I'm curious of your opinion - page 5

On another board a group of people are discussing a case. It's about a 25 week premature baby needing a blood transfusion. The family refused the blood transfusion. The court's interceded and... Read More

  1. by   Nittlebug
    This is a difficult subject and some of us have mixed feelings. Letting someone die is very painful for anyone involved.

    I've read alot of bible scriptures in my life and have read all your posts. Some of you who support the parent's decision are religious. Christians, Christian Scientists, or JWs.

    I also support the parents decision, but not for religious reasons.

    I respect and honor the religious beliefs of others because I am a nurse and that is my job. I am more of a naturalist myself. We prolong life for the sake of prolonging life, and that's ok if it's what the patient or the patient's family wants, but death is a part of Life. It is a natural process. Especially for a 25 week old premie. If the parents can except that, why can't we as nurses support that decision to let the child die a natural death?

    Getting the courts involved is wrong. Besides, if it is truely a religious decision the courts should never override that !! Unless the child is old enough to understand the situation and make a decision for himself.

    If we did everything we could to keep every human being alive, we just wouldn't have the resources. Death is a part of life. The real issue in this case is that it's painful for us to see + deal with. Our Pain ! So we are the selfish ones. The nurses and the doctors. Let us learn to support eachother and nurture one another so that we can work through these difficult situations appropriately. Support the decisions of the parents. Religious or not...
  2. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    JW,
    Well geeze, I sure thought it was Paul this whole time. It's been about 25 years since I picked up a bible so I think it's remarkable (ginko biloba not withstanding) that I even remember it was the new testament. You would not believe how much I would have sounded like you. I also loved to open up a little can 'o spiritual whupass on people with my ready-made arguments.
    Think of what your saying JW. If what you've got there is truly Gods' word then all of us "blood people" are going straight to hell, all the patients we've given blood("do not take blood" the letter of the Law) are going with us. Folks that like a rare steak.....gone. Most everyone working for the Red Cross.......out of here. Anyone that transports(takes blood) to anywhere.....fried.Those that work in Hematology REPENT!
    "I tried to live a good life but giving people blood caused them to sin and now I'm screwed" (two nurse managers talking in hell).

    If you spend your life wringing your hands in the shadow of an angry god you'll have wasted it.

    Now about answering me in a direct manner.
    I posed an analogy about a baby whos' parents were dirt eaters. I realize it's not as common as JW parents, but they do exist so how do you avoid being a hypocrite without feeding them the dirt?
    I also posed a yes or no question. You could even cut and paste everything I said here and still have room for that one.

    None the less, my veiw of religiouse zealot has been quantified.
    As a result of these discussions I have a much better understanding of your culture. The internet was'nt around 20 years ago but I'm sure it would have been considered an idol anyway.
    I only studied the doctrine of religions that was contradictory to either the bible or contradicted their own doctrine for the pupose of slaying them with the mighty sword of rightiousness. The discussions were'nt very long and this is the longest I've ever had with a JW.
    You'd be suprised of what little people know even about their own religion, or maybe not. Anyway, those were the days........sigh
  3. by   RyanRN
    JW, reading your posts I am get the distinct impression that you are 'right' and any 'christian who disagrees with your interpretation is 'wrong' or ' chooses not to accept the word of God'. That comes across as neither open minded nor tolerant. Something that I and many others here have stessed that we try to be in regards to your doctrines and medical practices.

    I was under the impression that the bible was 'stories' not first hand accounts, written in the style of the day to communicate to a vastly uneducated people the goodness of God and a wholsome way to live. Stories, open to interpretation. And some of them are butes, that cannot, shouldnot be taken literally.

    Of the ten commandments. Do not murder. Period, End of discussion. No.

    How would you explain defending yourself, your family, or killing someone in the time of war (war is wrong, but people are called to be there nevertheless) My point being, there can be exceptions.
  4. by   JW-HLC
    Easy things first ... "Folks that like a rare steak.....gone"
    Rare, medium, well done - no problem, as long as the animal was properly (and we hope humanely) slaughtered. It was never necessary to to remove all molecules of blood from food (technically impossible for the Israelites of course) - remember Leviticus 17:13,14 (quoted in my previous posting). Just for the record I love a good steak and prefer it medium to well done; for your interest I also enjoy liver and onions.

    ""I tried to live a good life but giving people blood caused them to sin and now I'm screwed" (two nurse managers talking in hell)."

    "Hell" from the Greek "Hades" which means the common grave of mankind to which all dead people go (as opposed to the common misconception of a fiery place where people are tortured - something that God would never do!).

    "Think of what your saying JW. If what you've got there is truly Gods' word then all of us "blood people" are going straight to hell, all the patients we've given blood("do not take blood" the letter of the Law) are going with us"

    It is not for me to judge anyone, judgment rests with God alone - I would point you to some words that WERE from Paul, at Romans 10:2 "For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge". So people may think that they are doing a good thing, but in Gods view it may not be good. The one thing that we can be assured of is that God will never give adverse judgement against anyone unless it is deserved. 2 Peter 3:9 says "He (God) is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance".

    "If you spend your life wringing your hands in the shadow of an angry god you'll have wasted it.
    Life in this system is not really life, I don't wring my hands neither do Iknow an angry God. I know a God who is so loving that He allowed his son to die for me (and you). I don't know if your are a father like me. if you are I will leave you to cosider what sort of love would allow that! The real life is what is spoken of in Revelation 21:4 "and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." and yes. I am really looking forward to the fulfillment of that promise (no more doctors, nurses necessary!!!).

    "I posed an analogy about a baby whos' parents were dirt eaters"
    I know that you did, the bible doesn't have anything specifically to say about dirt-eating, so I have no view scripturally (though I wouldn't like to see it being performed on any of my grand-children). However there is a view amongst some professionals that the reason that we have so much disease today is that our homes and environments are so "clean" that children lack the resistance to disease which contact with "dirt" provides. Maybe your Amazonian parents are not so foolish!
    Whatever the situation I would take the view that you should do your utmost to accomodate the parents wishes.

    "DO YOU THINK I SHOULD TAKE YOUR DIRECTIONS FOR TEATMENT TO PRECLUDE MY MEDICAL TRAINING DISREGARDING WHAT I SEE AS LIFE THREATENING INACTION?"

    Yes/No answer = YES

    Qualified answer = I believe that you should do your utmost to save the child without recourse to blood. You should use all of your skill rather than rely on the safety net of blood. If you cannot provide a bloodless alternative you should refer the patient as quickly as possible to avoid iatrogenic hazard. I would not ask you to do anything that your conscience would preclude, I expect the same from you.

    Now come on - answer my questions please!

    Your original post and subsequent comments were based on the desire to save a young life despite the wishes of the parents - "screw the parents" were your words. Let me give you another couple of scenarios and test just how firm your resolve to save life is, taking all religious references away:-

    1)
    A married woman comes to you because she does not want her 24 week foetus to be born, it is the product of adultery, her husband does not know of it because he is away from home and having it will disrupt her family life. You do not know her religious beliefs - do you kill the unborn child?

    2)
    A couple come to you because the woman is pregnant at 44 years of age and they are concerned that they will have a Down's Syndrome baby and will abort if it shows to be such. You know miscarriage is at about 5% risk for carrying out an Amnioscentisis test at her age and that statistically for every Down's Syndrome pregnancy discovered 4 normal foetuses will be miscarried. Do you carry out the test?
  5. by   JW-HLC
    "I am get the distinct impression that you are 'right' and any 'christian who disagrees with your interpretation is 'wrong' or ' chooses not to accept the word of God'
    Romans 3:4 "let God be found true, though every man be found a liar"
    What I say is basically irrelevant. what God says is the all important thing. I believe that anyone ignoring God's word IS wrong but it is for God to deal with that matter.

    "That comes across as neither open minded nor tolerant. Something that I and many others here have stessed that we try to be in regards to your doctrines and medical practices."
    Open-minded? Well you prove to me that God is wrong and I will listen to you, through my study of His Word I believe that I (in common with other JW's) have found the truth. Now ask yourself - how many truths can there be? ... Surely a thing is either true or false.
    I am tolerant in that I (like all JW's) live in the society in which we live, we help our neighbours, pay our taxes and live by the law. (We even contribute privately to funds for medical equipment etc, but that is not generally advertised). In addition to this we try to help out neighbours to find God.
    I do not agitate against the Roman Catholics or the Moslems etc. I merely tell what I know of God's word. If that comes across as intolerant or narrow-minded, would you rather I was a hypocrite and compromise what I believe to be true? Surely not.

    I do not tell you how you should medically treat non-JW's nor do I insist others avoid blood, nor do I picket the blood transfusion service. For me and mine I ask you to observe our requirement for non-blood. If you cannot do that I will respect you for withdrawing and refering me (or mine) to someone else who will. I do not want you to do anything for me that causes you a problem with your conscience.

    "How would you explain defending yourself, your family, or killing someone in the time of war (war is wrong, but people are called to be there nevertheless) My point being, there can be exceptions."
    I do not need to explain that because I would not go to war - can you imagine Jesus going to war? Can you imagine Him taking a gun and shooting the Apostle James, or John - or bombing those little children of whom he said "Suffer the little children to come to me.? JW's do not go to war because killing is condemned by God.

    "I was under the impression that the bible was 'stories' not first hand accounts, written in the style of the day to communicate to a vastly uneducated people the goodness of God and a wholsome way to live. Stories, open to interpretation. And some of them are butes, that cannot, shouldnot be taken literally."
    Many people view the bible as just some good stories, a suggestion of a good way to live. JW's do not view it that way. We view the bible as Gods word, His instructions (not just guidance) for mankind. We believe that God requires us to live by His laws and failure to do so will mean that we will fail to enter into His Kingdom (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Jesus died to provide forgiveness for our sins - if it was just a good guide for living, why on earth would God have allowed His son to die for us?
  6. by   Peeps Mcarthur
    Then you would feed the baby dirt even though it's clearly not accepted medical practice. I hope you plan to do proper handwashing and don gloves
    But, where else did you have to go with it?
    I think the practices outlined in the Leviticus excerpt exclude it from being eaten JW. Anyhooo, it did'nt say "most of the blood", or "drain blood to taste then broil for twenty minuets" It said "drain the blood" but I don't think it's in that context anyway. That would take a lexicon to know.
    A description of Hell is in the Book of Revelations. I'm not sure if I spelled it correctly but you can't miss it there in the back of the Bible.
    "Wailing and nashing of teeth" and "falling eternaly into utter darkness" would make it a tinsy bit more penal than the very popular Hades boat ride with a minion or Purgatory of famed Roman Catholic collection plate of lore.
    "1)
    A married woman comes to you because she does not want her 24 week foetus to be born, it is the product of adultery, her husband does not know of it because he is away from home and having it will disrupt her family life. You do not know her religious beliefs - do you kill the unborn child? "

    "2)
    A couple come to you because the woman is pregnant at 44 years of age and they are concerned that they will have a Down's Syndrome baby and will abort if it shows to be such. You know miscarriage is at about 5% risk for carrying out an Amnioscentisis test at her age and that statistically for every Down's Syndrome pregnancy discovered 4 normal foetuses will be miscarried. Do you carry out the test? "

    #1..........There is no medical basis to perform the abortion. You should have thrown in that the husband is a pedifile or maybe she has genital warts or RH +, HIV?...something.

    2)
    Statistics vary. So do attitudes. I'm not familiar with the medical advantage of the results from the amniocentesis although I do know it's not to be performed before the 15th week. Thier attitude about an unknown is understandable but not yet relevent.



    I have to go to work. would you enlighten me as to the advantages to the outcome? I"ll look it up tomorrow. As you can tell I'm not very fond of OB or pediatrics and as a result don't study it much. If you know, post me.
    Last edit by Peeps Mcarthur on Jan 18, '02
  7. by   RyanRN
    But you failed to explain killing someone is self defense , someone who is trying to kill you?


    And you quote as fact in defense of my question that what you or your Elders have interpreted from the bible is indeed fact ,this is circular reasoning.That seems redundant. Believing the Bible as literal fact, not taking into account my point of why and how and who wrote the Bible is your comfort zone and right for you. This does not automically negate anothers point of view or make them wrong for 'choosing' to accept the'written word of God. This isa judgment, one that I personally cannot make of another person so readily.

    ---"Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): claiming that an idea should be considered valid because there is nothing to prove otherwise. "

    One final note, very rarely in this world are things just black or white, true or untrue, again a doctrine for which you live by and I appreciate but do not understand. Hence our debate.
  8. by   JW-HLC
    "And you quote as fact in defense of my question that what you or your Elders have interpreted from the bible is indeed fact, this is circular reasoning"

    To what do you refer? I have quoted the scriptures, you may not choose to believe them but that doesn't make them wrong and you right.

    "Believing the Bible as literal fact, not taking into account my point of why and how and who wrote the Bible is your comfort zone and right for you."

    I believe that the "comfort zone" is with those who like to choose what parts of the bible they will believe. That way anything that they feel uncomfortable about they can ignore as being "open to interpretation" or "just a good story". Believing in God's word means accepting the things that are difficult as well as the things that are easy. Jesus spoke of the christian road as "narrow" and "cramped" and that few would find it, whereas many would be on the "broad road leading to destruction". (Matthew 7:14) He also said, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven". (Matthew 7:20)

    It is certainly right for me - as for comfort zone, yes and no. It is a comfort to know God and His promises for the future, but it has rarely been a comfort to practice His laws, it brings problems, it means making sacrifices and it means being a target for peoples abuse and derision. Such has always been the case for Christ's followers, but then didn't he say, "If you belonged to the world it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you." Such is still the case today.
    I do not say that everyone else should do as I do, but I do endeavour to help them to learn of God and experience the joy that that brings.

    "This does not automically negate anothers point of view or make them wrong for 'choosing' to accept the'written word of God. This isa judgment, one that I personally cannot make of another person so readily"

    I do not negate anothers point of view - I enjoy listening to the points of view of others. In nearly 30 years of going from door-to-door I have listened to many points of view, some of which have caused me to do quite a bit of research and study!
    Please understand that I do not judge anyone, as I said in another posting judgment rests with God and God alone. For me, I believe entirely the written word of God, I believe that it has been written so that man (and of course woman) can search for Him and learn about Him in such a way that a personal relationship can be built up with Him - (remember how Abraham came to be called "God's friend"). I believe that the Creator of the Universe has the wisdom and power to have His Word preserved so that it is available for both you and me to understand if we so desire.
    I do not say you have to believe that but I hope that you will because I believe it to be so vitally important for you and I wish good things for you. (After all you are my brother/sister as we are all descended from Adam & Eve).

    "Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): claiming that an idea should be considered valid because there is nothing to prove otherwise."

    I would respectfully deny arguing from ignorance and I would dispute the lack of evidence. The evidence of God is all around us but sadly we are often too preoccupied to notice it much less reason on it. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse".
    Did you really imagine that I would waste nearly 30 years on a "whim" that so affected my life and the life of my family and which could lead me to putting my life on the line. Let me tell you that it took me a long time to examine the evidence and establish it to be true for myself. It took me several years of bible study to come to the point where I was satisfied that the evidence was overwhelming and became a JW. I have reviewed and reconsidered the evidence many times since that time and it has only strengthened my faith.

    "One final note, very rarely in this world are things just black or white, true or untrue"
    "in the world" that is true, but with God it is not true. With God there is only true and as the bible tells us "... it is impossible for God to lie ..."

    "But you failed to explain killing someone is self defense , someone who is trying to kill you"

    On the matter of self-defence Jesus said "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
    The Apostle Paul said, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay' says the Lord."
    In the case of a direct (face to face) life-threatening attack on either myself or any member of my family I believe I have the right to use whatever force is necessary to prevent that attack taking place. That does not give me the right to chase him afterwards and kill him or to take the law into my own hands - that action would be for the law of the land.
  9. by   RyanRN
    Firstly, JW, 'whatever force is necessary' could very well mean murder,you skirt the question. No one said 'chase' anyone down, you put words into my mouth. Thusly, murder is murder and you say NO, not ever, then change your mind which I think is the 'grey' part of my argument.

    Any quotes I refer to are you quoting the Bible which is YOUR acceptance of it as the sole truth. As I said twice noone has proven that God sat and handwrote or dictated the Bible to anyone. It was written by wise and good men I am sure, but to spread the word of the Lord, in the manner of the time. You infer that I or people who question, like me, 'pick and choose' and therefore will not be saved. That is not what I said. I said you and the elders of JW have 'interpreted' what you need. There are so many translations with various language difficuties during that translation that yes the Bible must indeed be interpreted. But just one religion only cannot be right. That is what the catholic religion used to profess, that they were 'the one true church',truly educated and spiritual people just don't buy it. There are literal religions that worship with dangerous snakes, because 'it is written. JW were wrong in 1975 when they counted literal time in the bible and said the world would end. It was then reinterpreted, things just arent' literal or black and white That is what I am talking about.

    The original topic was regarding one of support or forcing transfusions on minors. I have tried to keep an open mind with regard to anothers religious preferences and belief system. You infer that your (Gods) way is the ONLY way, so in conclusion, I feel I try to be openminded, (for whateve reasons)you do not.
  10. by   fergus51
    Doesn't every religion believe their way is the right way Ryan? And no religion can be proven, that's why it's called faith. I don't understand why you find that so bothersome.
  11. by   RiinaLiblik
    Originally posted by askater
    On another board a group of people are discussing a case.

    It's about a 25 week premature baby needing a blood transfusion. The family refused the blood transfusion. The court's interceded and the courts ordered the hospital to give the baby the blood transfusion.

    What is your feeling? Should the courts/hospital intercede? Or do the parent's have the right to refuse blood in this case?
    I think when the parents had made the decision have a child then I think its not write to refused the blood tranfusion.Because thats give opportuniti to the baby to survay.And even if they have some kind religion for that.I think when the baby grows then she or he can make choise for religion.
  12. by   JW-HLC
    The legal definition of "murder" is the unlawful killing of another person, with malice aforethought. That is a premeditated act.
    The act of self-defence that I described is not that, it is an immediate response to an actual immediate threat to harm. My reason for bringing in a scene of chasing after someone after the event was an effort to illustrate the difference from the act of self-defence. So I do not believe that there is anything "grey" about that.

    "Any quotes I refer to are you quoting the Bible which is YOUR acceptance of it as the sole truth. As I said twice noone has proven that God sat and handwrote or dictated the Bible to anyone."
    I plead "guilty", yes I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is the sole truth. The bible explains how He wrote it, by instruction (as in the case of Moses & 10 commandments etc), in dreams (as in case of Daniel etc) and so on. The fact that many prophecies point to our time (and beyond) prove that it was not written just to "to spread the word of the Lord, in the manner of the time".
    Now I am not saying that you have to believe it, though I hope that you will. It is your choice and I uphold your right to ignore it as sole truth if you wish, (so does God incidentally since He doesn't force you to do anything).

    "JW were wrong in 1975 when they counted literal time in the bible and said the world would end. It was then reinterpreted, things just arent' literal or black and white That is what I am talking about."
    Jesus provided signs for his followers to watch out for in connection with his "return" or "presence" (Greek parousia). These are recorded in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and elsewhere. In the light of those prophetic statements by Christ it is natural for his followers to want to know where they are in the stream of time - the disciples of Jesus time did the same in their day and he said to them, "It does not belong to you to you to get knowledge of the times or seasons which the Father has placed in His own jurisdiction." (Acts 1:6-8) So it is nothing unusual for followers to Christ to be over-enthusiastic, though I do not recall that the statement that you make was ever printed by JW's I do acknowledge that there was an expectation of God acting around that time.
    When it comes to the interpretation of dates etc that are not explained in the bible, I agree with you that things are not "black and white", (though some clearly are and can be demonstrated).

    However being mistaken in something that is an "interpretation" (date or prophecy) is one thing - a bible command or principle is something different entirely, eg murder, adultery, idolatry, and "abstain from blood". These are not easy to make mistakes over, they are basically clear statements and you either believe and follow them or you don't.

    "I have tried to keep an open mind with regard to anothers religious preferences and belief system. You infer that your (Gods) way is the ONLY way, so in conclusion, I feel I try to be openminded, (for whateve reasons)you do not"

    I not only infer that God's way is the only way, I shout it from the rooftops (not literally ). Can you imagine the 1st century disciple of Christ, men like Paul saying "Well this Jesus thing, it's a matter of personal interpretation you know", hardly. The disciples of Jesus went out as active preachers telling the truth wherever and whenever they could, that is why they were spoken of as being in "The Way" and identified as "Christians" and they were put to death for their faith in many instances.
    As for "my way", well that is for me, I have proved it for me and it is now my life. I still have an open mind; I listen to people every time I go witnessing and if someone can show me that I am wrong I will listen to them, but please don't expect me to say "I think I'm right", if I have had the last nearly 30 years on something that I was unsure of then I would have been a fool and I do not believe that to be the case - faith!
    I have responded to clear evidence that I have found concerning my Creator, I did not have a blinding flash of light; I examined the evidence, closely and critically for I was sure that I would find it to be wrong - in the end it was me who was wrong and the bible that was right after all.
  13. by   JW-HLC
    I don't think either of us need to further discuss the "feed dirt" issue as I think that is a "red herring", though if you disagree I will.

    "it did'nt say "most of the blood", or "drain blood to taste then broil for twenty minuets" It said "drain the blood"

    So what would you expect that God meant for the Israelite to do? There he is with his freshly caught bird or animal - what would he do to ensure he could eat it without going against God's law? - seriously now!

    I'm afraid that the Greek Hades and Hebrew Sheol, translated as hell, both mean the common grave of mankind. God would never torture someone in a fire hence at Jeremiah 7:31 He says, "they have built the high places ..... to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into my mind."

    I would still welcome your view on how abortion, and risking miscarriage with a medical procedure stands with someone who so emphatically wants to save a small human life.
    (There have been many abortions carried out by the medical profession for such reasons as I quoted and less! Around 53 million abortions are carried out annually worldwide!)
    (My reference to the miscarriage of 4 non-Down's foetuses for every 1 Down's foetus identified, comes directly from the "Foetal medicine unit" in South London, UK, where Professor Kypros Nicolaides carries out procedures including surgery on the foetus within the womb). An amnioscentisis test always carries a risk of miscarriage, variable with the skill of the operator, but the statistics are genuine.
    I hope that you had a good day at work.

close