I'm curious of your opinion

RyanRN · Jan 18, 2002

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.

fergus51 · Jan 19, 2002

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.

RiinaLiblik · Jan 19, 2002

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.

JW-HLC · Jan 19, 2002

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.

JW-HLC · Jan 19, 2002

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.

JW-HLC · Jan 19, 2002

Thank you for keeping us on track!

I think that every good parent does what it thinks is for the very best welfare of its child.

If a parent does not believe in God they will do whatever is best for the child here and now, probably following all the reasonable medical guidance that they can get and following through on that.

For a JW parent they will similarly do all they can for their child, including searching for the best medical assistance available. In the end however they have a "spiritual" factor to also consider, the everlasting welfare of both their child and themselves. This is an aspect which others do not have to consider and which they mostly fail to understand. This misunderstanding leads others to wrongly judge that the Witness parents have failed their child.

Peeps Mcarthur · Jan 19, 2002

JW,

Without a lexicon I can't tell if the translation is straying from what I think the Hebrew meaning is. That's as close as your going to get to the original draft unless you go poking around in caves along the Dead Sea. If you bury all your barbecue in dirt, please understand my declining an invitation to picnic.

{QUOTE}

'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. " {END QUOTE}

I did'nt say that I emphatticaly want to save a small human life. Even if it was paraphrased in one of those cheesy soap operas. I AM emphatic about the medical outcome of my patient. The mother is my patient in this scenario. I have not agreed to do amniocentises. I have not agreed to abort. So what risk are you talking about.

Go ahead and serve Red Herring del Dirt Baby if you have to..

Abortion of a fetus is a medical procedure and as such needs a medical reason. A patients' anxiouseness does not qualify. The fact she doesn't want to get caught porking some strange guy doesn't qualify. The asumption that taking the fetus to term may(I dislike that word) produce an imperfect replicant does not medicaly call for an abortion. So whats your beef?(pun intended).

As you alluded to, in vivo surgery is also an option(I was going to go there anyway) but that also carries with it great risk.

Work sucked.

And I have to go again.

JW-HLC · Jan 19, 2002

"abortion of a fetus is a medical procedure and as such needs a medical reason. a patients' anxiouseness does not qualify" - "the asumption that taking the fetus to term may(i dislike that word) produce an imperfect replicant does not medicaly call for an abortion. so whats your beef"

oh, if only that were true!

medical abortions are carried out the world over for next to no reason at all. it has become almost an alternative means of "contraception" - "abortion on demand" - 53 million every year; even pop in and have it done over lunchtime and then back to the office!

{quote...

british pro-abortion group offers "lunchtime abortions"

london (cwn) - a british pro-abortion group came under sharp criticism on saturday for its plan to offer abortions for working women during their lunch break.

marie stopes international said it would begin offering the abortions in major cities next month. "women don't lease their bodies from the state or even from the church. they own them themselves and, if under the 1967 abortion act, they have an unwanted pregnancy ... they have a right to the best service possible," dr tim black, chief executive of the group, told bbc radio. the abortions would only be carried out for pregnancies before the 12th week.

critics say the procedure, carried out under local anesthetic in three to four minutes, trivializes abortion and offers inadequate support for the women involved. "we are talking now about making abortion available rather like something you buy over the counter and that means people do not have a chance to consider seriously what they are doing," said a spokesman for the catholic bishops' conference. abortions are usually performed under a general anesthetic with follow-up surveillance in hospital... end quote}

medical abortions are actually encouraged where an amnioscentisis test shows positive for a down's syndrome baby and consent to an abortion is automatic.

{quote...

a british government minister has condemned the selective abortion of children with down's syndrome. brian wilson, a new foreign office minister, said that the use of amniocentesis tests which resulted in the elimination of 95 percent of children found to have the condition was "grotesque".

mr wilson, who has a nine-year-old son with down's syndrome, also condemned the fact that the "assumed social good" of eliminating down's syndrome babies was considered so important that 400 unborn children without down's syndrome died as a result of amniocentesis tests each year in britain in order to identify 100 children with the condition. mr wilson added that the loss of so many down's children to abortion meant that the "few who do make into the world" were not given the care which should be given to them in a civilised society.

[daily telegraph, 14 april as quoted in news digest for 17 april 2001] ...end quot}

(my knowledge of these issues i confess stems from the uk and not the usa, but i doubt that the situation is any different there - you will no doubt tell me [with evidence please] if it is not).

so i guess to sum it up your concern does not necessarily rest with the matter of life - your concern comes for the patient and his/her needs regardless of other factors. you can ignore life if its wrapped up in a patient portfolio, or am i being too simplistic?

"if you bury all your barbecue in dirt, please understand my declining an invitation to picnic."

you've lost this brit ??????????

Peeps Mcarthur · Jan 19, 2002

JW,

{QUOTE}

Leviticus 17:13, 14 "Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, because the life of every creature is its blood." {END QUOTE}

Just having a little fun with the paraphrased "cover it with earth" from the scripture you posted. Since you must drain out the blood, you also must cover it with earth(dirt) before it's eaten.

A barbeque is a sort of picnic with beef cooked on an outdoor grille here in the states.

After a joke is explained, it's often not very funny.

Let me state clearly my oppinion(that's not been a problem has it?) about the term "medical need". Medical need refers to the treatment and prevention of disease for the welfare of the patient in the context of our incredibly lengthy thread.

The only complications these women in your example seem to have are in their psychosocial development. I'm sure there are more abortions done without record than we could find out about to add them to the pile of carnage.

Unfortunately those same psychosocial midgets are allowed to vote and relatively half of all voters would be women. The people that need votes to keep their jobs(so they can apparently avoid having to work) can't afford to alienate 50% of the voting public so they pass a law that abdicates morality to psychosocial midgets. A cross- sectional demographic that happens to also include pscychosocial midgets that think routine abortion is included in the hippocratic oath agree to perform what they call a medical procedure, and here we are.

That does not include me.

You should not perform a procedure without scientific basis for the same reasons you should not exclude one.

{QUOTE}

"Oh, if only that were true!"

{END QUOTE}

It is true. In practitioners that adhere to science.

I think we can draw an observation from this example. A social variable that empowers a group within a society that medicine serves to influence medicine itself. That's the point at which it ceases to be treating diseases and becomes a service industry that caters to emotion and belief of patients rather than a healing science.

JW-HLC · Jan 19, 2002

"A barbeque is a sort of picnic with beef cooked on an outdoor grille here in the states"

I guess that's what you do when the sun shines - don't get that here!

"A cross- sectional demographic that happens to also include pscychosocial midgets that think routine abortion is included in the hippocratic oath agree to perform what they call a medical procedure, and here we are.

That does not include me."

Then all respect to you (maybe I wouldn't have put it quite the same way, but we have agreement).

All light-heartedness apart, we may not be so far apart after all - you are maybe a man of principle - so am I. It's just that with you it seems to exclude a "higher authority" when providing medical treatment; with me the "higher authority" is always in the picture. Oh and yes, you probably have a more colourful way of expressing yourself.

JW's really appreciate every effort of the medical profession and with the advent of Hospital Liaison Committees we are trying to work together for the benefit of a "meeting of minds". We meet with doctors and nurses talking to them about non-blood alternatives and answering their questions.

Non-witness patients are also benefiting from non-blood surgery, which in truth would never have been at the stage it is today without JW's to "practice on" - ethics would never have allowed doctors to take the risks.

Peeps Mcarthur · Jan 20, 2002

JW,

A slight edit might make it clearer.

"I think we can draw an observation from this example. A social variable that empowers a group within a society that medicine serves, which influences medicine itself."

Which influences medicine itself

You're a social variable trying to influence medicine. If you get your way, you'll have done away with a practitioners critical thinking. It's ethics is driven by unemotional manipulation of raw data to fit into a scientific model. As in the example of the abortions, how you feel about it or what you think is a psychosocial model trying to somehow present itself as a valid string of raw data for an already valid medical one.

You're (as a collective) indignant that there are few who are as eager as you to incorporate psychosocial influences on critical treatment courses.

We(as skilled clinicians) are indignant when the above mentioned "influence" effects what we see as our honor. To work and be chosen to preside over the care of our patients.

Within that honor resides our sense of worth and contribution and once you've stripped that away you have the moral equivalent of an abortion doctor

It may seem a contradiction to you , but I don't think you understand that you want a caregiver with those same medical ethics that will somehow deploy a course of treatment suitable to you instead of suitable to their training which they have worked so hard to be recognized by.

If someone would so easily have abdicated those decisions to you. They will have lost their compassion to their patients and become nothing you would want "caring" for you child.

Although I've enjoyed our exchanges, I wonder if this is the longest thread ever at Allnurses.

Anyway, no work for me today. All I'm going to do is surf the net and watch football(american football).

JW-HLC · Jan 20, 2002

"If you get your way, you'll have done away with a practitioners critical thinking"

I don't think so, I think practitioners have always been ready to apply themselves to different challenges. The evidence of today is that more and more practitioners the world over are turning to bloodless strategies, not just for JW's but for as many of their patients as they can. The situation with blood is making even those who resist, see the need to dramatically cut their blood use.

"We(as skilled clinicians) are indignant when the above mentioned "influence" effects what we see as our honor. To work and be chosen to preside over the care of our patients.

Within that honor resides our sense of worth and contribution and once you've stripped that away you have the moral equivalent of an abortion doctor"

Never would we want you to lose your sense of honour and worth - I would hope that those very senses could be enhanced by not only helping the patient but by considering their spiritual care.

If you havn't already done so wht not check this link for an extract of what some profesional are saying:-

Excerpts

"If someone would so easily have abdicated those decisions to you. They will have lost their compassion to their patients and become nothing you would want "caring" for you child."

For the reasons already stated I don't see that as being the case, although I understand your thinking. I think if you can work along with the patients wishes (or the patient's parents in the case of a minor child) much good can be accomplished.

However we except that you too have a conscience and feelings and we do not want to offend them. We understand that we are asking for something "different" from many practitioners, for that reason we encourage practitioners to refer if they cannot work along with us.

I too have enjoyed the exchange and will understand if you feel "enough is enough". Enjoy your rest time!