Doctor Asked For A "Kind" Nurse - page 5

Let me preface this thread by stating a few things: 1. I'm not posting this thread to bash certain religions, I'm posting to vent, gain understanding, and get a variety of views. 2. Whatever... Read More

  1. by   nursedawn67
    Originally posted by fab4fan
    It was the comments about "why even bother..." etc. (I had someone tell me to "just stay home and bleed to death", so I guess I get a little touchy sometimes).

    Anyway, this is the official position, and is in no way meant to prostelytize:

    JW position on blood
    wow very informative.

    whereas I agree that one's religion keeps them from wanting certain medical treatments and that we must respect them, they also have to understand that we are taught to do what we have to save someone. And to see a person dying that we know can be saved by such simple measures blinds us to one's principles.
  2. by   SharonH, RN
    Originally posted by LasVegasRN

    Nothing is going to save this patient except blood products. Period. I still ask what is the point of coming to the hospital, and shouldn't Hospice be offered as an alternative since death has been chosen?

    I have taken care of JW's who were near death d/t blood loss. I remember one gentleman who had an H/H of 3/11. He received all medical treatment he could except the blood. My co-workers spoke of his obstinance and how he didn't get it, etc. and he's definitely going to die. He lived. JW's can tell many stories similar to this. They are not refusing all treatment, just the blood. They have not chosen death, just accepted that it would be the consequence of not receiving the transfusion. If they went to hospice, then their loved one would not receive other treatment.
  3. by   Spidey's mom
    In regards to "shunning" . . . . we have an EMT here who left her JW faith and is shunned by her parents. They do not even acknowledge her or her children. They visit the LTC patients as part of their ministry and walk right past their daughter without acknowledging her. I've never heard of shunning someone for taking blood though.
  4. by   Aussienurse2
    I have had several JW clients in the past and have always felt that advocating for them was a privilage, just as I would expect a nuse to advocate for me in particular beliefs that I have. I want to donate my organs, my family are very much against this, I would expect any one of you to facilitate MY wishes. Clients have the right to their faith, if this involves death then so be it. I cannot change their faith to suit my own, only offer kindnes, freedom from pain and a hand to hold.
    We always want to save everyone but if through saving them we condem them to a life that they felt was not worth living have we really saved them at all?
  5. by   ella1
    Fab4fan, am very impressed with the way you have responded to the queries. As someone who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness - although no longer an active member - I find it amazing that people love to hone in on the old "they wont take blood" issue! Other religions believe in female genital mutilation for goodness sake but that isnt brought up every time that particular religion is mentioned!
    I didnt realise that a blood transfusion was the only medical treatment that was available in a hospital, because it sounds like from previous postings that if you wont have one there is no point in even coming into hospital! I am not speaking as a Jehovah's Witness as I am not an active member - but I am speaking as someone who has a pretty good understanding of their beliefs and who knows that they love their children just as much as every good parent does. They feel they are following what the Bible says and are making the right decision.
  6. by   ShandyLynnRN
    Originally posted by Aussienurse2
    We always want to save everyone but if through saving them we condem them to a life that they felt was not worth living have we really saved them at all?

    That is a very good point. I totally agree with that in the cases of adult patients. And since the patient is 18, I suppose he can make his own decisions. However, I cannot force my religious beliefs on anyone, even my own child. How many "preachers kids" have we known that have rebelled because their parents' faith was "forced" onto them. That is why I think those decisions need to be made based on what the child wants AND needs.

    I understand that JW believers, believe whole-heartedly that their children would be "lost" if they chose to receive blood or blood products. I can't imagine having to make that decision.
    This is obviously an emotional topic for a lot of us. I appreciate fab four's very specific and clearly intelligent responces and explanations. We must try to respect religious beliefs of all faiths. My maternal Granny converted to J. W. from Catholism and so did many of her children.Therefore I was exposed to a varied amount of her belief system ,and loved her dearly.At one point ,before her death, she required renal or. All the siblings were fighting amoungst themselves.My sweet Granny went through the procedure w/ amazing courage and lived another 10+ yrs. just a personal story.............CHICK:kiss
    Last edit by CHICKTOEAGLE on Mar 25, '03
  8. by   emily_mom
    Originally posted by cna on her way
    I have to say that I don't understand this either. I could not stand by and watch my child die when there was something that I could have done about it. If a child is under the age of 18 and you bring them to a hospital for treatment, then we should be allowed to do just that. Just as a christian can believe "spare the rod, spoil the child" would it not be child abuse to hit a child with a rod? Children are not our property and we should not be able to decide if they live or die. This is just my opinion and I am not trying to put down anyones faith. I just don't see how allowing a minor child to die if blood would've saved their life can be justified.

    stevielynn Hey Fab 4 - misconceptions run amok . . . I see what you mean. " spare the rod and spoil the child" by cna

    I've always heard that was comparing raising our children to sheparding sheep . . . . the shepard guides the sheep with the rod. They don't hit them with the rod.

    Christian parents are often confused about the issue of corporal punishment, believing that they must spank their child in order to be godly parents. They take literally the phrase, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Some religious teachers reinforce this notion by quoting scriptures out of context. Among the verses they cite: "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him" (Proverbs 22:15); "He who spares the rod, hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him" (Proverbs 13:24); and "Do not withhold discipline from a child; punish him with the rod, and save his soul from death" (Proverbs 29:15).

    At first reading, these passages might seem to support spanking. But this is not the only way to interpret them. The term rod is used throughout the Bible in connection with the shepherd's staff: "Your rod and your staff, they comfort me" (Psalms 23:4). The shepherd's staff is, in fact, used to guide wandering sheep along the right path, not to hit sheep who stray. So a compassionate reader could interpret the Bible as saying that parents must lead and guide their children but not harm them. This teaching is developed beautifully in the book A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Philip Keller.

    Finally, note that references to the "rod" are found primarily in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christ preaches compassion, love, and understanding, as does Paul. We would hope that all parents, hearing teachers warn about sparing the rod will remember Paul's words in 1 Corinthians: "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and the spirit of gentleness?" - William Sears

    You are totally right, StevieLynn! Many of the Mennonites in our area believe in this, but they don't beat their children either. You can make anything sound like God's word when taken out of context. Thanks for bringing this up. :kiss
  9. by   Aussienurse2
    :roll :roll

    I am a missionaries kid!! Maybe that is why I feel so strongly that religious beliefs be upheld though. I nurse with empathy, not a widely held belief these days I know because of the problems of transferrance, but I do try to stop for a minute when I nurse someone whos beliefs get a rating on my " What the?" meter and think, well if it was me and I have so little control in these walls and I'm scared to death that I wont enter Heaven what would I want to happen?
  10. by   emily_mom
    BTW, thank you for sharing your views with us Fab4. Education is the greatest way to understand.
  11. by   montroyal
    Originally posted by 911fltrn
    As an 18yr old the patient has the right to make this decision. Its my belief however that if this was a minor the doctor should transfuse the child and involve child health and welfare services.

    Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but should never force those beliefs on others. Religous beliefs are very personal and should never need explaining. The US was formed on the principal of religous freedom and tolerence, and to deny anyone this right only goes to weaken our society.

    As far as why bring them to the hospital, how about to make the patient comfortable and to give support to the family. If we begin to question JW's, why not begin to questions families who bring DNR pt's, or smokers, or obese pts. These pt's have a lifestyle which some of us may not agree with or if changed may result in a different medical outcome. At what point do we as a society start or stop making medical decisions for others? Medicine and Nursing are a science which offers options to people. It is up to the individual or parent to choose which option works for them or their loved one. Just because an option is available, does not mean we can force that option on a patient.
    Originally posted by fab4fan
    Wow...I could reply to this, but only if bashing stops. What was said about JW was inaccurate.
    Originally posted by Sunnygirl272
    what bashing? and please correct the inaccuracies?
    I thank you fab for sharing your insight here. But I'll agree with Sunny that I saw no bashing. Pretty gentle comments of a lack of comprehension are all I saw.

    To say we don't understand how someone can do something doesn't mean we condemn them entirely. No matter how educated I am on the matter, it will always be something I cannot fathom. Respectfully.
  13. by   fab4fan
    I won't go into specific posts, but there were some that, if not bashing, were on the verge of it. That's how it came across to me, anyway.

    I can appreciate that this is a very emotional issue for some; speaking personally, I would not want someone to violate his/her conscience in order to care for me. If someone felt uncomfortable caring for me or my family, I would prefer that individual not be involved in my care...I don't want anyone doing something he/she feels is wrong.

    Perhaps that's what this doctor was trying to convey when he asked for a "kind" nurse...he might have meant someone that wouldn't be uncomf. I don't know what his actual intent was, but it seems like he had the pt. wishes in mind.

    BTW, everyone benefits from the advances that have been made in bloodless medicine/surgery. I think most medical professionals agree that there are risks with transfusions, esp. now. Just as we understand the effects of indiscriminate use of abx., blood is now being seen as not the "only" option.