Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Jehovah's Witness Parents Refuse Sextuplits Blood Transfusion
Posted 01 February 2007 - 06:24 PM
Video By Me: Soon to be here
Please, discuss the stupidity.
Posted 01 February 2007 - 06:56 PM
The Bible forbids poly/cotton blends.
If these people are serious about following the teachings of their Imaginary Bearded Sky Daddy, then they will not be wearing poly/cotton blends to their children's funeral.
Posted 01 February 2007 - 07:09 PM
I would be the first one to say openly that these JWs are out of their minds and should be locked up, but they have rights just like everyone else and if a person truly believes in religious freedom then they should be allowed to practice their stupid religiion as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 12:44 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 01:31 PM
This is a subject that many disagree with me on. I think the parents, however delusional, should have the right to seek whatever treatment they so desire...
I think it is extremely dangerous to give parents complete autonomy. There have to be limits on parental rights...there just does. Otherwise you find yourself back in days of little boys with belt buckle scars on their backs and little girls getting nightly visits from daddy while neighbors and teachers cluck their tongues and say "What can you do...can't tell 'em how to raise their kids."
If one of those kids showed up in school with a black eye that mommy gave them, CPS would storm the premises. Why is that different from refusing medical care? A black eye is a felony, but letting them die on a gurney untreated is parental prerogative?
There is a difference between irresponsible parenting (feeding your kids McDonalds, leaving them unsupervised, plopping them down in front of the television all day) and endangerment. Letting your child suffer in the throes of a terrible illness without treatment is the ultimate breach of the responsibility a parent has to their child.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 02:12 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:06 PM
They should have the right to refuse treatment for themselves as adults, but we're talking little kids who were at the complete mercy of their parents for medical care. These people directly harmed other people (their kids) by witholding life-saving treatment that the kids couldn't have gotten otherwise. These kids didn't ask to have delusional dumbasses for parents, nor were they old enough to be able to decide to refuse treatment themselves. If I had parents like that, and I had actually survived to adulthood, I'd sue them for possible permanant physical damage and for denying me the chance to get needed medical treatment.
The parents should at least be charged with negligence and manslaughter. The two babies that died shortly after birth died from complications unrelated to the blood transfusion mess, although the parents were still responsible for their deaths:
[quote]Court documents show the parents had a strained relationship with the doctors assisting the birthing process and that the father repeatedly rejected suggestions from medical experts that aborting two of the fetuses could give the remaining four a better chance of living....All of the babies were 15 weeks premature and weighed less than 2.2 pounds each.[/quote]
IMHO, these people do not deserve to have kids. They have already demonstrated gross negligence in caring about their offsprings' wellbeing even before birth, putting their personal religious beliefs above the safety of other people (individuals with no voice!). Hang their religious freedoms and take their kids away; they have already failed in their capacity as responsible parents.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 04:56 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 05:00 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 05:13 PM
Posted 02 February 2007 - 05:21 PM
I see where you are coming from but the question arises, when and where does it stop? Who is to say which is the correct treatment?
The correct treatment should be considered by those men and women who have spent years being clinically trained. I fail to see how chanting "Ommmm" at the misty sky can be considered an acceptable treatment choice. If you can show me a medical degree in the name of Christ, Jesus H MD from a nationally accredited medical university, I will gladly allow religious maniacs to consult him for treatment.
And I think the Schiavo example misses the mark. While I agree that such a case is a legal and ethical quagmire, the woman clearly had no hope for clinical recovery. Her case was a social (and religious) one...not a medical one. These little babies may very well have had 70 healthy productive years with the help of readily available medical technology.
The concern of excessive authoritarian control is a legitimate one, but in this case it sort of comes off sounding like "Well, if they won't let us leave our kids to die, which of our freedoms are next?!?!", which I know you don't mean, but you can see how it might sound like that. When the imminent safety/survival of children is at stake...I'm sorry. Somebody has got to come forward if the parents will not.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:23 PM
The correct treatment should be considered by those men and women who have spent years being clinically trained.
Again though the question comes up who is to decide which doctors are clinically trained? Get three doctors in a room and it would be very easy to get three opinions.
I fail to see how chanting "Ommmm" at the misty sky can be considered an acceptable treatment choice. If you can show me a medical degree in the name of Christ, Jesus H MD from a nationally accredited medical university, I will gladly allow religious maniacs to consult him for treatment.
I thought I made it clear that I don't support these people in their ignorance but apparently you didn't read my statement. We all agree about them being wrong in their decision because of their religious convictions. That's a given. What I am trying to say is WHO is going to decide? Do we make the doctors judges? How do we enforce such situations? Do we want the courts and police involved in medical decisions? What about the right wing republican judge that believes the parents are correct in their thinking?
The problem isn't if the babies should have had whatever treatment was necessary to keep them alive. The problem is who do WE put in charge of making that decision? Having had to make that decision on more than one occasion I can tell you there is nothing that you will ever have to do that is so traumatic.
I was personally the victim of medical blundering and was predicted to die by "qualified" doctors. I was rescued by my family from the hospital and treated with traditional medicines and practices and recovered. Had the courts stepped in and stopped them from treating me with sweat lodges and herbal teas, in all likelyhood I would have died. So it has always been an issue with me as to who is right and who has the last word. The "wrong or right" of it can be debated forever, but the decision as to who has that authority . . that is where it all breaks down.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 07:44 PM
The "wrong or right" of it can be debated forever, but the decision as to who has that authority . . that is where it all breaks down.
I guess we'll have to agree to part ways on this one. Again, on the subject of "judges", each case should be given its own consideration. Your personal case is an anomaly. 99 times out of 100 these children die of their illnesses. The issues of "who should decide" and passively allowing your child to die are two entirely different species of animal. Even in your own case, there were at least some medicinal alternatives prescribed by the tribal healers. This is totally different. This is a simple case of "Okay Jesus, heal him............NOW! Darn, that didn't work. Okay.......NOW! Still nothing. Okay....." That is simply NOT an acceptable medical alternative in my opinion, and all the fears of authoritarian influence, justified or not, will not soothe my anger at seeing these morons stand idly by with their eyes glazed over in rapture as another little baby dies untreated.
Rich, this ain't between you and me, but between the two sides. I'm going to let it go now because I tend to lose my ability to stay rational when I see children dying needlessly.
Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:22 PM
When it comes to death, perhaps I have seen too much and it does tend to askew my views and harden my heart a bit more than what would be considered normal. I have seen and ashamedly been apart of so much chaos throughout the world that I often forget how precious life is and tend to look at subjects like this in a cold and almost businesslike manner, forgetting the awful truth beneath.
We can agree though that these parents are both total fuckin idiots and should be locked in a portable toilet and set afire. Right?
Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:30 PM
I'm very happy that you survived. However, in your case, you were a consenting adult who had the right to make decisions about his own medical care. It would have been wrong and illegal for the doctors/courts to force you to stay in the hospital against your will.
My point is that little kids who are helpless to their situations and their parent's whims need to be advocated for in scenarios like this. It would be in the children's best interest for them to be placed with another family, at least temporarily, as their parents have shown their willingness to let their children die in the name of god's will.
I totally understand where you're coming from, though, and it's a hard debate. I was recently talking with a group of women about criminalizing pregnancy outcomes, and whether women who had stillborn or deformed babies should be prosecuted. I took the stance of if the mother knows she's pregnant, decides to keep it, and willfully engages in self-destructive behaviors with the resulting deformed/brain-damaged child, she should have that child taken away. But it's a slippery slope argument too; should pregnant women who are caught smoking/drinking/shooting up heroin be strapped to a table for the duration of their pregnancies and forced to give the baby up once it's born? When will that ultimately lead to forcing all pregnant women to go live in "homes" where govt. appointed staff can keep an eye on them?
I do think the govt. goes too far in intruding on complex emotional decisions made by families and forcing people to undergo medical treatment for their own good, especially when a cognisant adult has made his/her wishes clear regarding end-of-life decisions. Who gets to make the decisions about what's best for somebody? Only that person. But what if they can't speak up for themselves?
I guess it's the line between responsibility and personal liberties, but I believe that someone's got to speak up for kids/disabled/elderly people who are being abused for whatever reason (including well-meaning but delusional religious people), and in our society, for better or worse, we've delegated that task to the govt. in the form of social services. When your actions/beliefs affect innocent people in a negative way, authority does need to step in, else who will?
Posted 02 February 2007 - 09:47 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users