Jehovah's Witness Interference with Pediatric Care

[vs-eh?]

This may surprise people, but a child born to a JW, Christian, Muslim, or Scientolgist is not inherently a person of that faith. There are no allele's that are expressed in DNA that give the person all the inherent tenants and beliefs of a religion. The reason I have blue eyes is because of a predictable genetic combo from my parents. That same genetic predictability does not give me my religion at birth. They are born into the religion of their parents. The religion that their parents chose for them.

Children are born atheists, pure and simple.

Children won't have any real concept on any religion or God until well into life. And if they are lucky enough, they will have parents that either allow them to choose their faith (beyond their parents, and without contempt) or offer a neutral stance and educate on all options. The vast vast vast majority will not have these tenants. They will have parents that since conception will "guide" their child through their own "personal beliefs".

I don't care if adults chose not to do XYZ because of their faith. As long as it does not effect me, the people that I care about (who don't follow that faith), or those on a global scale that maybe more naive about certain matters.

Vent's patients in the NICU/PICU are atheists. They have no concept of faith or God. As such they should by default be treated by secular medicine and whatever the most reasonable and effective course of action is as dictated by medicine at that time.

EDIT - And any arguement regarding that the procedure may have killed them anyway (through allergy, reaction, infection, etc) is moot. These are core aspects of medicine and a procedure that is reasonable, rational (secularly and scientifically rational) , and provides the quickest care with the most predictable outcome/safety profile, should be chosen for children.

[Just Plain Ruff]

vs, that was really good. A good way to put it.

You feeling ok?

[DirtyBlackSocks]

As a man with a strong faith in God I can understand not wanting to break that faith based around principles and rules one has set for themselves to shape better character.

Personally, when it comes to my son. I let him choose his own path and do my best to instill what I feel are the better parts of Christian values in hopes of him growing up to be a good person. I don't expect an 8 year old to grasp the concepts of faith and karma. I myself didn't even find it worth considering until I was more then twice his age.

As a result, I can respect some one's faith and beliefs being taken into account. But I have a lot of trouble grasping the concept of letting your child die because of your own personal beliefs. If it were my son, I don't know what I'd do.

It's just way too touchy of a subject, this could be debated as heavily as the concept of religion itself and still never have a conclusive outcome. So in the end, as their legal guardians, in the end I feel it should be left to the parents to decide. Even though I may never understand how some one could live with themselves after a decision like that.

It's not wrong, it's not right, it's just different.

[Dustdevil]

Vent's patients in the NICU/PICU are atheists. They have no concept of faith or God. As such they should by default be treated by secular medicine and whatever the most reasonable and effective course of action is as dictated by medicine at that time.

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any religion that does not command it's members to raise their children in the ways of that faith. This is, of course, because you are right. Given intelligent choice, free of indoctrination, most people would not choose religion, and that would bankrupt the religions, which they are not willing to accept. The way I see it, if you have to teach somebody about religion, it cannot be a true religion. True religion comes directly to you from God. Of course, that is a double edged sword, because those who claim God spoke to them are probably just nutcases, lol. Consequently, all religion is suspect.

[WelshMedic]

Amen to that, bro!

Dust has hit it on the head again. Religion is all about indoctrination of a lot of gullible souls that are unable or unwilling to see what life is really all about.

And don't bother praying for my soul, you'd do better to pray for yourself that one day you'll wake and see the true light.

WM

[captainstandup]

Perhaps my 17 year old MVC patient's mom didn’t kill him. She simply interfered with his being given every chance available to live. This kid was lying in a level 2 Trauma Center and died from hemorrhagic shock and DIC with a proven therapy literally 10 yards away. How is this OK?

I've spent most of my adult life being educated and trained to provide care for those in harm's way and to "witness" narrow minded superstition and see the harm it causes to those who are helpless and without voice or ability to articulate their wishes sickens me. Practice whatever religion you wish as an adult, worship goats, cows, the sun, the moon each other, everything, or nothing.

Civilized society simply must intervene when parents are making decisions that are clearly not in a child's best interest. I'm surprised my earlier comments regarding the hypothetical 5 year old with burns didn’t garner any direct comments. Emotionally I feel there are vivid parallels between the hypothetical patient and my 17 year old MVC patient. In both "cases" the patient succumbs due to parental religious practice with absolutely no chance to speak for themselves. Thankfully only one of these patients is real, unfortunately he has been dead for just over four years now and the world will never know what his contribution to mankind would have been. He deserved better in a nation that has seemingly unlimited scientific ability.

[Dustdevil]

Meh... there's no shortage of kids in this world.

I am unconcerned if some want to remove their kids from the gene pool.

[DirtyBlackSocks]

Meh... there's no shortage of kids in this world.

I am unconcerned if some want to remove their kids from the gene pool.

Said like a true soldier.

[brentoli]

Spenac,

Several translations refer to "drinking blood" or "blood of things strangled." How does the JW take this to mean abstain from a blood transfusion? Just curious.

[Dustdevil]

I dated a JW many years back. I didn't really know anything about them at that time, so we had a lot of discussion about their theology. Neither her nor her family could really even begin to explain the blood thing. It was actually kind of comical listening to them try, because it was like most religion, like a pre-recorded tape response that had been drilled into them, but if you ask for any clarification, they have nothing else to say. All they know is that one response they were told to say and believe. They say, "Well, the scripture says to abstain from blood." If you ask them what happens if they really need a transfusion, they will let you know they honestly believe that blood transfusions are a scam and are never necessary because we have so many alternatives. Try to explain that LR doesn't exactly do the same thing, and they lock up because they know nothing of the physiology. They just know that noblood.org website says blood isn't necessary, so that's what they believe.

Anyhow, if you ask them your questions, Brent, they lock up at that too. They just go back to the root scripture that says "abstain from blood" and say that they must take it literally in all cases without "questioning the word of Jehovah." And, of course, since AIDS came about, they believe they have confirmation from God that they are doing right, because God is punishing those who did not abstain. It's really hard to argue with a sign from God, so it's not worth even trying.