Jehovah's witness battle: Health v. Religion

[greymatters]

Fighting the curse of the face-eating tumour

Thirty seven years ago, back when he was 14 years old, a bloody tumor appeared on Jose Mestre’s lip. Because of his religion (Jose is a Jehovah’s Witness) prohibition on blood transfusion and distrust of doctors, Jose refused to undergo surgery to remove the growths - until now.

Warning: Included photos and videos may be disturbing to some viewers.

Quote:

Unsuccessful and unhappy visits to Germany and Spain in search of medical care in his youth have left him with a distrust of doctors. This, combined with his loyalty to his mother’s faith, and concerns about life without the mask to which he has become accustomed, appear to have instilled Jose with a sullen fatalism about his condition.

His inertia has infuriated his close family, who do not share Jose’s religious beliefs. Jose himself, although a Jehovah’s Witness, does not attend any church.

During the consultation with Dr Hutchison in London, Jose’s sister Guida reacted with exasperation her brother’s initial reluctance to discuss the offer of a transfusion-free operation.

"Die alone, not with me. For me, finished," she cried, in dramatic footage to be broadcast for the first time this week. Guida shoulders much of the burden for caring for Jose.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

i am not surprised. but i think it just doesn't apply to witnesses. found my mother on the ground and she could barely breed since she stopped taking her diabetic medication.
she belongs to the pentecostal who also brainwashed people to keep the faith, because faith "heals" everything.
(or in the case of Jose, hardly anything.)

[Fizzer]

Just wanted to point out that Jehovah's Witnesses do not expect miraculous cures by not taking blood transfusions.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Just wanted to point out that Jehovah's Witnesses do not expect miraculous cures by not taking blood transfusions.

No, they fully expect their followers to die for the church. That's not really a point in their favor.

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by Irony

No, they fully expect their followers to die for the church. That's not really a point in their favor.

No JW's want to die. The whole religion centers around everlasting life. However, the belief is that there would be a trade-off. Disobey God and possibly gain a few more year now in this impefect system and then nothing else later; or obey God even if it means death now but is made up for by everlasting life later in a pefect world.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Never underestimate the power of indoctrination. It's the basis of the "religion is a viral meme" premise. The organisms dies while the virus self propagates.

[Henners]

Anything that "centers around" something else is sure to be iffy.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

No JW's want to die. The whole religion centers around everlasting life. However, the belief is that there would be a trade-off. Disobey God and possibly gain a few more year now in this impefect system and then nothing else later; or obey God even if it means death now but is made up for by everlasting life later in a pefect world.

I've no doubt that some of them truly want to die. That's their decision.

The problem I have is that the other members of the church also want them to die. They make sure that the person sacrifices themselves for the church either by giving up their life or giving up all their social ties. To those raised in such an environment, it's a choice between two forms of death when any non-evil institution would allow them to live. That is what I find to be morally reprehensible.

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by Irony

I've no doubt that some of them truly want to die. That's their decision.

The problem I have is that the other members of the church also want them to die.

Preposterous. For a JW to WANT another JW to die flies in the face of everything they stand for. JW's have at times searched high and low for alternative treatments and technologies. JW's have been a huge driving force behind the in the development of bloodless surgery techniques and blood alternatives, which benefit everyone. If they wanted to die, then there would be no care given to treatment alternatives.

When a JW dies by not accepting a blood transfusion it's considered a terrible tragedy, much the same as if they had been died in a car accident, from old age, slipping in the bath tub, by a crazed maniac assasin, or any other means of dying. Just because it's viewed as a potentially preventable death by those outside the religion doesn't make a difference to those within.

The thought being that when you're 500,000+ years old living in paradise conditions, will you lament the fact that you only lived 25 years in a corrupted imperfect world instead of 75 years?

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Just because it's viewed as a potentially preventable death by those outside the religion doesn't make a difference to those within.

Nonsense, it's not a matter of your point of view. Most of those deaths were potentially preventable. In many cases the probability of survival would have been near 100%, and yet a person would still be snubbed for choosing to live.

I don't care the least little bit about what beliefs they have that they use justify this mistreatment; it doesn't alter reality or make their behavior any less contemptible. The reality of the situation is that they could allow these people to live, they could try to convince them that committing suicide is not the answer, they could put a stop to these modern day human sacrifices, but they choose not to.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Preposterous. For a JW to WANT another JW to die flies in the face of everything they stand for. JW's have at times searched high and low for alternative treatments and technologies. JW's have been a huge driving force behind the in the development of bloodless surgery techniques and blood alternatives, which benefit everyone. If they wanted to die, then there would be no care given to treatment alternatives.

...and no judge has ever taken a sick child away from sicko JW parents who were quite prepared to let the kid die of a treatable condition.

Right.

How dare you pretend you've never heard of such a thing.

Are you the kind of sicko who would be against justice in a case like that?

[Skeptical Greg]

Auto accidents cause thousands of more deaths than Jw's refusal to accept
blood transfusions.( for themselves and their children )

Wouldn't it be much more worthwhile ( with regard to the saving of human lives ) to
remove children from the homes of JW's who allow their children to ride in automobiles?


Of course that's a silly idea on some levels, but I suggest it's more logical, from
a relativistic moral viewpoint, than forcing someone to undergo ( or have performed
on their children ) a medical procedure, that they have deemed counter to their
religious beliefs.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Auto accidents cause thousands of more deaths than Jw's refusal to accept
blood transfusions.( for themselves and their children )

Wouldn't it be much more worthwhile ( with regard to the saving of human lives ) to
remove children from the homes of JW's who allow their children to ride in automobiles?

The number of deaths isn't an issue. Many more people die of heart disease than murder, but that doesn't make giving someone an ice cream bar a worse crime than slitting their throat.

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Of course that's a silly idea on some levels, but I suggest it's more logical, from
a relativistic moral viewpoint, than forcing someone to undergo ( or have performed
on their children ) a medical procedure, that they have deemed counter to their
religious beliefs.

I'm not advocating forcing life saving procedures on adults (although I absolutely do advocate forcing them on children). I'm saying that the churches are intentionally driving people to suicide. How can that be acceptable behavior in any civilized society?

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by Henners

...and no judge has ever taken a sick child away from sicko JW parents who were quite prepared to let the kid die of a treatable condition.

Right.

How dare you pretend you've never heard of such a thing.

Where did I pretend to never hear of such a thing? Nothing I said had anything to do with court cases or judges.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Of course that's a silly idea on some levels, but I suggest it's more logical, from
a relativistic moral viewpoint, than forcing someone to undergo ( or have performed
on their children ) a medical procedure, that they have deemed counter to their
religious beliefs.

You are of course welcome to that opinion, and you can keep it.

Child abuse under the guise of religious belief is a common event in the world, sadly.

Personally, I'd lock up the perps and throw away the key.

But hey, that's just a moral standpoint. What would I know about religion?

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

Where did I pretend to never hear of such a thing? Nothing I said had anything to do with court cases or judges.

No?

Quote:

For a JW to WANT another JW to die flies in the face of everything they stand for

Some of them are perfectly content to neglect their own kids to the point of death rather than see them cured of curable things.

It has something to do with court cases and judges just around about the child abuse stage - whether you like it or not.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Irony

....
I'm not advocating forcing life saving procedures on adults (although I absolutely do advocate forcing them on children). I'm saying that the churches are intentionally driving people to suicide. How can that be acceptable behavior in any civilized society?

Shall we make a list of ( seemingly ) acceptable atrocious ( life threatening ) behavior in civilized societies all over the world?

Picking out your personal favorites, is like the animal rights people who seem to only be concerned with the welfare of cute animals; dolphins, pandas, baby seals & etc..

It's easier to focus on a specific ( relatively small ) group of people, who practice a belief that may result in the death of an even relatively smaller number of people.

Parents make life and death decisions about their children all the time with little or no consequences..
Think of the lives that would be saved if we just said no to swimming..

But, like I said, it's easier to focus on something like this JW transfusion issue, and feel morally superior , somehow..

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

No JW's want to die. The whole religion centers around everlasting life. However, the belief is that there would be a trade-off. Disobey God and possibly gain a few more year now in this impefect system and then nothing else later; or obey God even if it means death now but is made up for by everlasting life later in a pefect world.

Right. Everlasting life in a perfect world? This is a church that has around 7 million members, goes door to door trying to find new recruits, yet believes that ONLY 144,000 will get to experience that perfect world?

Do the math. At current membership levels, if the JWs are right and if the world were to end today, about 1 out of every 48 JWs are going to get into heaven. That's of course is not counting the billions of otherwise good and honest people who have every lived who will be made to burn in hell for not belonging in the "right" religion. (Nice fellow, this "God" person, eh?)

Not every body who plays the JW's game to the letter is going to win eternity in paradise. So, who's going to win God's cosmic lotto and get into heaven while everyone else gets to fry in the fires of Gehenna (where the worm dies not)? Given the odds, wouldn't it make more sense to try to extend this "imperfect" life in the here and now than die and STILL face eternal damnation regardless of your beliefs because you somehow didn't make God's A list?

Not that I believe in any of this, or any other, religious horse crap.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Of course that's a silly idea on some levels, but I suggest it's more logical, from
a relativistic moral viewpoint, than forcing someone to undergo ( or have performed
on their children ) a medical procedure, that they have deemed counter to their
religious beliefs.

Yeah, I'm really broken up about saving a kid from a curable condition because the procedure would violate the barbaric supersticions of their primitive screw-head parents.

Boo *********** hoo.

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by Henners

Some of them are perfectly content to neglect their own kids to the point of death rather than see them cured of curable things.

It has something to do with court cases and judges just around about the child abuse stage - whether you like it or not.

I'm perfectly aware there have been numerous court cases surrounding this issue. A blood transfusion is not a guranteed cure for one. And JW parents will often search high and low for the best possible medical care for their children as long as transfusions are avoided.

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by Mark A. Siefert

Right. Everlasting life in a perfect world? This is a church that has around 7 million members, goes door to door trying to find new recruits, yet believes that ONLY 144,000 will get to experience that perfect world?

Do the math. At current membership levels, if the JWs are right and if the world were to end today, about 1 out of every 48 JWs are going to get into heaven. That's of course is not counting the billions of otherwise good and honest people who have every lived who will be made to burn in hell for not belonging in the "right" religion. (Nice fellow, this "God" person, eh?)

For JW's the pefect new world is earth, not heaven. Earth the way it was intended to be before sin and death entered into the world, the home for mankind. The 144,000 is just for heaven. If you ask any random JW if they're hoping to go to heaven after dying, they will almost certainly answer, "no". There are only a few thousand JW's alive at the moment who are part of that 144,000. The desire of everyone else is for perfect life on earth, this could be millions or potentially billions people eventually.

Quote:

Not every body who plays the JW's game to the letter is going to win eternity in paradise. So, who's going to win God's cosmic lotto and get into heaven while everyone else gets to fry in the fires of Gehenna (where the worm dies not)? Given the odds, wouldn't it make more sense to try to extend this "imperfect" life in the here and now than die and STILL face eternal damnation regardless of your beliefs because you somehow didn't make God's A list?

Again, you have little knowledge of JW beliefs. JW's do not believe in an eternal hellfire torture. You're either alive or dead. There is no immortal soul, no consiousness for those who are dead according to the Bible.

[Irony]

Originally Posted by Diogenes

Shall we make a list of ( seemingly ) acceptable atrocious ( life threatening ) behavior in civilized societies all over the world?

Picking out your personal favorites, is like the animal rights people who seem to only be concerned with the welfare of cute animals; dolphins, pandas, baby seals & etc..

It's easier to focus on a specific ( relatively small ) group of people, who practice a belief that may result in the death of an even relatively smaller number of people.

Parents make life and death decisions about their children all the time with little or no consequences..
Think of the lives that would be saved if we just said no to swimming..

But, like I said, it's easier to focus on something like this JW transfusion issue, and feel morally superior , somehow..

The two are not the same, no matter how much you try to make it seem so. To use you're swimming analogy, denying a child a blood transfusion is like a parent who was just told that their child is drowning ordering that the child not be taken out of the pool.

[Henners]

Originally Posted by Fizzer

I'm perfectly aware there have been numerous court cases surrounding this issue. A blood transfusion is not a guranteed cure for one. And JW parents will often search high and low for the best possible medical care for their children as long as transfusions are avoided.

One man's idea of child abuse to the point of murder, is another's religious buffoonery.

Welcome to the whacky world of the witnessers!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Irony

The two are not the same, no matter how much you try to make it seem so. To use you're swimming analogy, denying a child a blood transfusion is like a parent who was just told that their child is drowning ordering that the child not be taken out of the pool.

Worshipers of Poseidon should have the right to do that ...