Pregnant JW woman and child die...

[haras1972]

http://theage.com.au/nsw/pregnant-jehov ... mf570.html

 

Tragedy for the mother, child and her family, but my heart feels most for the staff. How harrowing and pointless this would have been, especially knowing the high rate of success in the standard treatment....

[Coldwinterskies]

There are rumors from those who have been close to leaders of the JW religion that the only reason they still cling to the blood ban is because the JW leaders don't want to end up getting sued by the families of all these people who have died for nothing. So, instead of reversing their irrational stance on this, they keep clinging to a very outdated belief that has very little basis in scripture or science.

I am legitimately worried about my JW relative who is a young female. Even though I think she might have enough sense to want to get a blood donation herself, there is a lot of pressure from the JW leaders to decline it.

They will punish JWs who accept blood if they find out about it. For that matter, they would even punish someone just for looking at information against the blood ban, since anything that criticizes their beliefs is labeled "apostate".

This site points out how their stance as it currently is makes absolutely no sense:

A more important line of reasoning against blood transfusions is that the Bible says blood was not to be stored but poured out onto the ground. For this reason even using ones own stored blood for a transfusion is said to be wrong. (Watchtower 1959 October 15 p.640, Watchtower 2000 October 15 p.31) Though this reasoning is partially sound, it highlights how grossly inconsistent the Watchtower standard has become. This reasoning is used to prevent a Jehovah's Witness:

donating blood

transfusing blood

transfusing four of bloods fractions (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma)

However, a Jehovah's Witness is able to have blood taken and stored for blood tests. Vaccines cultivated in stored blood are allowed. Many types of blood fractions, manufactured from stored blood, are allowed and medical treatments derived from large quantities of stored blood are permitted.

To indicate just how inconsistent this standard is, it is worth considering immunoglobulin injections, which are now allowed to be used by Witnesses. (Awake! of Dec. 8, 1994) Immunoglobulin injections are used as replacement therapy in people whose body does not produce enough immune globulin or to treat people who have not been immunized against certain viral infections such as hepatitis A and measles. It takes about 3 litres of blood to get enough gamma globulin for one injection. The blood is taken from a pooled blood supply, as antibodies to these diseases are likely to be in the pool if enough samples have been added together. According to the IDF Patient/Family Handbook p.76;

"Blood is collected from as many as 60,000 people, and then pooled together. The first step in gamma globulin production is to spin the blood to remove all red and white blood cells. Then, the gamma globulins are chemically purified from the liquid plasma in a series of steps involving treatment with alcohol. This process results in the purification of antibodies of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) class, but only trace amounts of IgA and IgM remain in the final fraction."

It is very difficult to understand the double standard that the Watchtower has created here. On the one hand blood is said to be so sacred that it must not be stored, but poured onto the ground. Even someone's own blood must not be stored for just a few hours and then transfused back during the operation. Certain blood components are also not allowed to be used, such as white blood cells which make up less than 1% of the volume of blood. On the other hand the Watchtower sees nothing wrong with using medication made from mixing and storing the blood of 60,000 people together. If blood is so sacred that it can not be stored for a transfusion then the storing of blood and processing it into fractions should also be disallowed.

People like this poor woman and her baby have died for something that makes absolutely no sense. :(

[Jana814]

Sad that this has happened.

[Shirley Blest]

This is so sad...makes me so mad. They are insane!

[Coldwinterskies]

This is so sad...makes me so mad. They are insane!

I'm glad that you made your way out before your own life was put in danger. This is one of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to them. Their beliefs cause tangible harm and death.

[shedemei]

This quote in the article is chilling; a look into yet another step down the slippery slope of not letting women make their own choices if they're pregnant.

"Refusal of a lifesaving intervention by an informed patient is generally well respected, but the right of a mother to refuse such interventions on behalf of her fetus is more controversial," they wrote. "A doctor indeed has moral obligations to both the pregnant woman, and perhaps with differing priority to the unborn fetus. Circumstances where fetal and maternal autonomy conflict, or where fetal beneficence conflicts with maternal autonomy, create challenges."

Dr Kidson-Gerber said as more fetal-specific conditions become available, there would be more cases where the interests of the fetus and the interests of the mother conflicted.

[sparkles]

So abortion is an abomination before god but basically committing suicide AND feticide because of whacked out religous beliefs is totes cool. All righty then.

[Coldwinterskies]

This quote in the article is chilling; a look into yet another step down the slippery slope of not letting women make their own choices if they're pregnant.

I question the idea that even a non-pregnant JW has the capacity to give informed consent to refuse blood. They are brainwashed into thinking that blood transfusions are not necessary and may even be dangerous. Their JW friends and family may end up shunning them if they do accept blood. They're taught that if they accept blood then Jehovah will destroy them at Armageddon. Furthermore, most JWs are not very well educated (their cult actively discourages college) and they are forbidden from looking at information that contradicts what the organization tells them.

To me, that makes it very questionable if these people REALLY understand the decision they are making and are doing it of their own free will rather than because of coercion from their religion.

[Coldwinterskies]

After I wrote the above comment I noticed that an ex-JW website has talked about this case from the perspective of if the religion is pressuring people into making a decision that isn't really freely chosen and fully informed: http://jwsurvey.org/news/harmful-belief ... ransfusion

[Idolatry]

There are rumors from those who have been close to leaders of the JW religion that the only reason they still cling to the blood ban is because the JW leaders don't want to end up getting sued by the families of all these people who have died for nothing. So, instead of reversing their irrational stance on this, they keep clinging to a very outdated belief that has very little basis in scripture or science.

You know, I can see that, maybe. But if that's true, couldn't they just make a couple exceptions here and there, and then the rule becomes completely unstable. There are a lot of ways to undermine this rule in practice while still claiming it is correct because Jesus.

[shedemei]

I question the idea that even a non-pregnant JW has the capacity to give informed consent to refuse blood. They are brainwashed into thinking that blood transfusions are not necessary and may even be dangerous. Their JW friends and family may end up shunning them if they do accept blood. They're taught that if they accept blood then Jehovah will destroy them at Armageddon. Furthermore, most JWs are not very well educated (their cult actively discourages college) and they are forbidden from looking at information that contradicts what the organization tells them.

To me, that makes it very questionable if these people REALLY understand the decision they are making and are doing it of their own free will rather than because of coercion from their religion.

Who, then, is the arbiter of whether or not a JW adult can make this decision? And if not, who decides for them?

[Shirley Blest]

I'm glad that you made your way out before your own life was put in danger. This is one of the reasons I am so strongly opposed to them. Their beliefs cause tangible harm and death.

The sad thing is...I always knew I would tale a transfusion if I needed it. Even before I left, I had Steven Johnsons Syndrome. I didn't realize that IVIG was okay...I just knew it had blood components in it. I told my husband (now ex) that I wanted him to sign the consent for it. Survival was my priority at that point.

[salsa]

http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses ... nsfusions/

They believe that blood represents (adding my own word - spiritual) life, so under this belief, there is logic. Not that I *agree** with said logic, but there it is as I understand it.

[Coldwinterskies]

I am not saying that I have the answers. I just think it is an interesting ethical question to me.

Imagine you have two people who are both refusing a vaccine for a deadly illness that is currently an epidemic. One person's objection to the vaccine is because they have concerns about side effects. The other person is rejecting the vaccine because they have been raised their whole life to think that accepting a vaccine will let evil spirits into your body - and besides their religion has told them that vaccines don't work anyway.

I would question if the second person is really in the right frame of mind to give informed consent.

I think our society tolerates some pretty crazy thinking as long as you frame it in terms of "religion".

[2xx1xy1JD]

Doctors obviously have an

Obligation to document that a patient understands the risks of not consenting. Beyond that though you really jeopardize the whole notion of someone's right to have co tell over their own body if you allow don't votes to override the wishes of mentally competent adults. Fetal protection is also a dangerous trend which ultimately reduced women to incubators.

[Coldwinterskies]

yes, it is a tricky issue. My concern is that I feel that religious-based coercion and withholding of information may not be taken seriously or recognized in a lot of cases since America is so slanted to be religious.

[2xx1xy1JD]

So how do you determine if voluntary informed consent is being given without crossing the line into doctors not respecting personal autonomy? Serious question. People have the right to choose to do stupid things.

[Coldwinterskies]

The same way a doctor would scrutinize things if the doc had suspicions that their patient was being coerced by an abusive partner into doing something that wasn't really the patient's idea.

I am not suggesting that it should always be considered wrong to respect their wish to die for a non-sensical belief. Yes, people have the right to make bad decisions. I do think it should be scrutinized though with the understanding that the JWs are not a normal church. The control the JW leaders have over their members is more like Scientology than mainstream Christian religions like Catholicism or Episcopalians or whatever.

I think most people don't know enough about JWs to know how controlling they are of their members. People don't realize that JWs don't really have the option to "agree to disagree" with their leaders. There is no room for compromise or alternative interpretations. You obey the leaders, accept the interpretation the leaders tell you to believe, or else you will be punished with becoming a social outcast. They literally will not talk to members who are viewed as disobedient or bad influences, even if the member is family. Social rejection is a very painful way of controlling people.

[2xx1xy1JD]

You still can't treat an adult without consent.

A doctor can make sure to speak to a patient alone, reassure a patient that medical records are confidential and make sure that they realize that death is a very real possibility but they cannot ignore refusal of treatment.

It's not up to the government to decide that some religions are more legitimate than others.

[Coldwinterskies]

You still can't treat an adult without consent.

A doctor can make sure to speak to a patient alone, reassure a patient that medical records are confidential and make sure that they realize that death is a very real possibility but they cannot ignore refusal of treatment.

It's not up to the government to decide that some religions are more legitimate than others.

Who said anything about the government dictating this? I think your points in the first paragraph are in line with what I had in mind. I was just speculating about if doctors fully understand how these irrational beliefs are reinforced by a controlling cult-like atmosphere.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The same way a doctor would scrutinize things if the doc had suspicions that their patient was being coerced by an abusive partner into doing something that wasn't really the patient's idea.

I am not suggesting that it should always be considered wrong to respect their wish to die for a non-sensical belief. Yes, people have the right to make bad decisions. I do think it should be scrutinized though with the understanding that the JWs are not a normal church. The control the JW leaders have over their members is more like Scientology than mainstream Christian religions like Catholicism or Episcopalians or whatever.

I was reacting to the bolded part.

Since we are talking about the legal ability to consent or refuse consent to medical procedures, we are talking about how a court evaluates an adult's capacity to consent.

I have issues with the notion that we'd expect a court to regard JWs in a separate "not a normal church" category. It's not up to the court to evaluate one religion against another. FWIW, the mainstream Catholic church still maintains positions that can cost women their lives due to the absolute bans on abortion and birth control (the "secondary effect" loophole does not cover all life-threatening situations), and unlike the JWs, the Catholic church has far more political influence and involvement and it also controls policies in its hospitals, so Catholic doctrine on this issue can affect the ability of non-Catholic women to get the essential health care that they require.

I've seen court cases, esp. in family court, where serious attempts have been made to take away rights from JWs on the basis on their religion. If a mother faces the loss of custody of her child because her ex-husband is angry that she changed her religion, that's a problem. It's important to ensure that courts and governments are not in the position of favoring some religions or others, and that legal issues are decided on their merits only.

I think most people don't know enough about JWs to know how controlling they are of their members. People don't realize that JWs don't really have the option to "agree to disagree" with their leaders. There is no room for compromise or alternative interpretations. You obey the leaders, accept the interpretation the leaders tell you to believe, or else you will be punished with becoming a social outcast. They literally will not talk to members who are viewed as disobedient or bad influences, even if the member is family. Social rejection is a very painful way of controlling people.

There are degrees of social exclusion in many religions, it's not just limited to JWs.

The comparison to Scientology ignores the fact that Scientology uses far more coercion than mere social exclusion. It has a history of extreme harassment via frivolous lawsuits, framing critics for criminal acts, kidnapping, espionage, etc.

I have no problem with doctors taking steps to ensure that consent or refusal is informed and independent, by advising a patient and making sure that conversations take place in private and that a patient knows that their records are confidential. If they maintain their position, though, that's part of allowing adults the freedom to make decisions.