I have been debating on whether I wanted to make a post about this or not. A recent news story has inspired me to write something. This may be a long post.
A couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with one of my best friends about religion. Its a discussion we don't have all that often, and in general I don't discuss religion with too many friends of mine as a whole (theres one or two that I'll talk to about religion and some certain aspect that frustrates me). I'm not going to say too much on specifics what my friend and I talked about. The main theme of it was that on one aspect my friend believes in something that I don't agree with and I was trying to basically find out why
A couple things came from it. To a certain degree, it solidified my position on something that some religions (or denominations when it comes to Christianity) believe in. One of these is some of the beliefs as far as medical treatment. There have been many news stories lately in the news of some kid/teenager who died cause their parents decided to not get them treated. Instead, they prayed. One that has stuck through me is a girl who was around the age of I think 12, died from ketoacidosis (I believe) from diabetes. She was sick, her parents did not take her to the doctors for weeks and she ended up dying.
This type of thing is bullshit. We have come to a point in medical science that certain treatments are damn easy to administer. Getting a shot of insulin, while annoying (and if I had to do it I would be a bit pissy cause I'm not a fan of needles in general) is still far more preferable to dying. Her parents, make the decision for their daughter that instead of getting a simple fucking treatment, to let her die cause they wanted to pray and that would make things all better. Well guess what Sherlock, didn't work. And the sad thing is, most of the parents and people who run into this don't see what happened. They just say "I didn't pray hard enough" or "It was Gods will to take her life." No asshole, you murdered your kid.
A recent news story from South Africa http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20090220054001117C891248
The story is about a 12 year old who's battle with leukemia requires that she get a blood transfusion. She (as well as her parents) did not want it (they are Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that blood is bad, Acts 21 verse 25 is generally what they cite to justify this). However, the doctors basically said that if she did not get it, she would die. A court overruled the parents and basically forced the kid to get it.
To a certain degree I'm still torn on this. However, theres a couple of things. One, the parents I'm sure has indoctrinated their kid to say that blood is bad, they will be offending God if they get it and its wrong. Now, if you throw out the appeal to emotion there, whats the evidence that its bad. Not a damn thing I can tell. And thats pretty much what the court looks like they used. "Lets look at the real evidence on why someone would basically commit suicide by non treatment. There is none? Ok, then she gets it."
I happen to agree with the courts decision in this case. The kid is not really old enough, more than likely, to understand all the facts on blood transfusions and medical science that says why getting a transfusion is far better than dying. She is just parroting what her parents beliefs are without understanding the reality of the consequences. However, this is where I am torn, and goes back to my original discussion with my friend.
What if she was 18 and an adult. Should she have the right to refuse treatment, after considering the medical science and understanding the beliefs of the religion she was basically born into and forced on that would more than likely lead to her death. I would have to say Yes, if she were an adult we would have to allow her the right to refuse treatment. A part of me says "Fuck no, if you are refusing a simple treatment just cause you have faith in that it will either work out or you will go to heaven if you end up dying, then you are missing something and should be forced into treatment cause you are wrong." But I have to allow people to have the freedom of this. I think they are wrong, but if we start forcing adults into treatment than you run into a bully system in that the majority wins. And I also thing that until you are an adult, if your parents are basically killing you for their religion, the government should intervene to save them from their parents.
I realize to a certain extent its a bit hypocritical to say that adults have the right to do what they want to themselves but not to their kids. But lets put it this way. If I look at the hypothetical of if when I was a young kid and I got hurt, and my parents didn't want me to get a transfusion and I knew then what I know now I would have been pissed. Its a bit different if you are making decisions yourself vs for your kids.
I know this has been confusing but ill sum it up. If you are an adult I think you should have the right to make decisions for yourself on medical treatment. But I think that when it comes to your kids, there are some decisions that you can make and that the courts should be able to overrule you on depending on your reasons. If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it. Also for those that want to make decisions for themselves on not getting treatment, I would argue that people should try to convince that your reasoning may be flawed.
On a personal note, this is the part that I would have so much of a hard time with. If my friend decided that she did not want to get treatment for something as simple as a shot or blood transfusion and then died, I would be devastated. I liken it to if your significant other decided on doing something that got them killed (such as a police officer) there may be those who while allowing them to do that sort of job would still be very upset if they were killed on duty, and may still try to convince them to take a desk job.
On a semi related note, the recent news about the anti-vaccination crowd is a bit similar. Not really, they are bat shit crazy and need to be stopped. Most of them aren't referring necessarily to a religious aspect, its just misinformation and lies that reinforce their belief that vaccinations for example cause autism. BZZT wrong. In that vein, I do think that their kids should be forced to get vaccinations. By not having them, they put many others at risk. There is a difference here in that if you don't get treatment for say diabetes or a transfusion, you are affecting yourself. You deciding not to vaccinate your kids cause of some kooky belief that it causes autism even though all credible studies show thats not the case and that if your kid gets infected they run the risk of killing or at least making other sick, you lose.
Ok. Im done for now. I'm going to in the probably not too distant future writing something else that came up in my discussion with my friend in that why do I have such an issue with religion (which some of that is contained in this post) and also what is it that I in fact do believe in.
The Future of this Blog
7 months ago
15 comments:
"However, the doctors basically said that if she did not get it, she would die. A court overruled the parents and basically forced the kid to get it."
Can a doctor ever say that?
Or is it a case that the doctor wants a measure of 'breathing room' or room for error, so he states that without transfusion he will die because the doctor is not competent enough to treat him without transfusion and live.
And can it be said that without a transfusion he would die but with one he would live?
But parents should should make the decisions of medical treatment of children, but if it gets controversial, then it should be up to the state.
This is always an emotionally charged debate. People reason on the matter with good intentions and often righteous indignation, as if Jehovah's Witnesses are ill-informed or fanatical. Then, how can you explain the increase of bloodless surgery and entire hospital wings in the U.S. who use no blood at all? Obviously, blood is not a medicine and can be dangerous when used as such. In fact many recover from surgery despite a transfusion rather than because of it. Thanks to the Bible based stand on blood transfusuion many superior techniques are available. The average Witness knows far more about this subject than you might realise (and yes, there are doctors, nurses and surgeons amongst us). They are not jeapardizing their lives ot the children they love; they are demanding the best health care for them and it is available. Most countries now have hot-lines and our own training staff are available to educate hospital staff 24 hours per day about alternatives. I can't speak specifically about South Africa but I assume that is the case there as well. We value all life but we do not desperately place our emotion above God's law. We have confidence in all matters, that God knows best for us and time has proven Him right. It was he who inspired the Bible command in Romans 15:"28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” Jehovah's Witnesses have prospered by conscientiously adhering to God's standards. Their firm determination to obey God has benefitted general public and the entire health care industry; compromise would simply be a huge set-back for everyone.
thedude said -- "Can a doctor ever say that?"
Um, yes. That's what all the years of university were for......
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the most dangerous cult in the western world. They have killed thousands of people first because they said vaccinations were against God's law (they later changed their minds) then because they said organ transplants were against God's law (they later changed their minds) and now because they say blood transfusions are against God's law.
Imagine people DYING because they refused a vaccination or an organ transplant (or a blood transfusion) because their religion told them these were against God's law, and that accepting these things would cost them their eternal salvation, only to have the religion CHANGE IT'S MIND after the fact. How sad that a person threw their life away. I can only imagine how the surviving family members would feel.
How is this cult permitted to operate in a civilized world?!?
The craziest part is that the "prohibition" on blood mentioned in the Bible was specifically in regard to the EATING of ANIMAL blood (ie, ensuring the animal was properly bled after slaughtering). The Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower religion has turned this simple dietary restriction into an absolute prohibition on the TRANSFUSING of HUMAN blood.
"Um, yes. That's what all the years of university were for......"
So university makes them omniscient?
"Jehovah's Witnesses are the most dangerous cult in the western world."
Oh really? Based on your misinformation?
First, there was no ban on vaccinations or organ transplants. Because certain magazines printed against it does not make it a ban.
And if people died that is not the JWs fault.
"Imagine people DYING because they refused a vaccination or an organ transplant (or a blood transfusion) because their religion told them these were against God's law"
The religion did not tell them that.
"that accepting these things would cost them their eternal salvation,"
They never said that.
"only to have the religion CHANGE IT'S MIND after the fact."
The religion did not change its mind. I know that you can post copies of articles but the religion is not based on the Watchtower and Golden Age.
"I can only imagine how the surviving family members would feel."
To people of faith, they would feel that the problem of sin is what killed them.
"How is this cult permitted to operate in a civilized world?!?"
No cult at all.
"The Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower religion has turned this simple dietary restriction into an absolute prohibition on the TRANSFUSING of HUMAN blood. "
And it is wise because doctors agree that blood is bad.
>> "So university makes them omniscient?"
Omniscient? Wow, did I say that?? Don't think so. But it does qualify them to say that a person will die without treatment.
>> "Oh really? Based on your misinformation?"
Um, no. Based on the fact that the policies of the Watchtower religion have killed thousands of people.
>> "And if people died that is not the JWs fault."
Yes it is their fault, since they told their followers that by having life-saving treatment, they would be BREAKING GOD'S LAW AND FORFEITING THEIR ETERNAL FUTURE.
>> "The religion did not tell them that."
Yes they did tell them that. Go do some research instead of just parroting your cult leaders.
The Watchtower Society said that organ transplants were "CANNIBALISTIC" and that "Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh". (The Watchtower 11/15, 1967 p.702)
Notice that? Jehovah God "DID NOT GRANT PERMISSION". Ergo, against God's law.
>> "The religion did not change its mind."
Um, yes the Watchtower Society did change its mind. Originally they said that an organ transplant was CANNIBALISM and against God's law, then they said it was not cannibalism and not against God's law.
I wonder how many Jehovah's Witnesses died because they did not want to commit the sin of cannibalism?
How about transfusion of blood fractions? I suppose you think the Watchtower Society didn't change their mind on that either?
"Is God's law violated by these medical procedures that involve the use of blood? Is it wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? YES!" (The Watchtower, 2/15, 1963 p. 124)
"The entire modern medical practice involving the use of blood is objectionable from the Christian standpoint. Therefore the taking of a blood transfusion, or, in lieu of that, the infusing of some blood fraction to sustain one's life is wrong." (The Watchtower 11/1, 1961 p. 670)
But of course today the Watchtower Society says that the "infusing of some blood fraction" is NOT wrong, and that God's law is NOT violated by transfusing "the component parts of blood".
I wonder how many Jehovah's Witnesses died because they did not want to violate God's law by accepting a transfusion of the component parts of blood?
>> "No cult at all."
LOL! Nope! No cult at all.
"Based on the fact that the policies of the Watchtower religion have killed thousands of people."
A magazine publishing company's policies are irrelevant to the life or death of anyone.
It is true that taking blood transfusions is a violation of God's law. But it is not forever forfeiting everlasting life. Your information is flawed. It is no different than any other sin.
"Watchtower Society said that organ transplants were "CANNIBALISTIC" and that "Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh".
That is true that they said that. But that is not a ban. Canabalistic is not equal to thou shall not.
And just because the Watchtower says that does not mean that it is bad, you assume that all Jws follow the watchtower.
"Watchtower Society did change its mind. Originally they said that an organ transplant was CANNIBALISM and against God's law, then they said it was not cannibalism and not against God's law."
No, that was the opinion of Fred Franz, not the direction of the Governing body. But the fact is that people made choices. If there were ones that chose not to have transplants, that was their choice. That was not a religious mandate. Just saying that God did not give permission does not make it a law.
"I wonder how many Jehovah's Witnesses died because they did not want to commit the sin of cannibalism?"
I don't believe any did.
"How about transfusion of blood fractions? I suppose you think the Watchtower Society didn't change their mind on that either?"
Nope. You quote from 1961 & 63 but they did not have blood fractions of fractions back then. so it is irrelevant.
>> "That is true that they said that. But that is not a ban. Canabalistic is not equal to thou shall not."
Wow. You certainly will go to extreme lengths to defend your silly little cult.
The WTS has repeatedly said that cannibalism is a violation of God's law:
"No, for that would have been cannibalism and a violation of God’s law." (***bh p.207)
I feel sorry for you thedude. You are a simpleton and that must suck.
I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY CULT.
WHERE DO PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT JUST BECAUSE A WATCHTOWER SAYS SOMETHING THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES HAVE TO DO IT?
I don't believe that way about things. You need to open your minds more.
>> "WHERE DO PEOPLE GET THE IDEA THAT JUST BECAUSE A WATCHTOWER SAYS SOMETHING THAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES HAVE TO DO IT?"
You are either dishonest or you are not a Jehovah's Witness. If you are not, then stop your sorry attempts at representing their beliefs. You are doing a disservice to everyone here.
>> "I don't believe that way about things."
Good for you. I don't either. However, Jehovah's Witnesses do, and that is the issue.
"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower." (WT 11/1/31p327)
"The Watchtower is the channel which Jehovah, our God, is using at this time to instruct the faithful remnant who are keeping the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (WT 8/1/30p239)
"It has pleased the lord to use The Watchtower as a means of conveying his message to his covenant people." (WT 9/15/33p276)
"It is through the columns of The Watchtower that Jehovah provides direction and constant Scriptural counsel to his people." (WT 5/1/64p277)
Fred Franz said under oath (Olin Moyle case) that Jehovah is the editor of the Watchtower magazine.
"You are either dishonest or you are not a Jehovah's Witness. If you are not, then stop your sorry attempts at representing their beliefs. You are doing a disservice to everyone here."
Welcome to Dodge City dude. Because that was a great dodge of the question.
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I do not worship the Watchtower.
"Jehovah's Witnesses do, and that is the issue."
No, it is not the issue as you have made a choice, and I have and the rest have the right to make their choice.
Your quoting of the Watchtower only shows what has been printed. The fact that 50 years ago Rutherford wrote something does not make it the religion of Jehovah's witnesses.
>>>"Welcome to Dodge City dude. Because that was a great dodge of the question."
Read the following quotes from Watchtower Society. Again. And do it more slowly this time:
"The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in The Watchtower."
"The Watchtower is the channel which Jehovah, our God, is using at this time to instruct the faithful remnant who are keeping the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
To answer your question (again), the Watchtower religion teaches that the Watchtower mag is not the instrument of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the Watchtower. The Watchtower is the channel which God is using to instruct the faithful.
People "get the idea that just because a Watchtower says something that Jehovah's Witnesses have to do it" because the Watchtower Society says that what is printed in the Watchtower magazine COMES FROM GOD, NOT MEN.
I'll tell you what, Mister JW. How about you go to your elders tonight and tell them that you don't believe you have to follow what is printed in the Watchtower magazine and see where it gets you. K? While you're at it, tell them you don't believe that what's printed in the Watchtower magazine comes from God. And go ahead and tell them that when Fred Franz said UNDER OATH that Jehovah was the editor of the Watchtower magazine, you think he was LYING.
Then let me know when your judicial committee hearing is. I'll come out and support you.
incredible,
since you don't care about what the Watchtower society says, why are you quoting it?
"How about you go to your elders tonight and tell them that you don't believe you have to follow what is printed in the Watchtower magazine and see where it gets you."
Where do you get the idea that I have elders?
And where do you get the idea that people think that I have to follow what is printed anywhere?
I follow the Bible and it agrees with the Watchtower.
>>> "since you don't care about what the Watchtower society says, why are you quoting it?"
To prove a point. It's a generally understood concept. Sorry you're having trouble grasping it.
>>> "I follow the Bible and it agrees with the Watchtower."
The Watchtower says Jesus is an angel. The Bible says:
"God has never said to any of the angels, 'You are my Son, because today I have become your Father!' Neither has God said to any of them, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son!'. God never said to any of the angels, 'Sit at my right side until I make your enemies into a footstool for you!'" (Heb 1:5,13 CEV)
>>> "Where do you get the idea that I have elders?"
If you're a Jehovah's Witness then you have church elders and you're a liar for saying you don't. If you're not a Jehovah's Witness then you're a liar for saying you are in an earlier post. Either way you are a LIAR and I am done with you. Go play your childish cult-games elsewhere and stop wasting our time.
"Watchtower says Jesus is an angel. "
Really?
Do you even know what an angel is?
I didn't think so.
Since angel means messenger; and Jesus is a messenger for Jehovah, Jesus is Jehovah's angel.
But Jesus is not angel in that he was not among those myriads that were created to serve Jehovah. Jesus was Jehovah's son.
I don't have elders, the congregation I attend does. I am not accountable to them.
Post a Comment