It has been a while since I wrote a blog. So a nine hour train journey from the West Country to the Midlands (thanks to Sunday engineering works) gives time which can be used to, literally right this wrong in a write way.
So a good place to start are comments which I have now gone through and approved. As usual the Jose Mestre and Jehovah’s Witnesses stance on blood transfusions has the most comment.
In the Blood
To have a substitue for blood in a critical blood loss situation would be brilliant; at the moment though it is only valid for minimal loss.
Health risks are nothing compared to being dead. Especially with death being a fatal condition with no after life healthcare coverage.
This is where my criticism of the religious refusal kicks in. As one who for many years was involved in going door to door in ministry work I do know the theological position, as I mention in another blog. The criminal act of letting your child die rather than give medical treatment, which gives them their only chance at living, is somehow countered with an after life faith in the resurrection. That spiritual care in whatever form has a priority over the material one.
The supernatural has no part in examing the best medical care for your child. A parent has no right to enforce their religious belief in this regard – their duty of care first and foremost is the life and physical well being of their child. Not what their interpretation of a text tells them.
Much as love, peace and understanding are good things the unnecessary death of a child cannot be allowed by a tolerance of religion or agreement that parents may give religious instruction to their children. It is a medical matter, and needs to be thought of in that way.
As to adults making the choice, it is their life to end as irrationally as they wish. In the same way that I can criticize that choice as being morally wrong, not with accord to the teachings of Jesus. The waste of a life, only serving as an example where belief in religion allows people to do things which for any other reason would shock more people to outrage.
My ability to tolerate belief is in the freedom of religion. That does not grant the liberty to inflict harm on those unable to reason for themselves with the ommission of medical care.
Thanks for the comments, keep them coming (whether you agree or not). When not on a train will link to the ones I am responding to here.
But please bear in mind two key points:
Argue with my points rather than personal comments – and if you do not know what a Homo economicus is think economics rather than sex.
Thanks guys …