Homo economicus’ Weblog

2B3 a freethinking space

A death in the UK based on Jehovah’s Witness Teaching

with 2 comments

“A young mother has died after giving birth to twins, amid claims that she had refused a blood transfusion because of her faith.”

 

So starts the BBC News Website article on a 22 year old woman that after giving birth, with complications, refused a blood transfusion based on Watchtower and Bible Tract Society Teachings – Jehovah’s Witnesses dogma.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

 

As you will have seen in my blogs on the subject I am against the misrepresenting of blood that the Society teaches and concerned that anyone should think that a child that cannot understand such a teaching should die based on their parents belief.

 

Yet, I have said that an adult has the right to refuse medical treatment even if it means that their life will be forfeit. It is not a question about their belief’s being wrong, but their right to pursue their own course, even if I consider it irrational.

 

My concern is that their decision should not be based on the downright fraudulent claims made by the Jehovah’s Witnesses about blood transfusions and the effectiveness of alternatives in severe blood cell loss. It is a deceit and a withholding of the facts.

 

Because it is considered a faith issue and a matter of conscience people seem to tolerate this. Some people will even go as far as tolerating children dying for it, as the thread on the forum demonstrates.

 

Yet while we allow for the freedom and liberties of others, two twins have been born without a mother having had the chance to actually see them grow up. Not because of the twisted finger of fate, not because it was preordained. Because she believed and the belief was reinforced that blood transfusions are against Jehovah, and that death being the wages of sin then paradise earth beckons in the resurrection.

 

I may tolerate an adult’s right to refuse treatment to save their life for an insane reason. But I cannot respect it, or praise it or say that as a faith issue it deserves respect. The belief that would allow a mother to put her death before her life for her newborn twins is one that needs challenging.

 

So please add your voice to being against Jehovah’s Witness dogma here, and help challenge a fringe modern interpretation of an ignorant ancient time.

Written by homoeconomicusnet

November 5, 2007 at 7:08 pm

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If a JW takes ‘whole-blood’ or autologous (use your own stored blood) you will be shunned by your family and friends.The Watchtower organization is in control of your life.

    I don’t want someone else’s blood in me anymore that I would want their other body parts heart,kidney,liver unless I needed a lifesaving transplant so goes the same with EMERGENCY blood transfusions.

    Don’t forget the Watchtower ALLOWS organ transplants and you can get get all the same blood borne diseases Aids,hepatitis from someone else’s organs same as you can get from blood.

    Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won’t vindicate the Jehovah’s Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.
    The Watchtower’s rules against blood transfusions will eventually be abolished (very gradually to reduce wrongful death lawsuit liability) even now most of the blood ‘components’ are allowed.
    In 20 years there will be artificial blood and the Red Cross will go on with other noble deeds.

    None of these changes will absolve the Watchtower leaders or vindicate their twisted doctrines

    Danny Haszard born 1957 3rd generation Jehovah’s Witness

    (Some educational links provided below:)

    http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site

    http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm Will you die for a lie?

    http://www.secularism.org.uk/87764.html

    Danny Haszard

    February 18, 2008 at 9:23 pm

  2. [...] of the human body, superstition and belief in the supernatural? I have argued that a person has the right to refuse treatment, but not for those reasons for their child – that is nothing less than child abuse, and no hospital [...]


Leave a Reply