the women was a victim of her religion... so are the kids now... and the father who will be raising them without their mother-- religion can be a virulent meme that perpetuates itself at the expense of its hosts.

Yes indeed. I do not blame this woman; I blame the Wizard-of-Oz-esque Governors at Bethel and their antecedents, a board of executives playing religious Chess with the lives of the people they've enslaved. If you haven't read much on JW organisation, please do - enslavement is really not too pale a word for the ways in which members are mentally coerced to behave whilst involved, and the methods put in place to ensure leaving the faith is as difficult and traumatic as possible.

[volatile]

It's selection all right. Of a meme. The woman gave birth to twins, so if there's a genetic component to belief they may grow up to think like her.
The critical factor is the father. Maybe if I fell in love with a JW I'd want one of us dead too, who knows? Maybe he will now try to "justify " his wife's death by raising the twins with her beliefs, or perhaps he will take a diametrically opposed line.
In either case, my sympathy for the kids outweighs any outraged anger at the mother.
I wish she had chosen differently and I sympathise with those- especially the medics, who must live with the consequences of her choice.

Hear, hear.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Here's another link.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=491791&in_page_id=1770

[volatile]

Their (presumably JW) friend is quoted as saying:

"We can't believe she died after childbirth in this day and age, with all the technology there is."
:jaw-dropp

Also, it seems her parents were Witnesses too - no doubt she's been brainwashed into this since birth. Her legal right to withdraw consent was manufactured and massaged by her cultish upbringing, and it's an absolute tragedy.

[Darat]

The comments on the Daily Mail site are quite interesting - no support for the decision but these two caught my eye as example of no true Scotsmann.


The Holy Bible, and specifically the New Testament is the Church's Holy Book, It is therefore for the Church to interpret it. J.W.'s formed in the 19th century in the USA have no authority to take the Church's Scriptures and reinterpret them, with such tragic consequences.

...snip..

Most Jews, mainstream Christians ..... the oldest Christian Churches such as the Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox have interpreted these passages in this way for many hundreds of years before Jehovah’s Witnesses ever appeared on the scene it is bizarre that they maintain that their interpretation is correct. ....... They are not really Christian at all since they deny too many essential Christian doctrines ......

- Mark, London

[Fizzer]

Going to war does not guarantee death. Rejecting blood transfusion when you're mortally ill and need it to live, on the other hand, does.

No, there's no guarantee that giver her blood would have saved her life. It's impossible for anyone to make that guarantee.

[tkingdoll]

Do we know that this woman's refusal to have a blood transfusion is what resulted in her death?

It's perfectly possible that she would have died anyway.

Christine Harris, a friend of Ms Gough's mother-in-law Sham Gough, said: "The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved Emma."

A tenuous source, but no less so than the original claims.

[ImaginalDisc]

Do we know that this woman's refusal to have a blood transfusion is what resulted in her death?

It's perfectly possible that she would have died anyway.


There's no certainty that the transfusion would have save her life, but in having the treatment withheld, it lowered her chances for survival. There's no certainty, either way, in any medical procedure, or in an scientific endeavor for that matter.

If her medical caretakers wanted to perform a transfusion, it was certainly because they believed it would help her chances.

[tkingdoll]

There's no certainty that the transfusion would have save her life, but in having the treatment withheld, it lowered her chances for survival. There's no certainty, either way, in any medical procedure, or in an scientific endeavor, for that matter.

I'm poking around in my sympathy department and am struggling to come up with any for this woman. Lots for her kids, none for her. She knew the risks, she made her decision, the law of the land allows for it. That's that. I'd rather she had this option than be forced to have a blood transfusion against her will which would probably have made her life a living hell afterwards. "it was for your own good" isn't very comforting when you believe you've just bought yourself the eternal wrath of your beloved creator.

[Apology]

I always feel so bad when this happens. On the one hand, it's her right to refuse medical treatment. I can see situations in which I would refuse treatment, which would lead to my death, such as refusing chemotherapy if I thought I was already a goner. To reserve that right for myself, I'm put in the position of having to defend this woman.

It's a position that I don't like at all. My refusal would be based on medical facts, while her refusal is based on a misinterpretation of the Bible. How do we reconcile this so that I can refuse treatment for terminal cancer, but she can't refuse treatment for blood loss? I don't think there's a way. Ergo, people should be allowed to cause their own deaths through their own stupidity. I don't like it, but I don't see how to stop it without infringing on the rights of other, more rational people.

[qayak]

Right on!!! 50% of the stupid in that couple has been selected for extinction! Too bad it didn't happen before they bred.

[ImaginalDisc]

She knew the risks, she made her decision, the law of the land allows for it. .

There's no evidence to support the idea that she made an informed decision. The JW's are not known for encouraging critical thinking in the matter of blood tranfusions. She could have been decivied by sancimonious pious people.

ETA: Assuming she was well informed, I still have some sympathy for someone willing to die rather than displease a figment of their imagination. It's tragic.

[tkingdoll]

There's no evidence to support the idea that she made an informed decision. The JW's are not known for encouraging critical thinking in the matter of blood tranfusions. She could have been decivied by sancimonious pious people.

She signed a form. She lives in the same world that we do, with the same access to the same information. She would have known full well that blood transfusions do, on occasion, save lives. She chose to believe that her religion trumps that advantage and signed away her chance to have one should it be needed. I'm not going to patronise this woman by assuming she had been living in a cupboard her whole life up until that moment.

I'd also assume that the form she signed didn't come without some sort of "you realise this could save your life?" advice.

I see no evidence anywhere that leads me to believe this was anything but her choice. That evidence may emerge. It has in similar cases in the past, but so far nothing indicates that she didn't do this to herself, knowingly.

[ImaginalDisc]

She signed a form. She lives in the same world that we do, with the same access to the same information. She would have known full well that blood transfusions do, on occasion, save lives. She chose to believe that her religion trumps that advantage and signed away her chance to have one should it be needed. I'm not going to patronise this woman by assuming she had been living in a cupboard her whole life up until that moment.

I'd also assume that the form she signed didn't come without some sort of "you realise this could save your life?" advice.

I see no evidence anywhere that leads me to believe this was anything but her choice.

You're concluding that is was her informed choice, but you don't know. She might have been decieved. Mind you, it was her responsability to make an informed choice.

She chose to believe that her religion trumps that advantage and signed away her chance to have one should it be needed.

That's an interesting philosophical statement. I don't know about you, but I can't choose what I believe. Something either makes sense or it doesn't.

[Lucky]

It has also been mentioned that the husband was given the oppurtunity to override her decision. I do not know the details of the case but this is unlikely to be true. Another person, no matter what their relationship to the patient, cannot overturn a decision made by a capable adult in the UK.It's really not as clear-cut as that. True, that's the law, and it's what we can expect to happen in end-of–life situations if there's any disagreement between patient and relatives (which usually there isn't). But in the case of a healthy young woman with normal life expectancy, it's absolutely inconceivable that doctors would over-ride the family's pleas to save the patient. In that situation I'm sure the hospital would be far more worried about being sued for letting her die than for saving her.

A legal get-out could be found, if necessary. The doctors could obviously argue that she was irrational in persisting in her refusal when her family (of the same religious sect) wanted her to have the treatment. It would also be reasonable to say that a conscious, communicating person immediately after a major and traumatic medical procedure lacks capacity to make the decision.

So, if the story is basically true, how hard did the hospital try to persuade the relatives? We must suspect that they didn't do everything possible (shock tactics; separating the relatives and tackling them individually; counsellors trained to intervene in this situation; whatever it takes). Too much political correctness? Can it be true that all the family – parents, husband, the lot – were made to understand that the woman would die without a transfusion, and they all persisted in the refusal? Just seems so unlikely.

There's no certainty that the transfusion would have save her life, but in having the treatment withheld, it lowered her chances for survival.Well, we don't know that, do we? We don't know the basic sequence of events, and it may be the case that her death had nothing to do with refusing a blood transfusion. But on the other hand it could be true that she would almost certainly survive with a transfusion, and certainly die without one, and that she and her family were (or should have been) told that. We are speculating without the facts.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, we don't know that, do we? We don't know the basic sequence of events, and it may be the case that her death had nothing to do with refusing a blood transfusion. But on the other hand it could be true that she would almost certainly survive with a transfusion, and certainly die without one, and that she and her family were (or should have been) told that. We are speculating without the facts.

If the medical professionals involved wanted to perform the tranfusion, then in the professional judgement of the medical professionals involved it would have increased her chances of survival.

[Cainkane1]

From: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm)

This enrages me. Some sanctimonious, Bible-thumping "spokesman" for this evil, twisted little cult is currently making a case for the refusal of transfusions on Biblical grounds, and I want to shake him by the lapels.

I lived with a JW for a while, and it was her tortious take on religion that finally pushed me into fully-fledged atheism. The way this cult brainwashes young people and adults alike is truly terrifying, and...

Well, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I just needed to rant, and this seemed like an appropriate place.

If your life is in danger you get a transfusion here whether you like it or not.

[volatile]

That's an interesting philosophical statement. I don't know about you, but I can't choose what I believe. Something either makes sense or it doesn't.

I'm inclined to agree, especially if beliefs are formed in a vacuum such as enforced by the JWs.

Did you know they actively prohibit members from reading unsanctioned texts on issues such as these (including translations of the bible other than their own sanctioned version)?

The JW cult instils a fear of leaving through their doctrine of excommunication. JW is a cultish organisation, and as such only complete adherence to doctrine is officially tolerated. Those who disagree with even one tenet of JW lore are subject to excommunication, following which all other JWs are encouraged to refrain from conversation with them lest they become excommunicated themselves. Given that attendance at Kingdom Hall is compulsory 3 nights a week (Tuesday and Thursday bible 'study' (really indoctrination - there is no debate or questioning, nor any attempt to question the Watchtower interpretations of Bible verse. These sessions are led by a lay minister telling the congregation what the Council have decided God meant, often peppered with convenient revisionism under the euphemistic title of "new light"), plus Sunday worship), the social circle of a JW, plus their entire family, are usually within the confines of the group.

Those who undertake acts of apostasy (such as the partaking of, or sanctioning of others to partake of blood) risk losing their entire lives, friendship groups, social circle, routine and contact with their families. I heartily dispute that this woman made the decision to die with any true sense of agency or freedom, nor inveigled of the full facts. I'd imagine, given my dealings with JWs, that the teachings of the Watchtower on the issue was plenty sufficient to dissuade any further knowledge acquisition.

ETA: This information was gleaned from having lived with a JW girl for 6 months, but seems to stand up to more detailed scrutiny. See http://www.freeminds.org/ for more info.

[Lucky]

If the medical professionals involved wanted to perform the tranfusion, then in the professional judgement of the medical professionals involved it would have increased her chances of survival.I agree, but my point was it could have been their judgement that a transfusion would increase her survival chances from 0 to virtually 100% (quite possible in some circumstances), or that it would be a last-ditch effort, very unlikely to work. Her family might see the difference as important.

[volatile]

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_02.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/medical_care_and_blood.htm

This is the official word from the Watchtower on blood. They've layered the interpretation of Acts and Leviticus with some hardcore fear-mongering and disinformation on exactly what blood transfusions are, and how dangerous they apparently are. They state that transfusions give you cancer and AIDS, for example. This is likely the only information this woman ever consulted (or was allowed to consult) on the issue - is it any wonder, scared, confused and desperate, that she didn't know what to do or who to trust?

The Watchtower lied to her, and her family, for decades, and now she's dead.

[Polaris]

The follow-up phone in has been pretty strongly against the JWs, but some have called in to say that we shouldn't "question this woman's faith".

:eye-poppi

Um, yes we should!!!! This is a situation where a woman made a bad decision based on a cult's teachings that very probably resulted in her untimely death and her newborns growing up without their mother. Anyone who says the catalyst for this tragic series of events is off-limits to criticism has lost their ever-loving minds.

[tkingdoll]

You're concluding that is was her informed choice, but you don't know. She might have been decieved. Mind you, it was her responsability to make an informed choice.




I'm not going to take the position that religious people are somehow victims. I was once a religious person. I was no victim, and I chose to do my homework and change my beliefs.


That's an interesting philosophical statement. I don't know about you, but I can't choose what I believe. Something either makes sense or it doesn't.

Hmmmmmm. Food for thought. I don't have a position on whether or not I can choose what I believe. I need to think about it.

But I do know that people are wilfully ignorant because it pains them to face the truth, and that other people face the pain and accept the truth. Are there two types of people, or is anyone capable of discarding a belief if they choose to?

Is belief akin to addiction?

Is this thread going to turn into a debate about free will? :covereyes

[Lucky]

Those who undertake acts of apostasy (such as the partaking of, or sanctioning of others to partake of blood) risk losing their entire lives, friendship groups, social circle, routine and contact with their families. I heartily dispute that this woman made the decision to die with any true sense of agency or freedom, nor inveigled of the full facts. I'd imagine, given my dealings with JWs, that the teachings of the Watchtower on the issue was plenty sufficient to dissuade any further knowledge acquisition.

I completely agree; it is a nonsense to describe this as a free, informed decision by the unfortunate young woman. Some of the heartless condemnations of her in this thread are quite distressing.

I haven't had your experience of living with a JW girl, but I have information from a couple of people I know who were born into other fundamentalist sects, and married within their sect (one escaped, the other still a member). Your description of the brainwashing, and the consequences of opposing (or even questioning) any of the sect's teachings, is exactly right.

So, this young woman didn't have the strength of character to throw away her past, her marriage and her entire family when she became pregnant and registered for antenatal and childbirth care, to guard against an eventuality that she'd been programmed into believing could never happen.

So, she deserves to die?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm not going to take the position that religious people are somehow victims. I was once a religious person.

I didn't mean for the statement to be generalized. There are people who have had solid, reasonable, secular ideas imposed on them against their wishes, and those people are victims of a violation of their liberty as much as people who have had stupid religious ideas imposed on them.



Hmmmmmm. Food for thought. I don't have a position on whether or not I can choose what I believe. I need to think about it.

But I do know that people are wilfully ignorant because it pains them to face the truth, and that other people face the pain and accept the truth. Are there two types of people, or is anyone capable of discarding a belief if they choose to?

Is belief akin to addiction?

Is this thread going to turn into a debate about free will? :covereyes

It's already one about the nature of belief. Are we unable to prevent ourselves from making it a thread about recursion, I mean, free will?

[volatile]

Just to clarify, by "living with" I literally do mean just "sharing a house with", and not "romantically involved with" in any way, shape or form. Ewww.

[Lucky]

Just to clarify, by "living with" I literally do mean just "sharing a house with", and not "romantically involved with" in any way, shape or form. Ewww.I'm old enough that it didn't occur to me you meant anything else. Didn't mean to imply ...

[qayak]

I completely agree; it is a nonsense to describe this as a free, informed decision by the unfortunate young woman. Some of the heartless condemnations of her in this thread are quite distressing.

I haven't had your experience of living with a JW girl, but I have information from a couple of people I know who were born into other fundamentalist sects, and married within their sect (one escaped, the other still a member). Your description of the brainwashing, and the consequences of opposing (or even questioning) any of the sect's teachings, is exactly right.

So, this young woman didn't have the strength of character to throw away her past, her marriage and her entire family when she became pregnant and registered for antenatal and childbirth care, to guard against an eventuality that she'd been programmed into believing could never happen.

So, she deserves to die?

I agree with you completely. However, at some point one must realize that in order to deal with these types of issues, restrictions must be put on religion and religious indoctrinations.

The majority of people, including those on this forum, do not believe it is right to do this. They cite the freedom of religion clause in the US Constitution as the basis for their belief.

I am in the minority. I believe that the JW's should be held completely liable for this just as any religion should be held liable for the harm done because of their own indoctrination.

The point is, you can't have it both ways. You either hold them liable or you shut up and stop whining about it. But, if you hold the JW's liable, you hold every religion liable for their own harm.

So please, let's have the JW's face a lawsuit and criminal charges over this. Let's also have all other religions face the same for the harm they do through indoctrination. Let's also have laws to protect the vulnerable, mainly children, from being indoctrinated into the systematic lies of their parents.

But, if we are not going to do that, and this forum has demonstrated their severe reluctance int eh past, then let's celebrate the removal of stupidity from the gene pool at every opportunity.

My own feeling is that a few simple laws with effective enforcement would be the simplest and least painful method but if we must rely on natural selection to solve the problem, let me make a big bag of popcorn and pull up a comfy chair so I can enjoy the show.

[fredcarr]

Although I think one should get medical care when the situation warrants it and this sounds like it was certainly warranted where do we draw the line once we decide an individual no longer has the right to refuse treatment?

Fred

[JanisChambers]

I'm so shattered when it comes to things like this. Half of me says "Another life has been taken by foolish beliefs" and another says "Another idiot no longer breaths my air". I sometimes have to remind myself I am a naturalist, meaning there are real-world explanations behind anything and this includes the decisions/delusions people suffer. It saddens me to think that this dead mother is only one of many people who die for things that could have easily been prevented. This is one of those things that just... test the limits of my humanity.

[JanisChambers]

Nothing natural? I suppose then it was Supernatural selection :p

Personally, I wish this kind of foolishness was eliminated fully by the process of natural selection... unfortunately the one thing that highly religious people do well is produce offspring, much to the discomfort to the environment (Mexico and India are fine examples). Perhaps we should encourage a religion of perpetual celibacy. Now that would be true natural selection.

Hardly. This woman's a victim of the JWs; there's nothing "natural" about it. Plus, she's already had babies, and left them in the care of her Witness husband and the sinister cult he belongs to. You think her death has ended the prorogation of these ideas?

[tkingdoll]

So, she deserves to die?

I don't think anyone has said that. Who deserves to die? Very few.

[Apology]

I don't think anyone has said that. Who deserves to die? Very few.

All of us. Every last one. None of us gets out of here alive.

[Lucky]

I agree with you completely. However, at some point one must realize that in order to deal with these types of issues, restrictions must be put on religion and religious indoctrinations.

The majority of people, including those on this forum, do not believe it is right to do this. They cite the freedom of religion clause in the US Constitution as the basis for their belief.

I am in the minority. I believe that the JW's should be held completely liable for this just as any religion should be held liable for the harm done because of their own indoctrination.

The point is, you can't have it both ways. You either hold them liable or you shut up and stop whining about it. But, if you hold the JW's liable, you hold every religion liable for their own harm.

So please, let's have the JW's face a lawsuit and criminal charges over this. Let's also have all other religions face the same for the harm they do through indoctrination. Let's also have laws to protect the vulnerable, mainly children, from being indoctrinated into the systematic lies of their parents.

But, if we are not going to do that, and this forum has demonstrated their severe reluctance int eh past, then let's celebrate the removal of stupidity from the gene pool at every opportunity.

My own feeling is that a few simple laws with effective enforcement would be the simplest and least painful method but if we must rely on natural selection to solve the problem, let me make a big bag of popcorn and pull up a comfy chair so I can enjoy the show.
These are very difficult questions. We are talking about how to protect people from the possibly fatal consequences of irrational decisions, without infringing the rights of others to make superficially similar but rational decisions.

And that's if we adopt your definition of rationality, or mine.

I think that going after the JWs would be either ineffective or harmful. Do you actually want legal judgements about the truth/falsity or rationality/irrationality of particular beliefs? Who is to decide: politicians (truth by democracy)?; lawyers (truth by sophistry)?

I'm surprised no-one else is suggesting that the Trust (hospital) should be held accountable. After all, they were responsible for the patient's care. Seems reasonable to me they should have to show that it was in her own interests to let her die, even though she was able-bodied and healthy, was not suffering, had responsibilities to her newborn children, and didn't want to die.

Just as they should have to show that it's in the interests of a suffering, dying or demented patient to keep them alive that bit longer by medical heroics and torture.




So, she deserves to die?
I don't think anyone has said that. Who deserves to die? Very few.My comment was meant as a warning that we must not draw that conclusion, rather than an accusation that people had done so. However, there are a couple of posts that are extremely callous and imo come close to saying the girl got what she deserved:

Natural selection in action.
Oh, please.

It's wrong to criticize abject (and lethal) stupidity unless one is flawless and always has been?

Shut down the board, guys. No one may ever criticize anyone for anything.

(I know it's fashionable to be nonjudgmental and all, but if we were all THIS nonjudgmental, we'd still be living in trees.)

[tkingdoll]

My comment was meant as a warning that we must not draw that conclusion, rather than an accusation that people had done so. However, there are a couple of posts that are extremely callous and imo come close to saying the girl got what she deserved:

Ah, gotcha. Yes, those type of comments are callous given that any of us is capable of religious belief. It is not a reflection of intelligence. I have no sympathy for the girl because she was doing what she wanted and had to face the consequences of that, but dying painfully isn't some sort of punishment for belief. It would be better if she had lived. Apart from anything, two babies have no mother.

Interestingly, an Irish court ruled that a baby's right to have a family outweighed the mother's right to the decision not to have a transfusion, and she was forced to have it. I'd be interested to know how that mother feels about it now.

[volatile]

I'm surprised no-one else is suggesting that the Trust (hospital) should be held accountable. After all, they were responsible for the patient's care. Seems reasonable to me they should have to show that it was in her own interests to let her die, even though she was able-bodied and healthy, was not suffering, had responsibilities to her newborn children, and didn't want to die.

That's a superb point and one that bears repeating - she didn't want to die. She was scared that if she partook of blood she would not be reborn in the afterlife, and also thought she risked getting AIDS or cancer now. The comment of her friend on technology is also telling - the Watchtower has convinced these people that there are effective and available alternatives to blood transfusions in all cases, which is fundamentally not true. She didn't want to die, but her cult effectively gave her no choice.

[volatile]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, those type of comments are callous given that any of us is capable of religious belief. It is not a reflection of intelligence. I have no sympathy for the girl because she was doing what she wanted and had to face the consequences of that, but dying painfully isn't some sort of punishment for belief. It would be better if she had lived. Apart from anything, two babies have no mother.

That's where I'd disagree with you, Teek. I don't think she was doing what she wanted, not in any real sense. This wasn't suicide, or the same as a terminal cancer patient refusing chemotherapy. She didn't want to die.

Let's remember she was young, 22. She'd been told since she was young enough to understand that not only were blood transfusions contrary to God's will, they were also dangerous in her own right. She wanted to receive the best treatment available; it's just that those puppet-masters in Brooklyn had ensured that she had no way of knowing what the best treatment was, and actually thought the best treatment was actively dangerous, never mind religiously prohibited.

[qayak]

These are very difficult questions. We are talking about how to protect people from the possibly fatal consequences of irrational decisions, without infringing the rights of others to make superficially similar but rational decisions.

Wait, wait, wait!!!! The decisions based on religious doctrine are irrational. To believe that how you live your live should be based on the made up writings of a non-existent, supernatural being, is irrational whether the decision is whether or not to; to allow a blood transfusion, mutilate the genitals of children, eat pork, or lie about evolution, is completely irrational.

And that's if we adopt your definition of rationality, or mine.

Why not just use any common dictionary definition. Makes things simpler and prevents semantic arguments.

I think that going after the JWs would be either ineffective or harmful. Do you actually want legal judgements about the truth/falsity or rationality/irrationality of particular beliefs? Who is to decide: politicians (truth by democracy)?; lawyers (truth by sophistry)?

It wouldn't bother me. Obviously you find it unsavory though, so I suggest you stop worrying about stupid people dying for want of simple medical procedures and sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the show.

Do you think you are going to educate these people out of their backwardness? For every one you convert they indoctrinate 100 children. It is a no win battle.

If they indoctrinated their children to smoke. Trained them to smoke. Told them of the virtues of smoking. forced them to attend smoking lessons. What would be the chances of getting thoise children to stop smoking once they became adults? No one here would have trouble making a law in htis instance.

And that's why society doesn't allow children to smoke even if their parents would allow it. Why is religion given special consideration here? If you really believe that the woman's death is to be laid at the feet of her indoctrination as a child, then something should be done about childhood indoctrination.

If you are not willing to do something about it, quit whining!

I'm surprised no-one else is suggesting that the Trust (hospital) should be held accountable. After all, they were responsible for the patient's care. Seems reasonable to me they should have to show that it was in her own interests to let her die, even though she was able-bodied and healthy, was not suffering, had responsibilities to her newborn children, and didn't want to die.

Why? It's not the hospital's fault. They are handcuffed by people who want to make special allowances for religion. On the other hand, if this is simply a woman dying because of a personal belief . . . then she should be allowed to.

Just as they should have to show that it's in the interests of a suffering, dying or demented patient to keep them alive that bit longer by medical heroics and torture.

The same people who allowed this woman to die are the ones who insist terminally ill people must suffer to the bitter end. Lay it where it belongs, at the feet of religion.

My comment was meant as a warning that we must not draw that conclusion, rather than an accusation that people had done so. However, there are a couple of posts that are extremely callous and imo come close to saying the girl got what she deserved:

Well, "got what she deserved" is such a negative way of putting it. I would say she suffered the consequences of her own, and that of the religion she belongs to, irrational beliefs. Whether she deserved it or not is debatable but the fact that the course of action that she/they set in motion came to its natural conclusion, hardly shows callousness on our part.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

My friend's mother is a nurse and she has a lot of this type of stories about Jehovah's Witnesses patients.

My friend says that she once had a patient that needed surgery for something like an enlarged spleen that could have been easily taken care of by surgery but she refused to have it because that would naturally mean a blood transfusion. It supposedly wasn't immediatly life threatening but potentially very dangerous.

That woman has passed on by now, from complications from it.

[Apology]

If they indoctrinated their children to smoke. Trained them to smoke. Told them of the virtues of smoking. forced them to attend smoking lessons. What would be the chances of getting thoise children to stop smoking once they became adults? No one here would have trouble making a law in htis instance.


Well, to be nitpicky, Rastafarians and Ethiopian Zion Coptics indoctrinate their children to smoke marijuana, and it hasn't been outlawed yet. I do understand what you're getting at, though.

Ordinarily I'd agree with your point about the irrationality in her reason for making the choice that caused her death. However, there's an unspoken premise in your view: the premise that there are no reasonable, rational, non-religious reasons for refusing potentially life-saving treatment.I have refused treatment myself for non-religious, rational reasons: I felt that the potential negative side effects of the treatment outweighed the potential benefits. Now obviously this wasn't a life-saving treatment I refused :D but there are rational reasons to refuse life-saving treatments like chemotherapy, surgeries, etc. If you don't believe that the quality of your life will be acceptable after treatment due to side effects of the treatment, it behooves one to refuse the treatment and just die in peace.

[Kopji]

Synthetic blood will probably be available before they will grow out of their beliefs.

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2005_Groups/10/webpages/PFClink.htm

[qayak]

Well, to be nitpicky, Rastafarians and Ethiopian Zion Coptics indoctrinate their children to smoke marijuana, and it hasn't been outlawed yet. I do understand what you're getting at, though.

Ordinarily I'd agree with your point about the irrationality in her reason for making the choice that caused her death. However, there's an unspoken premise in your view: the premise that there are no reasonable, rational, non-religious reasons for refusing potentially life-saving treatment.I have refused treatment myself for non-religious, rational reasons: I felt that the potential negative side effects of the treatment outweighed the potential benefits. Now obviously this wasn't a life-saving treatment I refused :D but there are rational reasons to refuse life-saving treatments like chemotherapy, surgeries, etc. If you don't believe that the quality of your life will be acceptable after treatment due to side effects of the treatment, it behooves one to refuse the treatment and just die in peace.

I don't know where you are from but in Canada it is against the law to smoke marijuana. If you encourage your children to do it, they will be taken from you by the state. I assume the US and other first world countries are similar.

I used the smoking thing because it is a health issue not a "let's get high and raid the refridgerator" issue. :D

I agree completely that there are rational reasons to refuse medical treatment. My point is that none of those rational reasons for refusing modern medical treatment will be found in a 2000 year old book on mythology.

[Apology]

I don't know where you are from but in Canada it is against the law to smoke marijuana. If you encourage your children to do it, they will be taken from you by the state. I assume the US and other first world countries are similar.

I used the smoking thing because it is a health issue not a "let's get high and raid the refridgerator" issue. :D

I agree completely that there are rational reasons to refuse medical treatment. My point is that none of those rational reasons for refusing modern medical treatment will be found in a 2000 year old book on mythology.

O Canada :) So much less subject to this type of foolishness. Such rational, even-handed laws on these types of thing.

The Coptics and the Rastafarians have a religious exemption from Federal drug laws. Some Native American tribes have similar exemptions for the growth and use of peyote and mescaline (I should note that I don't think children are allowed to take part in these Native American rituals--I'm pretty sure you have to be an adult to be eligible to participate). Of course, the government is not fond of handing out these exemptions, so the religion has to prove that it is indeed necessary for their worship. You can't create your own "Church of Heroin" and get one of these dispensations. Everyone else who uses the same drugs goes to jail.

I agree that you won't find the rational explanations in the 2,000 year old book. I'm just worried that if we say people can't opt out for dumb religious reasons, then people will not be able to opt out for rational reasons either. That idea frightens me.

[quixotecoyote]

You would bring up the Ethiopian Zion Coptics, wouldn't you Apology.

<sigh>

Yet another tool of theEthiopian Zion Coptic propaganda lobby.

[Apology]

You would bring up the Ethiopian Zion Coptics, wouldn't you Apology.

<sigh>

Yet another tool of theEthiopian Zion Coptic propaganda lobby.

Hey, they're pretty groovy :mad: I bet I could believe all sorts of unbelievable things quite easily if I was an Ethiopian Zion Coptic.



:D

[wilks]

She signed a form. She lives in the same world that we do, with the same access to the same information. She would have known full well that blood transfusions do, on occasion, save lives. She chose to believe that her religion trumps that advantage and signed away her chance to have one should it be needed. I'm not going to patronise this woman by assuming she had been living in a cupboard her whole life up until that moment.



I was talking about blood transfusion to a JW some time ago and she made it clear that in her mind there were always 'alternatives' to transfusion - she specified reusing the patient's own blood lost by trauma and using artificial blood. She wasn't clear about how useful the patient's own blood would be after it was scraped off the road after an RTA (or even off the delivery room floor) or how often you would find artificial blood in a hospital blood bank.
But if this is what the JWs are being taught, I doubt many are thinking it through fully. This woman may not have realised that refusing blood transfusion really meant death. Maybe she was just waiting for the alternatives to be wheeled in?

[Big Les]

The JWs were out in force this morning on UK TV - the very first scrolling phone-message re this case was from some liar who claimed that a friend refused a blood transfusion after surgery to remove a brain tumour and lived, and two other patients with the same condition took the transfusions and...DIED!!!!11. Well thanks for that scientific analysis Mr Bob L. Basher of Tunbridge Wells.

Members were obviously aware that the feature was coming on and jammed the switchboards to get some positive spin in there - at least half the responses were pro-JW. Pathetic. Bottom line is that this woman left two new-born children without a mother through a mixture of her own ignorance and indoctrination by her church. Both parties have to share the blame, but the church must surely get the lion's share of it.

FWIW, my contempt for religious extremists has reached a new high. But I have to agree - unless we're going to tackle the thorny proposition of holding religions to account for their influence on individuals, all we can do is sadly shake our heads. I can understand some of the more callous (practical?) comments, but really, how can we lay all the blame on the woman? It takes an exceptional strength of will to even question this kind of BS when all of your friends and loved ones are telling you that it's real. Especially when seriously ill or pregnant as in this case.

[EvolveNow]

This is a nice example of natural selection at work...the stupid die off...

M

[Ocelot]

If Charles Manson can be convicted of Murder for brainwashing people to kill, then why does Kindgom Hall get exemption for their role in this (probably) unecessary death and others like it.

Oh yes the girl herself bears responsibiity for not breaking clear of this dangerous cult (enen though that's easier said than done) but there's enough blame to share around.

[Big Les]

This is a nice example of natural selection at work...the stupid die off...

M

Not really - assuming she was indeed "stupid", rather than deluded and coerced by third parties, she's already reproduced. Darwin don't enter into it.

[Darat]

A very interesting article about a woman who made a similar decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7080902.stm

[The Darkest One]

My wife of 21 years is a JW. She thinks that the Medi-Alert bracelet she wears that reads "no blood", will stop a life saving transfusion. Won't she be surprised that her athiest husband plans to over ride such foolishness, if need occurs.

In a somewhat related note, the JW's used to ban vaccinations on the same silly interpretation of "eating blood" that they use to justify their stance on transfusions. They reversed that decision years ago. I asked my wife if God changed his mind about that, and what about the people who had already died as a result of the original stance. I never did get a response.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness6.htm

I have fought and argued and threatened and cried for over two decades. These vultures "stole" my wife, but I'll be damned if I let her die because of one of their doctrines that can be changed on a whim. "New light", my *ss!

[volatile]

A very interesting article about a woman who made a similar decision: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sussex/7080902.stm

Exactly what I said probably happened in this recent case.

"But the Jehovah's Witnesses in Britain deny coercion is used to prevent patients having blood transfusions, saying such a suggestion is "repugnant" to their faith."

Not directly, perhaps. But all of the JW cult operates on methods of psychological coercion. Disfellowshipping is very, very severe, and leads members to immediately be shunned by everyone in their social circle, and often their families too.

Whilst the coercion is not overt, the threat of being disfellowshipped for the slightest transgrsssion from cult doctrine (which includes smoking, drinking alcohol or even being obese) is ever-present.

[Southwind17]

My wife of 21 years is a JW. She thinks that the Medi-Alert bracelet she wears that reads "no blood", will stop a life saving transfusion. Won't she be surprised that her athiest husband plans to over ride such foolishness, if need occurs.

I have fought and argued and threatened and cried for over two decades. These vultures "stole" my wife, but I'll be damned if I let her die because of one of their doctrines that can be changed on a whim. "New light", my *ss!

Gee, I'm amazed that two people with such conflicting views could actually find enough in common to marry, or were things different when you first met? I just cannot imagine myself living with somebody who holds hugely contrasting and radically different views from my own. What do you normally talk about over dinner, or do you just tend to argue and bicker (like most 'normal' married couples!)?! ;)

[Darat]

...snip...


Not directly, perhaps. But all of the JW cult operates on methods of psychological coercion. Disfellowshipping is very, very severe, and leads members to immediately be shunned by everyone in their social circle, and often their families too.

Whilst the coercion is not overt, the threat of being disfellowshipped for the slightest transgrsssion from cult doctrine (which includes smoking, drinking alcohol or even being obese) is ever-present.


What I found very worrying was this:


...snip...

"The doctors went through my notes and realised I was a Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee came up with a pile of paperwork for me to sign so that I didn't have blood."

...snip...

Whilst there may be no coercion (at least not in a UK hospital setting) there is certainly evidence of a level of pressure that they will exert i.e. the "Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee".

[Zamzara]

This is a nice example of natural selection at work...the stupid die off...

M

It's no wonder that some people still think acceptance of evolution leads to immorality, when every time someone dies tragically this stupid cliche gets trotted out.

Blame the idiots who lied to her and indoctrinated her. It wasn't a genetic disadvantage, and even if it had been, do people with worse genes deserve to die all of a sudden?

Also, anyone who calls a believer stupid is implicitly claiming that they can't be fooled... which, as skeptics, we know is not true.

[Lucky]

What I found very worrying was this:

...snip...

"The doctors went through my notes and realised I was a Jehovah's Witness. The Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee came up with a pile of paperwork for me to sign so that I didn't have blood."

...snip...

Whilst there may be no coercion (at least not in a UK hospital setting) there is certainly evidence of a level of pressure that they will exert i.e. the "Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee".

That article reinforced my suspicion that hospitals are facilitating access to patients by JW authorities for the purposes of interfering in their medical treatment. Just having an official form approved by both the hospital and the JWs gives the JW rule a legitimacy that is very unethical.

All in the interests of 'diversity', or some such silly, woolly-liberal political correctness.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with liaison committees for religious bodies in hospitals, as many patients no doubt find it helpful to know that their religious dietary requirements are taken care of, for example, or to request a visit from a rabbi etc. But it absolutely must be on the understanding that they undertake not to interfere in medical matters.

I now feel even more strongly that the Trust should be called to account for its actions. Hopefully the latest tragedy will be an opportunity to review the completely unacceptable current policy, which seems to be widespread.

[qayak]

It's no wonder that some people still think acceptance of evolution leads to immorality, when every time someone dies tragically this stupid cliche gets trotted out.

And how many stupid cliches get trotted out by theists? You are really grasping if you think this is the cause of people's ignorance of evolution.

Blame the idiots who lied to her and indoctrinated her. It wasn't a genetic disadvantage, and even if it had been, do people with worse genes deserve to die all of a sudden?

You have this completely wrong. There is no rule that says the advantage/disadvantage has to be genetic although this may very well trace back to the woman's genetics making her too gullible to survive.

Also, anyone who calls a believer stupid is implicitly claiming that they can't be fooled... which, as skeptics, we know is not true.

Only in your opinion. The definition of stupid is: lacking in common sense, perception, or intelligence. In this case the woman meets at least two out of three conditions.

Everyone has done stupid things in their life and admitting that doesn't disqualify us from saying someone else is stupid or did a stupid thing. It also doesn't mean we don't fully expect to do other stupid things in the future.

However, we will hopefully be smart enough to learn from other people's stupidity, including this woman's. I have a whole book on things people did that got them killed or injured. It is considered one of the best books on the subject because it demonstrates what they did wrong so that the reader doesn't make the same mistake. Many of the people telling their story admit how stupid they were for doing what they did. However, if I do something stupid that gets me killed or injured, I hope they put me in the book so others will learn from it.

[Rasmus]

It's no wonder that some people still think acceptance of evolution leads to immorality, when every time someone dies tragically this stupid cliche gets trotted out.

So?

Not that I agree, mind you. But what does anyone's morality have to do with whether evolution is true?

I mean, gravity probably causes a lot of harm - plane crashes, people falling off of cliffs, etc. Nobody who could even be described as remotely sane would even consider this as a reason to doubt gravity.

Blame the idiots who lied to her and indoctrinated her. It wasn't a genetic disadvantage, and even if it had been, do people with worse genes deserve to die all of a sudden?

What if they, too, are honest believers of the stupidity, though?

Also, anyone who calls a believer stupid is implicitly claiming that they can't be fooled... which, as skeptics, we know is not true.

Not at all. Calling someone stupid just suggests that they should have known better. And that has certainly happened to me more than just a few times, too. I can and have been fooled, sometimes even by myself. I don't see why that would suggest nobody else can be a bloody idiot about things. Am I really the only one? Say it ain't so!

[Zamzara]

And how many stupid cliches get trotted out by theists?

What of it? Shouldn't we strive for a higher standard. Two wrongs etc..

You are really grasping if you think this is the cause of people's ignorance of evolution.

I didn't say that. But gloating that evolution eliminates the 'stupid' people certainly creates a justified objection to that view of morality, which some people will mistake for the actual position of science.

You have this completely wrong. There is no rule that says the advantage/disadvantage has to be genetic although this may very well trace back to the woman's genetics making her too gullible to survive.

Unless you believe in Lamarkism I don't see how natural selection can work on a non-genetic trait. A religious believer is not of above average gullibility, because believers in strange things are in the majority of humanity, which means it's part of the human condition to believe weird things. The consequences here were certainly worse than average, but the gullibility was not necessarily different.


However, we will hopefully be smart enough to learn from other people's stupidity, including this woman's. I have a whole book on things people did that got them killed or injured. It is considered one of the best books on the subject because it demonstrates what they did wrong so that the reader doesn't make the same mistake. Many of the people telling their story admit how stupid they were for doing what they did. However, if I do something stupid that gets me killed or injured, I hope they put me in the book so others will learn from it.

There's a difference between learning from mistakes, and expressing pleasure at how an inferior person has been removed from the gene pool, which unfortunately seems to be such a common reaction to tragic deaths. The original commenter was stating nothing less than that this woman deserved to die for being stupid.

[Zamzara]

So?

Not that I agree, mind you. But what does anyone's morality have to do with whether evolution is true?

I mean, gravity probably causes a lot of harm - plane crashes, people falling off of cliffs, etc. Nobody who could even be described as remotely sane would even consider this as a reason to doubt gravity.

When there's a plane crash etc. people don't comment that they are glad to see Newton's principles in action and express pleasure at the demonstration of them. It's not a question of believing in them, but of gloating about it. For some reason 'Darwin Awards' etc. seem to have a unique status of placing Darwin's principles as a force for moral good rather than a neutral law of nature, and I find it deeply sinister that so few other evolutionists seem to have a problem with this.

[Fizzer]

That's that. I'd rather she had this option than be forced to have a blood transfusion against her will which would probably have made her life a living hell afterwards. "it was for your own good" isn't very comforting when you believe you've just bought yourself the eternal wrath of your beloved creator.


If a transfusion was forced upon her without a chance of her stopping it, then there's no reason God would hold it against her. However, that does not mean she would not still feel bad about it. After all, I'm sure there are many people who had blood transfusions and then became a JW later in life. It's not like you are forever tainted.

[ImaginalDisc]

If a transfusion was forced upon her without a chance of her stopping it, then there's no reason God would hold it against her.

That's assuming God shares your sense of morality and fairness, which isn't what I'd expect from Mr. Wholesale Genocide.

[Fizzer]

The doctors could obviously argue that she was irrational in persisting in her refusal when her family (of the same religious sect) wanted her to have the treatment. It would also be reasonable to say that a conscious, communicating person immediately after a major and traumatic medical procedure lacks capacity to make the decision.

In the US at least, JW's typically carry with them (in wallet, purse, etc.) a legally binding advance medical directive indicating that they should not be given blood even if they are likely to die without it. It's a decision that's made and prepared for before any traumatic event occurs.

[Fizzer]

Did you know they actively prohibit members from reading unsanctioned texts on issues such as these (including translations of the bible other than their own sanctioned version)?

That's false. It's not uncommon at all for the Watchtower magazine to quote other translations of the Bible. Also most JW's own more than one translation, and most Kingdom Hall libraries contain many translations.

[Fizzer]

They state that transfusions give you cancer and AIDS, for example.


Funny. I didn't see anything there saying that. The part about cancer was about existing cancer patients undergoing surgery. And yes people have gotten AIDS and other diseases through transfusions.

This is likely the only information this woman ever consulted (or was allowed to consult) on the issue - is it any wonder, scared, confused and desperate, that she didn't know what to do or who to trust?

There is more information published for JW's on the topic than what is on the website there. Some of which is not produced by JW's, but re-published with permission.

[ImaginalDisc]

Funny. I didn't see anything there saying that. The part about cancer was about existing cancer patients undergoing surgery. And yes people have gotten AIDS and other diseases through transfusions.

Screening processes today are much better than they were in the past, and risks of transfusion are much smaller than the risk of not getting one. Nothing is perfectly safe, but the JW's position on blood donation is a pack of lies.

[Fizzer]

My wife of 21 years is a JW. She thinks that the Medi-Alert bracelet she wears that reads "no blood", will stop a life saving transfusion. Won't she be surprised that her athiest husband plans to over ride such foolishness, if need occurs.


If she carries the current advance medical directive, which is a valid legal document, you're going to have a significant legal battle on your hands if you want to override it.

[Fizzer]

Whilst the coercion is not overt, the threat of being disfellowshipped for the slightest transgrsssion from cult doctrine (which includes smoking, drinking alcohol or even being obese) is ever-present.

Alcohol is not forbidden, just drunkeness.

[volatile]

Alcohol is not forbidden, just drunkeness.

But one drink too many and you're disfellowshipped, right? Or that's the impression they give, at least.

[volatile]

Funny. I didn't see anything there saying that. The part about cancer was about existing cancer patients undergoing surgery. And yes people have gotten AIDS and other diseases through transfusions.

You don't think citing 20 year old scare-mongering like "AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can be spread by blood. The modern plague of AIDS came to light in 1981. The very next year, health experts learned that the virus could probably be passed on in blood products. It is now admitted that the blood industry was slow to respond, even after tests were available to identify blood containing HIV antibodies" is intended to send the message that blood transfusions give you AIDS? It certainly reads that way to me...

[volatile]

That's false. It's not uncommon at all for the Watchtower magazine to quote other translations of the Bible. Also most JW's own more than one translation, and most Kingdom Hall libraries contain many translations.

Hmmm....

Wikipedia quotes the Watchtower magazine from 2001 as saying that Witnesses should not “harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding". Private ideas or personal interpretation of scripture that deviates from the cultish teaching is certainly not permitted.

See, for example, the oft-quoted controversy over the NWT translation of John 1:1 - if an individual Witness decided, of their own volition, that the author of the Gospel of John did mean to invoke the Trinity (as the WT denies, changing "The Word was God" to "the Word was a god"), would they avoid being disfellowshipped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_congregational_disciplin e)?

[The Shank]

So, a woman has died because of religion, add her name to the list.

[Darth Rotor]

[URL]This is likely the only information this woman ever consulted (or was allowed to consult) on the issue - is it any wonder, scared, confused and desperate, that she didn't know what to do or who to trust?
Oh FFS, what kind of a pigeon hole are you trying to crawl up here, volatile? She made a decision, and you assume that she only reads the watchtower, or whatever her church spoonfeeds her?

I am skeptical of your position. My next door neighbors are JW's. They are reasonably well informed people. The read the news, the read books, they watch movies. They don't live in some isolation from the rest of the world.

How hard are you trying to shoehorn this story into your preconceived stereotype about a particular group of people who disagree with your worldview?
The Watchtower lied to her, and her family, for decades, and now she's dead.
I see, such an obvious "cause and effect." :rolleyes:

Along with some others in this thread, I tend to allow for people to make their own decisions, and let them live, or die, with the outcome. Linusrichard made a good point, however, as did Lucky, in how her decision may have had an adverse impact on her new born kids, if it is in fact true that refusing the transfusion was the deciding variable in her living or dying. Seems a bit selfish to not consider their not having Mom due to an inflexible rule. :p

DR

[volatile]

Darth - how can you completely absolve the Watchtower of culpability?! They told this woman, from the day that she was born, that not only were blood transfusions sinful and actively dangerous, but also that were she to partake of one she would be shunned by all her family and friends. Furthermore, they also led her to believe, it seems, that equally effective alternatives to transfusions were readily available, which is manifestly not true.

Whilst, no doubt, she had been told by others that her beliefs were screwy, the particular brainwashing, cultish methods of the "religion" she belonged to made any chance of realising her error rather slim. This is how cults WORK.

You'll be defending Jim Jones next...

As for obvious cause and effect, you don't think her manifestly false beliefs about blood transfusions were directly responsible for her death?

This isn't about "disagreeing with [my] worldview" - it's about someone being deliberately lied to from birth by a sinister group of men in Brookyln which directly lead to her death. The JW belief system is a cult; it's a country mile from a 'worldview'.

[Fizzer]

But one drink too many and you're disfellowshipped, right? Or that's the impression they give, at least.

No, that's not really accurate. For one thing, what is "one drink too many"? Everyone has difference alcohol tolerance levels based on any number of factors. If someone makes it habit of getting drunk, then it's likely they'll be talked to by the elders in an attempt to correct the situation. If things continue to escalate, then it's possible they could be disfellowshipped.

Also, technically there's not really anything that's considered an automatic disfellowshipping. Unrepentant wrongdoing gets you disfellowshipped. It's not a matter of "if you do X, Y, or Z, you're out."

[Fizzer]

Hmmm....

Wikipedia quotes the Watchtower magazine from 2001 as saying that Witnesses should not “harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding". Private ideas or personal interpretation of scripture that deviates from the cultish teaching is certainly not permitted.

That's not the same as owning or reading another Bible translation.


See, for example, the oft-quoted controversy over the NWT translation of John 1:1 - if an individual Witness decided, of their own volition, that the author of the Gospel of John did mean to invoke the Trinity (as the WT denies, changing "The Word was God" to "the Word was a god"), would they avoid being disfellowshipped (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_congregational_disciplin e)?

If they try to spread that belief to others, then it's likely they would be disfellowshipped. If that individual believed the trinity but said nothing, then no one would know of course.

[Fizzer]

You don't think citing 20 year old scare-mongering like "AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which can be spread by blood. The modern plague of AIDS came to light in 1981. The very next year, health experts learned that the virus could probably be passed on in blood products. It is now admitted that the blood industry was slow to respond, even after tests were available to identify blood containing HIV antibodies" is intended to send the message that blood transfusions give you AIDS? It certainly reads that way to me...

For one thing, that article you are quoting was written in 1990, when there was significantly more concerns about the blood supply regarding AIDS than there is now. But even then, you're making a significant mental jump in order to make it look like a definitive statement about transfusions causing AIDS. The warning is that is CAN give you AIDS, not that it WILL give you AIDS. It would be like saying, "if you drive a car you will die in an accident".

Here are more recent JW articles in order to give a feel for the tone of information these days regarding transfusions:
From 2006:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200608/article_02.htm

From 2000:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_02.htmToday, because of improved screening, HIV transmission through blood transfusions is rare in developed nations. However, such transmission continues to be a problem in developing nations that lack screening processes.I think you would be hard pressed to disagree with that statement.


The safety level of the blood supply really isn't the issue though. Even if the blood supply could be guaranteed 100% safe for everyone, it would not change the JW view of blood as being sacred.

[Fizzer]

Screening processes today are much better than they were in the past, and risks of transfusion are much smaller than the risk of not getting one. Nothing is perfectly safe, but the JW's position on blood donation is a pack of lies.

Seems the Watchtower agrees with much of your statement:
"Today, because of improved screening, HIV transmission through blood transfusions is rare in developed nations. However, such transmission continues to be a problem in developing nations that lack screening processes." (http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_02.htm)

Surely you don't see that statement as a lie.

[volatile]

That's not the same as owning or reading another Bible translation.

So, owning them is OK, but reading them with any kind of personal conscience or objectivity outside of Watchtower prescription isn't? Glad we got that cleared up.


If they try to spread that belief to others, then it's likely they would be disfellowshipped. If that individual believed the trinity but said nothing, then no one would know of course.

Thanks for the clarification on exactly how much divergence from doctrine is tolerated. It is, as I suspected, virtually nil.

[volatile]

For one thing, that article you are quoting was written in 1990, when there was significantly more concerns about the blood supply regarding AIDS than there is now.

That may well be the case, but it's there, NOW, on the official JW website as the principal and most readily available teaching on blood transfusions. That they haven't updated their information for nearly 20 years to reflect the newer, less risky, scientific teaching is hardly to their credit, is it?

The Web didn't even exist in 1990, so this was out of date even when it first appeared on their website. It's hardly surprising that an agenda-driven, cultish organisation with a spurious Scriptural prohibition on the taking of blood would like about the current state of medical practice regarding transfusions, is it?

But even then, you're making a significant mental jump in order to make it look like a definitive statement about transfusions causing AIDS. The warning is that is CAN give you AIDS, not that it WILL give you AIDS. It would be like saying, "if you drive a car you will die in an accident".

You really don't think the heavy, unsubtle implication of that article is that "Not only are blood transfusions against God's will, they will probably kill you whilst they're at it"?

From 2000:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_02.htmI think you would be hard pressed to disagree with that statement.

Oh, I wouldn't disagree with an article on the history of blood transfusion that doesn't mention it's therapeutic benefits or the number of lives it's saved at all. No. I mean - who would? :rolleyes:

The safety level of the blood supply really isn't the issue though. Even if the blood supply could be guaranteed 100% safe for everyone, it would not change the JW view of blood as being sacred.

Exactly. So all the AIDS stuff is just fear-mongering to coerce those who might not be a solid in their Scriptural adherence as the Watchtower might want. It's lying for Jesus.

[Fizzer]

So, owning them is OK, but reading them with any kind of personal conscience or objectivity outside of Watchtower prescription isn't? Glad we got that cleared up.

Obviously there's little I can do to change your point of view, but at very least you are now aware that it's NOT "actively prohibited" to own or read other Bible translations like you claimed earlier.


Thanks for the clarification on exactly how much divergence from doctrine is tolerated. It is, as I suspected, virtually nil.

Why would anyone expect there to be divergence in doctrine? Looks how much difference there can be from one church to another within the same denomination. And how many times throughout history have one group split off from another to form a new church that suits their beliefs? I can go into any Kingdom Hall in any part of the world on any given day and be confident that I'm going to hear the same teachings.

1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I exhort YOU, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that YOU should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among YOU, but that YOU may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

[volatile]

Obviously there's little I can do to change your point of view, but at very least you are now aware that it's NOT "actively prohibited" to own or read other Bible translations like you claimed earlier.

Sorry if I fail to see the pragmatic difference between actively prohibiting you to read another Bible and actively prohibiting you from even considering that another Bible might have some validity.

Why would anyone expect there to be divergence in doctrine? Looks how much difference there can be from one church to another within the same denomination. And how many times throughout history have one group split off from another to form a new church that suits their beliefs? I can go into any Kingdom Hall in any part of the world on any given day and be confident that I'm going to hear the same teachings.



You think that's a *good* thing? Rabidly dogmatic adherence to stale doctrine that at once claims to be never-changing but actually changes really rather regularly on the whim of a group of old white men in Brooklyn?

[Fizzer]

Sorry if I fail to see the pragmatic difference between actively prohibiting you to read another Bible and actively prohibiting you from even considering that another Bible might have some validity.

All Bibles have validity. JW's believe that the Bible is the word of God - and not a specific translation. All Bibles have various differences in translation. Some translation options for verses are more debated than others. There are from time to time entire articles devoted to certain passages and how and why they are translated in the New World Translation and in various other Bibles, and how they tie into the rest of the Bible. And like I mentioned before, the Watchtower magazine sometimes quotes from other translations. It's not uncommon for JW's to carry more than one translation when going door-to-door, particularly the King James version which most people are familiar with.

And do you even realize that JW system of beliefs was arrived at well before the New World Translation was even written?


You think that's a *good* thing? Rabidly dogmatic adherence to stale doctrine that at once claims to be never-changing but actually changes really rather regularly on the whim of a group of old white men in Brooklyn?

You think unity is a bad thing? United we stand, divided we fall - I'm sure you've heard that quote before. The vast number of Christian denominations is testament to what happens when unity falls apart. Even the Catholic church, with one highly visible leader have various splits in different areas. Jesus' apostles were not all trying to start 12 different churches, each with their own point of view. They followed Jesus.


And by the way, not all of the governing body members are white (or old for that matter, depending on what are range you consider old).

[volatile]

All Bibles have validity. JW's believe that the Bible is the word of God - and not a specific translation. All Bibles have various differences in translation. Some translation options for verses are more debated than others. There are from time to time entire articles devoted to certain passages and how and why they are translated in the New World Translation and in various other Bibles, and how they tie into the rest of the Bible. And like I mentioned before, the Watchtower magazine sometimes quotes from other translations. It's not uncommon for JW's to carry more than one translation when going door-to-door, particularly the King James version which most people are familiar with.

How many of those "many" articles conclude that the NWT translation is in error, and another translation is better, or more valid? I'm guessing that it's precisely zero.


And do you even realize that JW system of beliefs was arrived at well before the New World Translation was even written? Even those ones that have changed? New light, and all that? For a dogmatically fixed cult, you lot do have your minds changed for you rather often...


You think unity is a bad thing? United we stand, divided we fall - I'm sure you've heard that quote before. The vast number of Christian denominations is testament to what happens when unity falls apart. Even the Catholic church, with one highly visible leader have various splits in different areas. Jesus' apostles were not all trying to start 12 different churches, each with their own point of view. They followed Jesus.Well, I'd say using fear and lies to malevolently coerce people into a single rigid opinion as to the literal meaning of a multi-authored, multi-generational, politically compiled, badly-translated, ahistorical collection of books such that they die from it is, yes, pretty bad.

As for the disciples following Jesus, I think, though I'm no Bible scholar, that it's the particular and unique theism of Paul that underlines most of Christian thought, right?


And by the way, not all of the governing body members are white (or old for that matter, depending on what are range you consider old).They're all men though, right?

[Ocelot]

I have to fully agree that this 22 year old woman should have been old enough to make her own decisions. She could have broken free of this dangerous sect (even though that's easier said than done) and accepted a blood transfusion.

She should have realised that Genesis 9:4 is just dietary advice and bore no relation to a medical procedure that wasn't used when that was written. She should have realised that Leviticus 17:11-14 was the same. She should have realised that neither of these old testament examples of Mosaic Law are relevant to today's Christian under the New Covenant. She should have realised Acts 15:29 was merely an example of a Council in Jerusalem deciding what elements of Mosaic Law to keep when converting Gentiles to the new Christianity and as such does not compromise Gods voice. She should have realised that this too was in any case just dietary advice. She should have realised that the Bible she used was a corruption of the Bible mistranslated by The Watchtower Society. She should have realised that all Bibles are to a greater or lesser extent, similarly suspect. As such she should have realised that the bible's truth is not 100% literal and that believing that to be the case diminishes the bible. She should have realised that refusing blood transfusions is not required of a bible literalist as it is not explicitly mentioned in the bible but is instead an imposition placed upon her by the interpretations of fallible imperfect humans. She should have chosen to disobey her church and family by studying other bibles on her own and forming her own opinions. She should have realised that the bible and Christianity is all rather an outdated custom at odds with the empirical evidence gleaned from direct observation of reality. What's more she should have done all of this in an information vacuum enforced by threat of excommunication by a cult like organisation.

It sounds like a tall order but primary responsibility for doing so or not and living or dying with the consequences is hers.

Having said all that if Charles Manson can be imprisoned for brainwashing his followers into murder why does Kingdom Hall and the Watchtower enjoy exemption for their share in the responsibility for this and other similar deaths?

[AgeGap]

Jehovah's witnesses say there are at least 400 Bible references which prohibit them from receiving blood. from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/676301.stm
Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/790967.stm

[AgeGap]

Although I think one should get medical care when the situation warrants it and this sounds like it was certainly warranted where do we draw the line once we decide an individual no longer has the right to refuse treatment?

Fred

Vitamins and auditing.