I'm curious of your opinion

[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?

[CVSDnurse]

When I worked on a post open heart unit, it would vary from individual surgeon(within same practice group)-if a patient refused blood. Some would refuse to preform the surgery, others would keep the patient preoperatively for several days to raise their h&h with Fe++ suppliments if they were low-but I found it interesting how many patients who refused blood on a religous basis would change their tune when told that they will die without a transfusion as that is the only time the surgeons would order it as our patients were only transfused of hbg

On the comments quoting scripture, I have a question: how can we assume the refrences are to transfusions when safe transfusions(understanding of blood typing) came so long after the quoted passages were written? How can we assume that the statements in the bible were referring to a processes not yet invented-unless I am mistaken on the timeing of blood typing.

[JW-HLC]

Your comments are most interesting. For many years surgeons have taken the view that a Hb of 10 required a transfusion. However in recent years that view has been readjusted by many to be around 6 to 7, so it is interesting to see your comment of practice in your cardiac unit. I wonder how long ago that was the case.

The USA leads the way in bloodless medicine and as you are probably aware there are many bloodless centres throughout the "States".

In the UK the lowest recorded Hb for surgery at present is 1.8, that was carried out in a hospital in the North, I believe Leeds, but could search for the paper to confirm. Worldwide the lowest to date that I am aware of is 1.3, which does demonstrate that in many cases there is more room for working within the patients wishes than is perhaps generally thought.

Where it is not a question of emergency surgery it is now common to use EPO with i/v iron to bring about a raising of Hb prior to surgery, or in many cases to assist with raising it afterwards. The i/v iron allows the greater and more efficient production of RBC's by the patients body.

As for patients who initially refuse blood and then retract I obviously cannot comment on individual cases that I know nothing about. I have been aware of cases involving persons who are perhaps studying the bible with JW's but have not yet made a committment (i.e. not been baptised) and of persons who are ex-Witnesses. Sometimes both of these groups will class themselves as "JW" when it comes to signing forms and they might not like the "idea" of blood, but change their mind when it gets "serious". I personally have not dealt with any Witness who has accepted blood (other than a child by court order). If a Witness does retract out of fear, emotion or whatever, then he or she can be helped by the JW community or they can make the decision that being a JW is not for them after all. As with all things it is a matter of personal choice, God does not force anyone to serve Him.

The question of "how can we assume the refrences are to transfusions when safe transfusions(understanding of blood typing) came so long after the quoted passages were written?" is a really good question.

It is not a matter of whether a transfusion is "safe" (and incidentally most surgeons now agree that there is no such thing as a "safe" transfusion, all have risks, some slight, some serious, A video recently released "Transfusion Alternative Strategies" shows Prof: Fransesco Mercuriali, (Director of Transfusion Services, Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy) stating that the only "safe transfusuion, is the transfusion never given".

Speaking of transfusion alternatives. Prof: Richard Spence (Director of Surgical Education in Birmingham, Alabama) says "Transfusion alternatives are safe, this is not something I use for the Jehovah's Witness patient for example; I use this for every patient who comes to me".

However, for the christian it is not a case of whether blood is "safe" or not (it is not a case of blood-typing). For example the Israelite was told at 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." The eating of the bird would have nothing to do with blood-typing.

It is a case of whether taking in blood by i/v constitutes the same "disrespect" for God's law as would eating an unbled bird or animal. It is not a simple dietary law, like the many dietary laws God gave Israel throught the Mosaic Law, the law concerning blood was given to Noah (Genesis 9:3-5 - hence before the Mosaic Law). It was then re-stated in the Mosaic Law given to Moses and the Israelites, and subsequently re-stated by the 1st century Apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 15:28,29). At this time the Mosaic Law had ended as far as the Christians were concerned as God has turned His attention from the Jews to the newly-formed Christian congregation. So the issue of the sanctity of blood extends right throughout the Bible from begining to end - it is that important in God's view.

So for a JW having a blood transfusion is treating the sanctity of blood in the same way as would the Israelite eating the unbled bird (for which he would be put to death!). So for any JW, taking a blood transfusion would be against God's law.

[nurs4kids]

hmmmmmmmm...

so the state gives the parent the right to abort a child, yet takes away the right to practice freedom of religion??

What happened to separation of church and state? As much as it would kill me to watch a child die that I THOUGHT I could help, I feel the parent should have the final say.

after all...it's all up to God..the beginning and the end.

[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 and 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...

[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...

[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

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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:D

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.

[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.

[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.