JW's, blood, and harmful religious extremism...

Now listen to this line of crap about JW's and "autologous blood"....

"Jehovah's Witnesses refuse all allogenic blood products and any autologous blood that has been separated from the body. These proibitions do not prevent most Witnesses from accepting the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, dialysis, intraoperative blood salvage, and reinfusion. Although the casual observer may not discern a difference between these interventions and autologous blood that has been separated from the body, Jehovah's Witnesses distinguish acceptable therapy from unacceptable according to whether the diverted blood is still part of the circulatory system. In dialysis and cardiopulmonary bypass, blood remains part of the circulation. Autotransfusion devices can meet this test by dedicating an intravenous line from the collection device to the patient to mantain a closed circuit. Hemodiluition can be similary modified. (from the American Journal of Surgery".

Apparently use of blood to keep a JW alive is OK if it is kept in the "circulatory system" somehow, even through pumps and hoses outside the body. It is only seen as evil if it leaves the body and is stored somewhere for later reinfusion.

What utter nonsense! I believe in freedom of religion, but only if those religious practices do not do physical harm to people, including the practitioners. I would just as soon see JW's locked up and forced to take blood to keep them alive as I would see Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice stopped dead in their tracks. Believe what you want, but when those beliefs cause death to living people (as opposed to the unborn) these religious nuts must be stopped.

 

Hey Carl,

Just curious (and you know I am setting up a showdown), but do you support physician-assisted suicide or right-to-die legislation?

 

I do not support physician-assisted suicide, but I do support right-to-die legislation. So much for the showdown!

 

Originally Posted by Carl_Reginstein

Wait a minute, don't retreat so quickly. Why is it OK to commit suicide, but not OK to refuse medical treatment? Are you saying that the choice to die is acceptable as long as is NOT founded in religious belief? Or are you saying that only a person with a terminal condition has the mental facilty to make such a decision?

I agree with you that JWs are extreme in their position, but your position SEEMS conflicting, but I could certainly be wrong.

BTW -- The "showdown" comment was meant in jest. I am really interested in your take on this.

 

I do not believe that people have a "right to die" because of stupidity and adherence to beliefs that are harmful to their well being. I believe in "right to die" in those cases where the quality of the person in question's future life will be significantly reduced, not where someone just allows themself to fade away because of some unfounded belief that prevents them from accepting modern medical services.

Now we're getting to the showdown!

 

Re: Re: JW's, blood, and harmful religious extremism...

Well then I want the freedom to smoke pot every single day of my life, which is far less harmful to me than some whack job religious belief that prevents me from receiving appropriate medical treatment.

 

autologomachy kills...

"Casual observer" presumably means any reasonable medical personnel.

You know, it's easy to avoid discussions like this out of a stupid relativism analogous to "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."

But crap is crap.

Profound indifference to human suffering in the name of "religion" is out of sync with natural law (see Romans 1) and repugnant in every way to the Christian third use of the (Mosaic) Law--that is, as a guide to ethical behaviour.

This probably belongs on the other thread, but hey.

 

Carl,

First, let me establish that I believe JW position is wrong, but do agree with Steve that people must be given the choice to make stupid decisions as long as it does not cause harm to another AND one is willing to accept the circumstances.

You, for example, are certainly free to smoke pot everyday of your life if you so choose, as long as your willing to accept the consequences if you get caught. Freedom is freedom.

The same rule applies in your example. One is free to refuse medical treatment if willing to accept the consequences.

It may be an extreme postion, but there are many who believe some of my positions are extreme --- who gets to decide?

 

I do!

I do! You extremist you!

(yankin' your chain - thanks very much...)

 

Hey, I can work in any framework as long as I understand who is calling the shots.

Thanks for the lively debate!

 

Where is your primary source, Carl?

 

Who's next Carl, Unitarians, Scientologists, Quakers, Mormons, Christadelphians, Divine Science, Unity School of Christianity, Two Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinatarian Baptists, Pilgrim Holiness...?

 

I'm saving myself for the particular religion that you follow Jimmy. And what is that exactly?

 

Yes, in that order begining with Carl.

 

Christianity!

 

McIntyre?

 

Sagan.

 

Better choice since he had an affinity for Unitarianism and is one of the denoms I listed for Carl to attack.

 

Well, me too..... sort of, kind of. I'm the "lukewarm" kind that y'all want to spew from your mouth......