View Full Version : refuse blood transfusions
Needless Death? fair enough the 'family' says the transfusion would not have helped?.. Kids growing up without their Mother; the children are not Jehovah's they are the children of Jahovah's.. It also states: "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible" Anyone on this forum know exactly where it says that?
A young mother has died after giving birth to twins, amid claims that she had refused a blood transfusion because of her faith.
Jehovah's Witness Emma Gough, 22, from Telford, Shropshire, gave birth on 25 October. The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital said an internal review into the case would take place. Family friend Terry Lovejoy said: "They are going through an immense amount of turmoil and grief." He added: "We follow the Bible and abstain from blood and I've got no reason to believe that Emma didn't share those views." The twins, a boy and a girl, are healthy and being cared for by their father, Anthony Gough, 24. Christine Harris, a friend of Ms Gough's mother-in-law Sham Gough, said: "The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved Emma." Tom Taylor, chief executive of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, said: "We have offered our deepest condolences to the family, and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time. "Because events such as this are so rare, it is normal practice to undertake a full internal review and also to inform the coroner so an inquest can take place." An inquest has been opened and adjourned for a date to be fixed. Emma Gough's funeral is taking place at the Telford crematorium at 1530 GMT. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin. Head of Science and Ethics at the British Medical Association, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, said: "If somebody believes that having blood will excommunicate them from their religious beliefs, then they will often say no and accept the risk of death."
The issue comes from the Biblical prohibition on eating blood. These references might get you started if you want to do some research.
Leviticus 17:1 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17:1&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17&version=51)
[ Prohibitions against Eating Blood ] Then the Lord said to Moses,
Leviticus 17:13 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17:13&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17&version=51)
“And if any native Israelite or foreigner living among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird that is approved for eating, he must drain its blood and cover it with earth.
1 Samuel 14:33 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14:33&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14&version=51)
Someone reported to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that still has blood in it.”“That is very wrong,” Saul said. “Find a large stone and roll it over here.
1 Samuel 14:34 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14:34&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14&version=51)
Then go out among the troops and tell them, ‘Bring the cattle, sheep, and goats here to me. Kill them here, and drain the blood before you eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with the blood still in it.’”So that night all the troops brought their animals and slaughtered them there.
Acts 15:20 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15:20&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15&version=51)
Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.
Acts 15:29 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15:29&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15&version=51)
You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”
Acts 21:25 (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+21:25&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+21&version=51)
“As for the Gentile believers, they should do what we already told them in a letter: They should abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.”I don't interpret the passages so strictly, but I totally support the people of faith who do follow their own principles and consciences on this issue.
I believe it cmes from a section of the bible (not sure which part) that mentions God banning Christians from 'ingesting' blood which Jehovahs Witness's take to cover transfusions as the body is ingesting blood.
I may be wrong but I am sure I have heard this in the past.
Hi garble, I see you are fairly new to the forum, so can i take this opportunity to welcome you to the family of Org and wish you many happy hours posting on the many subjects that come up.;)
surely being alive is more important than religion?:confused
surely being alive is more important than religion?:confused
Well you would think so! Weighing it up rationally I'd say it would be best to just accept the blood which would enable you to have a life with your children. I can't and won't ever understand their mentality. :eek: Religion has a lot to answer for!
Well you would think so! Weighing it up rationally I'd say it would be best to just accept the blood which would enable you to have a life with your children. I can't and won't ever understand their mentality. :eek: Religion has a lot to answer for!
Hear Hear!
Karia
Canuck; "These references might get you started if you want to do some research"
Not for me, personally; I believe all religion is a load of tosh.
Just wondered how it was twisted around, I seem to remember if it's the kids, and the parents refuse a life-saving transfusion the kid is 'taken into care' and the procedure is carried out?
I find this really hard to understand as well - as for me - well - I would take the blood to be with my children, to look after them, as their life would be my priority, and accept the consequences whatever they may be.
Although it was stated the transfusion wouldn't of saved her anyway - so maybe that throws a different angle on things.................... I don't know!
j4bberw0ck
05-Nov-07, 19:04
I find this really hard to understand
That's why it's called faith! :lol:
Perhaps it is useful that the Jehovah's Witnesses strictures are so tight...it keeps the numbers down if nothing else, as only the truly deluded would sign up to something so devoid of basic human compassion.
A 'Loving God?..make up your own mind!:roll:
It is also interesting that such 'devout' attitudes can be admired by some as somehow 'noble', yet when displayed by other countries and religions it is rarely venerated.
karia
That's why it's called faith! :lol:
You are absolutely right!! Maybe I am just a doubting Thomas!!
for some the thought that they would be sullying their soul by going against their beliefs is worth more than the risk of death. after all what is a few years in the world compared to eternity in the next? ( just to put it simply)
now heres a question... age old i know..
if it came down to it.. and it came to the choice that the Drs could only save one of you mother or child.. what would be your choice?
my husband and I disagree heatedly on this subjecct.. just wondering what your opinions are. bet the womens will mostly be dif. to the mens!
i would save my child, without a doubt, when my wee girl was born she was 3months prem and had lots of complications, there was nothing i could do to help, but if there was i would do it in a shot!
for some the thought that they would be sullying their soul by going against their beliefs is worth more than the risk of death. after all what is a few years in the world compared to eternity in the next? ( just to put it simply)
But what kind of religion puts a mother's love to such a test Brandy?
karia
But what kind of religion puts a mother's love to such a test Brandy?
karia
A nonsensical religion, that's what!
It's your life, you have to do what is best for you and yours, nobody is ever going to thank you for dying!
The issue comes from the Biblical prohibition on eating blood. These references might get you started if you want to do some research.
Leviticus 17:1 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17:1&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17&version=51)
[ Prohibitions against Eating Blood ] Then the Lord said to Moses,
Leviticus 17:13 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17:13&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Leviticus+17&version=51)
“And if any native Israelite or foreigner living among you goes hunting and kills an animal or bird that is approved for eating, he must drain its blood and cover it with earth.
1 Samuel 14:33 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14:33&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14&version=51)
Someone reported to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the Lord by eating meat that still has blood in it.”“That is very wrong,” Saul said. “Find a large stone and roll it over here.
1 Samuel 14:34 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14:34&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=1 Samuel+14&version=51)
Then go out among the troops and tell them, ‘Bring the cattle, sheep, and goats here to me. Kill them here, and drain the blood before you eat them. Do not sin against the Lord by eating meat with the blood still in it.’”So that night all the troops brought their animals and slaughtered them there.
Acts 15:20 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15:20&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15&version=51)
Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.
Acts 15:29 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15:29&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+15&version=51)
You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”
Acts 21:25 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+21:25&version=51) (Whole Chapter) (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Acts+21&version=51)
“As for the Gentile believers, they should do what we already told them in a letter: They should abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.”I don't interpret the passages so strictly, but I totally support the people of faith who do follow their own principles and consciences on this issue.
I totally disagree....letting someone die when they could live is just plain sick. If the woman had been OK and her children needed the transfusion would they have been refused the chance of life? I find this immoral. I do not believe that God would allow a woman to die when there was a way to save her.
What...give up black pudding?
Whitewater
05-Nov-07, 23:15
What...give up black pudding?
Nice one !!!
I gave blood for many years to help people who for one reason or another may have been in need of it.
It is doing nothing for you or your children to refuse blood transfusions. Our God is supposed to be a caring loving God. We got the gift of brains to improve ourselves, because of our brains we have developed a great deal of knowledge, and a safe method of blood transfusion is just one of the innumerable spin offs from that knowledge. We continue to develope more and more life saving techniques, as well as methods for preventing genetic disorders which have been passed down through generations. This is not wrong. We are simply making use of the gifts (God given, if you like), which we were born with, to improve our own lives and the lives of others.
The references from canuck are all about eating/digesting blood. Complete removal of blood from slaughtered animals has always been carried out by Jews and Muslims. Our own abattoirs use the same practice.
How else would we get our Black puddings??? Htwwood, have you tried the Stornoway ones?, they are (I think) the best.
Where's Andrew - any thoughts on this?
I was shocked and saddened by this story when I read it, 2 babies will never know their mothers touch because of her beliefs, I feel it is a very wrong faith that would allow this.
i dont agree with the belief.. and in all honesty i would do anything in my power to save my children.
but i can see how someones belief can be so strong that they would follow every rule to it.. so that they can recieve paradise when the time comes.
To each thier own. as long as its their decison and its only them they are affecting.
i dont agree with the belief.. and in all honesty i would do anything in my power to save my children.
but i can see how someones belief can be so strong that they would follow every rule to it.. so that they can recieve paradise when the time comes.
To each thier own. as long as its their decison and its only them they are affecting.
Sorry Brandy...but the children are affected...they no longer have a mother. I think this is one area when the state should step in.
What an appalling waste of life. It sickens me that the last ones given any condersation were the children.
Where's Andrew - any thoughts on this?
Hi..sorry..Andrew was away at a conference at the weekend.
I didn't have a huge time to read all the posts or to make my own reply now but here goes.
In the Old Testament, and under Jewish law, purity was important. In fact, Jews today still don't eat blood of animals...thats why they have Kosher food...cooked and prepared according to Jewish laws. The law was in place so that Jews could be holy and pure before God because God had not yet provided the perfect sacrifice (Christians beleive this was Jesus).
The Christian perspective on this is that Jesus came and fulfilled the law. Therefore, righteousness doesn't come through keeping laws, but trusting in Jesus. So, there is no need to keep food laws.
The references to food n stuff that Canuck mentions in Acts (in the NT) were written to non-Jewish Christians who were still having to work out there faith in a Jewish context because Christianity and Judaism didn't really separate out until a bit further down the line, so any regulations about food were not so much about purity, but about living in such a way as to 'blend in' with the surrounding culture so as to make their Christian witness credible to those Jews they were trying to reach. They were being culturally sensitive, if you like. A bit like coming to Scotland and eating haggis, wearing tartan and knowing the words to Flower of Scotland.
When you understand the context of a biblical passage, its then easy to see the application. The application is not, according to this kind of reading of scripture, that we should avoid blood transfusion at all. However, the comment about avoiding sexual immorality still stands because it appears as a guideline in other places, speaking to a different audiece (ie all people, not just a specific group).
Jehovah's Witnesses are not generally accepted as being 'orthodox' Christian churches, in fact they are often termed as being a cult (along with things like Scientology, Mormonism etc)...several of their teachings, including the teaching on blood transfusions, are not commonly accepted Christian teachings and don't stand up to the scrutiny of careful biblical interpretation. The whole Christian church stands together in accepting that the JW religion is not authentic Christianity.
Scientology has similar strange teachings, like women not being allowed to show pain or take medication during child-birth.
So, no, its black pudding for me! More than that, the law of love and life should always surpass legalistic sticking to obscure teachings like this.
Hope that helps clarify the Christian stance a wee bit.
Andrew C
Phoenix200416
06-Nov-07, 20:02
I think it is a waste of a life and a shame for the two children who will never meet there mother. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a doctor whose patient is refusing the blood that will save their life. I wouldn't know what to do! I know you can force things on anybody, but a life could have been saved with a blood transfusion. They were talking about this on GMTV this morning and there was a woman who had left the faith who explained that if the young woman had excepted the blood she would have been shunned by her family and friends.
My Mother's cousin died for want of a blood transfusion to allow a life saving operation to take place.
The transfusion did not take place because of Jehova's Witness beliefs held by him and his family. At least it is assumed that his beliefs would have prevented him availing himself of the chance to live but he never got to contribute to the debate as he was unconcious during the decision making process.
His wife and two daughters sat and watched him die despite having been advised that immediate surgery would in all likelyhood have resulted in a complete recovery from the head injuries he had sustained in a fall from a ladder.
How anyone can purport to love someone yet condone them dying needlessly I do not know. How can anyone believe that a kind and caring God would want them to suffer in such a manner?
To me this is just another manifestation of the harm and hurt that religious brainwashing causes when the natural instict to protect what is dear to you is overriden by mumbo-jumbo.
[disgust]
It was a tragic result from this JW's beliefs, but I bet there's a few weird things in this lot below - what's a person to believe in? - they ALL think they are right...
Bábísm
Bahá'í
Bahá'í Faith
Orthodox Bahá'í Faith
Islam
Kharijites
Nation of Islam
Shiite
Alawites
Ismailis
Jafari
Zaiddiyah
Ghulat including
Alevi / Bektashi
Ahl-e Haqq
Yazidi
Druze
Ahmadi
Sunni
Berailvi
Deobandi
Hanafi
Hanbali
Maliki
Mu'tazili
Shafi'i
Wahhabi
Sufism
Naqshbandi
Bektashi
Chishti
Mevlevi
Zikri
Judaism (see also: Jew; Hebrews)
Contemporary divisions
Karaite Judaism
Rabbinic Judaism
Orthodox Judaism
Haredi Judaism
Hassidic Judaism
Modern Orthodox Judaism
Reform Judaism
Conservative Judaism (Masorti)
Reconstructionist Judaism (arguably not a religion)
Humanistic Judaism (arguably not a religion)
Historical Sects
Hasmoneans
Essenes
Pharisees
Sadducees
Zealots
Sicarii
sects that believed Jesus was a prophet
Ebionites
Elkasites
Nazarenes
Crypto-Jews
Marranos
Conversos
Christianity (see List of Christian denominations)
Eastern Orthodoxy
Roman Catholicism
Oriental Orthodoxy (Monophysitism)
Nestorianism
Protestantism
Anabaptists
Anglicans
Baptists
Lutherans
Methodists
Pentecostals
Reformed
Calvinism
Presbyterian
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarians
Waldensians
Latter-day Saints
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Community of Christ
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Seventh-day Adventist
Jehovah's Witnesses
Messianic Judaism (not actually Judaism but rather Jewish-rite Christianity)
Samaritans
Mandaeanists
Rastafarians
Black Hebrews
Hebrew Christians
[edit]
Dharmic religions
Religions with a concept of Dharma, also major religions of historical India
Hinduism (see also Contemporary Hindu movements)
Agama Hindu Dharma (Javanese Hinduism)
Shaivism
Shaktism
Smartism
Vaishnavism
Gaudiya Vaishnavism
ISKCON (Hare Krishna)
Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission
Six major schools and movements of Hindu philosophy
Samkhya
Nyaya
Vaisheshika
Purva mimamsa
Vedanta (Uttar Mimamsa)
Advaita Vedanta
Integral Yoga
Yoga
Ashtanga Yoga
Hatha yoga
Siddha Yoga
Tantric Yoga
Ayyavazhi
Shramana Religions
Buddhism (see Schools of Buddhism)
Mahayana
Nikaya schools (which have historically been called Hinayana in the West)
Theravada
Vajrayana (Tantric Buddhism)
Jainism
Digambara
Shvetambara
Panth Religions
Sikhism
Kabir Panth
Dadu Panth
[edit]
Other revealed religions
Believers in one God, also called classical monotheism, who follow an Indo-European culture of belief, philosophy and angelology.
Zoroastrianism
Magus (see Three Wise Men)
Gnosticism
Basilidians
Bogomils
Borborites
Cainites
Carpocratians
Cathars
Marcionism (not entirely Gnostic)
Ophites
Valentinians (see Valentinius)
Hinduism (Vaishnavism)
[edit]
Indigenous religions
The orally transmitted canon of indigenous peoples, many involving some variant of animism and many defunct
African religions
Akamba mythology
Akan mythology
Ashanti mythology
Bushongo mythology
Bwiti
Dahomey mythology
Dinka mythology
Efik mythology
Egyptian mythology
Ibo mythology
Isoko mythology
Khoikhoi mythology
Lotuko mythology
Lugbara mythology
Pygmy mythology
Tumbuka mythology
Yoruba mythology
Zulu mythology
African religions in the New World
Kumina
Obeah
Santería (Lukumi)
Vodou
Candomblé
Macumba
Umbanda and Quimbanda
Xango
European religions
Anglo-Saxon mythology
Basque mythology
Druidry (Celtic Religion)
Finnish mythology
Germanic paganism
Norse mythology
Greek religion
Greek mythology
Mystery religions
Eleusinian Mysteries
Mithraism
Pythagoreanism
Roman religion
Roman mythology
Slavic mythology
Asian religions
Babylonian and Assyrian religion
Babylonian mythology
Chaldean mythology
Sumerian mythology
Bön (Indigenous Tibetan belief)
Chinese mythology
Shinto
Oomoto
Tengrism (Indigenous Mongol, Tartar & Kazakh belief)
Yezidis (Modified indigenous Kurdish belief)
Native American religions
Abenaki mythology
Aztec mythology
Blackfoot mythology
Chippewa mythology
Creek mythology
Crow mythology
Guarani mythology
Haida mythology
Ho-Chunk mythology
Huron mythology
Inuit mythology
Iroquois mythology
Kwakiutl mythology
Lakota mythology
Lenape mythology
Navaho mythology
Nootka mythology
Pawnee mythology
Salish mythology
Selk'nam religion
Seneca mythology
Tsimshian mythology
Ute mythology
Zuni mythology
Oceanic religions
Australian Aboriginal mythology
Balinese mythology
Maori mythology
Modekngei (Republic of Palau)
Nauruan indigenous religion
Polynesian mythology
[edit]
Neopagan or revival religions
Modern religions seeking to recreate indigenous, usually pre-Christian, beliefs and practices
Church of All Worlds
Dievturiba
Germanic Neopaganism also called Ásatrú or Odinism
Hellenic polytheism (modern revivalist forms)
Judeo-Paganism
Maausk
Neo-druidism
Summum
Taarausk
Wicca
Alexandrian Wicca
Dianic Wicca (Feminist Wicca)
Gardnerian Wicca
Faery Wicca
Feri Tradition
[edit]
Non-revealed religions
Philosophies not transmitted by a divine prophet
Carvaka
Confucianism
Deism
Fellowship of Reason
Spiritual Humanism
Mohism
Taoism
[edit]
Left-Hand Path religions
Faiths teaching that the ultimate goal is separating consciousness from the universe, rather than being absorbed by it
Dragon Rouge
Satanism
LaVeyan Satanism
Church of Satan
Order of Nine Angles
Setianism also spelled Sethianism
Temple of Set
The Storm
Quimbanda
[edit]
Syncretic religions
Faiths created from blending earlier religions or that consider all or some religions to be essentially the same
Arès Pilgrim Movement
Cao Dai
Falun Dafa (Falun Gong)
Huna
Konkokyo
Law of One
Manichaeism
Unitarian Universalism
Universal Life Church
Tenrikyo
Theosophy
Seicho-No-Ie
[edit]
Entheogen religions
Religions based around divinely inspiring substances
Ayahuasca-based beliefs
Church of the Universe (marijuana sacrament)
Peyotism
THC Ministry
[edit]
New religious movements
See List of new religious movements for a list based on other sources
See hereunder for religions founded since 1850 with small followings
Monotheistic NRMs
Direct Worship of the Actual God
Indigenous NRM's
Burkhanism
Cargo cults
Ghost Dance
Native American Church
African Diaspora / Latin American NRM's
Rastafari movement
Umbanda
Candomble
Kardecist Spiritism
Hindu-oriented NRM's
Sai Baba/Sathya Sai Organisation
Hare Krishna
Transcendental Meditation
Sant Mat
Swaminarayan
Vedanta Society
Osho/Rajneeshism
Meher Baba (actually a Zoroastrian)
Oneness University
Aum Shinrikyo (Aleph)
Eckankar
NRM's with Islamic Roots
Subud
Ahmadi
Dances of Universal Peace
Nation of Islam (Black Muslims)
Christian-oriented NRM's
Unification Church
Jesus People
Children of God
People's Temple
Pentecostalism
Holiness movement
Iglesia ni Cristo
Buddhist-oriented NRM's
Soka Gakkai
Won Buddhism
Hoa Hao
Friends of the Western Buddhist Order
Chinese-oriented NRM's
Way of Former Heaven sects, including
I-Kuan Tao ("Way of Unity"),
T'ung-shan She ("Society of Goodness"),
Tien-te Sheng-chiao ("Sacred Religion of Celestial Virtue"),
Daoyuan ("Sanctuary of the Tao"),
Tz'u-hui Tang ("Compassion Society").
Falun Gong ("Dharma Wheel Work," a qigong meditation group)
Japanese-oriented NRM's
Tenrikyo
Seicho no Ie
Johrei (Johrei Movement - Sekai Kyusei Kyo Izunome Kyodan)
Reiki
Oomoto
Soka Gakkai
Aum Shinrikyo (Aleph)
Korean-oriented NRM's
Chondogyo
Jeung San Do
Juche (The personality cult of North Korean leaders)
Unification Church
Vietnamese-oriented NRM's
Caodaism
Hoa Hao
Malaysian-Oriented NRM's
Sky Kingdom
Western Magical / Esoteric Groups
Kardecist Spiritism
Theosophy
Agni Yoga
Anthroposophy
Arcane School
Association for Research and Enlightenment
Church Universal and Triumphant
Golden Dawn
Gurdjieff Work
AMORC
Spiritualism
Eckankar
Thelema
Argenteum Astrum
Fraternitas Saturni
Ordo Templi Orientis
Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis
Process Church of the Final Judgement
Order of the Solar Temple
White Supremacist Religions
Church of Jesus Christ Christian
World Church of the Creator (Creativity Movement)
Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan [1]
Black Supremacist Religions
Nuwaubianism
Alien-based religions
The Aetherius Society [2]
Raelism
Scientology
Church of Scientology
Free Zone
Urantia, Book of
Universe people
Other NRM's
Antoinism
Breatharianism (Air cult)
Brianism
Elan Vital
Faithists of Kosmon
Virus, The Church of
Tony Samara
[edit]
Parody or mock religions
Forms of religion or alternative beliefs
Agnosticism
Animism
Atheism
Ditheism (Dualism)
Henotheism
Monolatrism
Humanism
Secular Humanism
Kathenotheism
Maltheism
Monism
Monotheism
Panentheism
Pantheism
Cosmotheism
Polytheism
Shamanism
Suitheism
[edit]
Nonsectarian and trans-sectarian religious movements and practices
[edit]
Esotericism
Alchemy
Anthroposophy
Esoteric Christianity
Freemasonry
Gnosticism
Kabbalah
Occultism
Rosicrucian
Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
Confraternity of the Rose Cross
Rosicrucian Fellowship
Surat Shabda Yoga
[edit]
Mysticism
Christian mysticism
Gnosticism
Hindu mysticism
Tantra
Ananda Marga Tantra-Yoga
Yoga
Bhakti
Vedanta
Kabbalah (also part of Judaism)
Kabbalah Centre
Martinism
Merkabah (also part of Judaism)
Meditation
Spirituality
Sufism
Theosophy
[edit]
Magic (religion)
Astrology
Divination
Prophecy
Exorcism
Faith healing
Feng Shui
Hoodoo (Rootwork)
New Orleans Voodoo
Magick
Chaos magick
Enochian Magic
Grimoire magick
Goetic magick
Miracles
Pow-wow
Seid (shamanic magic)
Vaastu Shastra (Hinduism)
Witchcraft
[edit]
Ritualism
Prayer
Sacrifice
Animal sacrifice
Human sacrifice
Worship
This woman has committed a sin, an act of selfish cruelty on two innocent babies.:(
This woman has committed a sin, an act of selfish cruelty on two innocent babies.:(
Well said....I really feel in circumstances when the chance of life exists the doctor should be allowed to override the religious mumbo jumbo.
I understand where life exists but is of little quality then allowing someone to die is a blessing but where the quality is positive then let them live.
Surely the children should have been the primary motivation in the decision? It is totally unnatural for a Mother to put ANYTHING ahead of her offspring.
No doubt these kids will be inducted into the ways of the Witlesses and taught that their Mother did the noble thing in saving her own soul.
Thankfully, unlike a Lada, you can shut the door on a Jehovah ;)
Surely the children should have been the primary motivation in the decision? It is totally unnatural for a Mother to put ANYTHING ahead of her offspring.
No doubt these kids will be inducted into the ways of the Witlesses and taught that their Mother did the noble thing in saving her own soul.
Thankfully, unlike a Lada, you can shut the door on a Jehovah ;)
Well Said.
Sorry Brandy...but the children are affected...they no longer have a mother. I think this is one area when the state should step in.
But what is the State supposed to do, render such people unconcious and force them to have a transfusion? And if the State goes so far on that matter does that mean they should then physically force medication in other cases?
Certain medication is prescribed to help those at high risk of heart attacks or strokes, both of which are quite likely to prove fatal. Should people who refuse to take such medication be physically forced to do so because their death might have an effect on others?
Then there are the "life-saving" drugs where there are severe side effects. Where does the decision come between the choice of the patient and the decision by the State that the medication should be again "physically forced" on the patient?
Some other States have, from time to time, decided that they had the right to force certain Medical Procedures on chosen sections of their population but I don’t think I would have chosen to live in any of them.
I am very fortunate to know some wonderful people who call themselves Jehovah Witnesses. They are loving, caring and devoted parents. Many parents, of many religious persuations, have to make life and death decisions around medical care. (We don't need to get started on abortion.) As for a blood transfusion, I would have to think long and hard if I would want one and that for medical reasons.
I appreciate that many religious statements do come out sounding like mumbo jumbo to the outsider. (Gosh, sometimes they sound like mumbo jumbo to an insider too.) Most of that is a terminology issue. Just like lawyers, doctors, car mechanics and police officers have their own communication words, so to do theologians.
... I bet there's a few weird things in this lot below - what's a person to believe in? - they ALL think they are right...
As to bekisman's question in the post a few back which lead to the long listing of world religions, might I suggest that possibly they are all right, at least for the people who find faith through the teachings and practises of such religions/sects etc. Where a person can connect with God, then there must be something positive happening. What is the purpose in connecting with God? Well, I think it is to bring about wholeness in a person's life. People fulfilling their full potential are the building blocks of a peaceful, joyous community.
Don't suppose this would work?:
In some circumstances, you may be able to have your own blood taken and stored prior to surgery in which a transfusion may be necessary. This is known as autologous (aw-tol-o-gus) donation (https://www.mtsinai.on.ca/Surgery/BloodTranfusion/Autologous.htm). An autologous donation will not be taken if it is unlikely that a transfusion will be required. You also need to be in acceptable physical condition and have an adequate red blood cell (hemoglobin) level.
They are loving, caring and devoted parents. .
Was she being a loving parent then when she would rather die and those babies were crying for their first feed from her but she was more bothered about her own afterlife?:confused
The bottom line is that religion is about selfishness rather than caring for others.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article434158.ece
Was she being a loving parent then when she would rather die and those babies were crying for their first feed from her but she was more bothered about her own afterlife?:confused
The bottom line is that religion is about selfishness rather than caring for others.
I am not so much worried about afterlife as I am about here and now life.
Your experiences and your interpretations of those experiences have led you to conclude that religion is about selfishness. I have had other experiences and gone in a different direction to my conclusion.
Also, we may be defining selfishness in very different ways.
I do find it unfair that these children are having to grow up without a mother, but we cannot dictate how someone else lives. If religon is so important to someone that they would die and leave their children behind, then i think TBH that it's their decision to make. Im not religious at all but I can understand why some people take their faith so seriously.
And from the link that Angela left it looks like she wasnt accepting death by refusing the transfusion of the strangers blood, because she thought she would be able to get a transfusion of her own.
i had this discussion with a jehovah witness i worked with a few years ago.. my side of the argument is that the bible is, IMHO, outdated.. and we should allow changes in society to overule what the bibles says about certain things..
also, if god did not want us to receive blood transfusions.. why did he allow the scientists the knowledge to discover the procedure in the 1st place..
(obviously, this is a very simplified version of a very lenghty discussion)
as for my kids.. id give up anything to protexct them.. my faith, my morals, my life... theres is nothing more important to me than them..
Your experiences and your interpretations of those experiences have led you to conclude that religion is about selfishness. I have had other experiences and gone in a different direction to my conclusion.
Also, we may be defining selfishness in very different ways.
Religion is about selfishness, a selfishness to ensure one goes to heaven for eternity. Religious people do good things or live to their interpretation of scripture to ensure that they are judged to be good thus they have their passage to heaven allowed by God. That isn't doing good unconditionally, they are ultimately thinking about their selves.
An atheist in the same situation would have done ANYTHING to complete the task of being a parent. That is unconditional love.
Religion is about selfishness, a selfishness to ensure one goes to heaven for eternity. Religious people do good things or live to their interpretation of scripture to ensure that they are judged to be good thus they have their passage to heaven allowed by God. That isn't doing good unconditionally, they are ultimately thinking about their selves.
An atheist in the same situation would have done ANYTHING to complete the task of being a parent. That is unconditional love.
Rheghead, Emma didn't die believing that she would go to heaven.
Best not commenting on situations you know little about.
Rheghead, Emma didn't die believing that she would go to heaven.
Best not commenting on situations you know little about.
Why did she want to die then?
It's cases like these that add grease to the wheel of atheism.
So, you can wangle around the bible teachings if you reuse your own blood..
Suppose religion is a selfish idea i.e. bottom line; 'you'd better be good or you won't go to heaven' does that mean a 'good' atheist is being more honest?
Why did she want to die then?
It's cases like these that add grease to the wheel of atheism.
I've not read anywhere that she 'wanted to die.'
As to living a good life as an entry into heaven, that is not my motivation. I don't worry about heaven.
There is no doubt though that Christianity is selfish. The basic principle to 'love God, love neighbour and love self' is selfish. For it is in loving ourselves that we become all that we can become and thus are able to be there for our neighbour.
I've not read anywhere that she 'wanted to die.'
She wanted to die rather than have a choice at a chance of survival and to wrestle with her concience/beliefs.
She wanted to take the blue pill rather than the red pill.
Suppose religion is a selfish idea i.e. bottom line; 'you'd better be good or you won't go to heaven' does that mean a 'good' atheist is being more honest?
A good atheist is a person who can live his life for the furtherment survival of his/her fellow humans and the environment on an unconditional basis. That doesn't mean that selfishness doesn't play a part or even honesty for that matter, it just means that if his actions inflict harm on others or on the environment then it should have moral implications.
i had this discussion with a jehovah witness i worked with a few years ago.. my side of the argument is that the bible is, IMHO, outdated.. and we should allow changes in society to overule what the bibles says about certain things..
also, if god did not want us to receive blood transfusions.. why did he allow the scientists the knowledge to discover the procedure in the 1st place..
(obviously, this is a very simplified version of a very lenghty discussion)
as for my kids.. id give up anything to protexct them.. my faith, my morals, my life... theres is nothing more important to me than them..
Like I said above, the JW reasoning is not considered to be that of 'classic' Christianity. They have their own version of the bible too plus other religious teachings which they consider authorative. God and the bible do not forbid blood transfusions.
What other things that the bible says do you consider we should throw overboard?
So, you can wangle around the bible teachings if you reuse your own blood..
Suppose religion is a selfish idea i.e. bottom line; 'you'd better be good or you won't go to heaven' does that mean a 'good' atheist is being more honest?
Going to heaven isn't about self-righteousness. The bible teaches that any notion of that will never be good enough. It is only through accepting that Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin that we enter heaven, not through any righteousness of our own.
Going to heaven isn't about self-righteousness. The bible teaches that any notion of that will never be good enough. It is only through accepting that Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin that we enter heaven, not through any righteousness of our own.
Are you sure that just by accepting Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin that we enter heaven is enough, and then we can go on to commit genocide on infidels and still go to heaven? It is a joke, right?:confused That is even more selfish, sod all the do-gooding, let's just cut to the chase and go to heaven!! Isn't it all comparable to condoning the actions of suicide bombers and their reward of 76 virgins when the get to heaven?
The basic principle to 'love God, love neighbour and love self' is selfish. For it is in loving ourselves that we become all that we can become and thus are able to be there for our neighbour.
For as long as we have one belief, while our neighbour holds another belief, there will remain a barrier between coexisting in harmony. Let the sole belief be a belief that we are all equal and equally responsible for our actions. We are in the computer age, yet cling to abacus-old writings for guidance.
Andrew asks: "What other things that the bible says do you consider we should throw overboard?"
How about a couple of these for a start?:
1)If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. Leviticus 20:9.
2) If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:10
3)If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death 20:13
4) If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-1
5)For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Exodus 35:2
6) Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24
She wanted to die rather than have a choice at a chance of survival and to wrestle with her concience/beliefs.
She wanted to take the blue pill rather than the red pill.
No, I think that she wanted to live. From the articles I have read it would appear that she sought out a hospital that had the equipment to perform the blood reclamation technique that would ensure that in an emergency she would get her own blood back.
She trusted and the system failed her.
No, I think that she wanted to live.
If that was the case then she should have accepted the blood transfusion. I wasn't aware that there was a 'recovery' system for spilt blood during an operation, even so, I'd imagine that there would be sterile issues surrounding recovery of blood during childbirth, I'm specifically thinking of the torn region of where the bleeding is coming from and the timescales involved in getting any sterile blood back into a patients body.
Andrew asks: "What other things that the bible says do you consider we should throw overboard?"
How about a couple of these for a start?:
1)If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. Leviticus 20:9.
2) If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 20:10
3)If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death 20:13
4) If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20-1
5)For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. Exodus 35:2
6) Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24
thanks bekisman... i wasnt sure of the exact details... but these are along the same lines i was thinking of..
If that was the case then she should have accepted the blood transfusion. I wasn't aware that there was a 'recovery' system for spilt blood during an operation, even so, I'd imagine that there would be sterile issues surrounding recovery of blood during childbirth, I'm specifically thinking of the torn region of where the bleeding is coming from and the timescales involved in getting any sterile blood back into a patients body.
Rheghead, earlier in the thread angela5 suggested this link:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article434158.ece (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article434158.ece)
I've watched enough ER to know that there exists the technology to collect blood and reuse it. Unfortunately no one was available to make the thing work.
I don't believe that there was planning in choosing a hospital that could recover and had the equipment to recover blood. The machine was brought in too late and there was not a technician versed in its use on service at the time (before anyone goes balistic about the equipment being "unmanned", it is just too expensive to be prepared for every worst case scenario. At the moment the NHS does not afford us the basics of clean hospitals and personally I would prefer that be done before guaratee-ing "exotic" procedures that are easier, more relaiable and less expesive to do by other methods) . These are not indicative of any kind of planning. From what I read (and who knows how credible that is), the patient was only identified as jehova on admission. If there was planning, the hospital would have known "a priori" and it would not have been necessary to send for the Jehovas liason personel to clarify and maintain the position of the mother with regard to transfusions. The hospital would have been prepared and informed.
As for the bible and its admonitions on the ingestion of blood, this is one of the few things that make scientific sense: Both the Jewish a Muslim religions orginated in warm countries. At the time they did not have fridges. Animals that were not very well bled started deteriorating very quickly in the heat ( the blood, rich in nutrients and moisture is ideal for bacterial growth). Badly bled meat could/would provoke disease. Bleeding well was of utmost importance.
a quote my College history proffesor told us once that allways stuck with me..
was simply..
Good deeds doth not make a good Man, but a good man doth make good deeds.
if i am remebering correctly it was said by a spanish monk who was protesting the catholic church when its was selling get into heaven tickets.
There seems to be a general misunderstanding about interpreting the Old Testament which is leading to much confusion. Its important to understand the Old Testament in the light of the new for current day interpretation.
With regards to the reference to husbands, wives and submitting, again, the verses from Ephesians have been lifted out of the context of the rest of the teaching in the New Testament about the status of men and women and their relationship to each other.
There is little point in explaining these things, because many of your minds are made up with regards to what the bible actually teaches but if there is anyone interested in hearing, I'd be happy to oblige.
Andrew C
Are you sure that just by accepting Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin that we enter heaven is enough, and then we can go on to commit genocide on infidels and still go to heaven? It is a joke, right?:confused That is even more selfish, sod all the do-gooding, let's just cut to the chase and go to heaven!! Isn't it all comparable to condoning the actions of suicide bombers and their reward of 76 virgins when the get to heaven?
No, its merely the beginning. It relies on continued faith in Jesus, certainly not on our own righteousness. Without this 'holiness' or 'utter righteousness' given to us by Jesus, no-one will see heaven, according to the bible. The person who becomes a Christian is not free to just go on sinning because they are forgiven.
AC
The person who becomes a Christian is not free to just go on sinning because they are forgiven.
AC
They just reapply for a ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolution
If that was the case then she should have accepted the blood transfusion. I wasn't aware that there was a 'recovery' system for spilt blood during an operation, even so, I'd imagine that there would be sterile issues surrounding recovery of blood during childbirth, I'm specifically thinking of the torn region of where the bleeding is coming from and the timescales involved in getting any sterile blood back into a patients body.
Apparently there are several such systems available. It seems that patients can donate units beforehand or lost blood can be recovered in an emergency situation.
There is an interesting article on their use in the case of Jehovah's Witness patients here:-
http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/90/1/229-a#RL2-83636
Obviously, if Jehovahs are to require such equipment, it raises questions on the extra drain on resources, budgets etc of the Hospital involved.
Apparently there are several such systems available. It seems that patients can donate units beforehand or lost blood can be recovered in an emergency situation.
So did the JW donate or even attempt to donate blood beforehand?:confused
So did the JW donate or even attempt to donate blood beforehand?:confused
It is not likely that a pregnant woman would be allowed to pre-store (this is not a donation) her blood. I don't know for sure, I am just suggesting that likely such gathering would be restricted because one needs all the nutrients, especially iron, that one has to support normal fetal development.
It is not likely that a pregnant woman would be allowed to pre-store (this is not a donation) her blood. I don't know for sure, I am just suggesting that likely such gathering would be restricted because one needs all the nutrients, especially iron, that one has to support normal fetal development.
So it would be folly to introduce the notion that the system failed her then?
They just reapply for a ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolution
Some of us are slow learners and it takes us awhile to get going in a healthy direction. So, yes, grace does allow for repeat absolution.
And fortunately the absolver is extremely patient. However there is a caution that this is not a system that should be abused. I've never pushed it to find out if there is a cut off point. I would think that most people 'get it' long before an end point would begin to loom large on the horizon.
So it would be folly to introduce the notion that the system failed her then?
I meant that the technology existed to gather the blood so that it could be recycled into her blood stream. That is the part of the system I was suggesting failed her.
However, since I first put up that suggestion it has been pointed out to me that the tabloid in question is not one that should be used as a resource for a serious discussion. I beg your patience while I learn the ins and outs of British journalism.
Still, I can make the point that we don't know all of the components of this story.
I meant that the technology existed to gather the blood so that it could be recycled into her blood stream. That is the part of the system I was suggesting failed her.
Yeah but haven't you just precluded that a pregnant woman would use such a system?:confused
Yeah but haven't you just precluded that a pregnant woman would use such a system?:confused
Rheghead, we seem to be like ships passing in the night here. The technology which I am refering to is the gathering of the blood from the severed vessels that won't clot. By that point in the process she had given birth.
So did the JW donate or even attempt to donate blood beforehand?:confused
You would need to ask her family. I am merely pointing out that the technology exists and can be made available.
My opinion is that it is folly to refuse anything that could help save your life. I also have doubts on how far we should stretch to accommodate ALL possible beliefs, when it might result in an inferior service overall.
oldmarine
08-Nov-07, 01:33
What...give up black pudding?
Would that be like blood pudding?
It would indeed oldmarine.
I have not checked the full details of how the blood transfusion came to be needed or if there was any failure in some system which was expected to be there for use if such a thing were required.
What amazes me is that so many people who are willing to pass judgement on somebody's religious beliefs simply because they do not conform with the beliefs they themselves hold, be those religious, agnostic, atheist, humanitarian, moral or whatever other label they wish to hang on them.
The woman made a conscious and obviously previously considered decision about what treatment she should or should not receive in a particular set of circumstances. The fact that we, as individuals, would have made a different decision is frankly irrelevant. We would make a decision which we would consider correct, she made a decision which she considered correct.
Provided the Witnesses do not wish to interfere with the decisions we ourselves would make on the subject I would say that we can hardly claim the right to interfere with their decisions.
The fact that we consider that we are absolutely right is, in effect, no more justifiable than their belief that they are absolutely right.
Provided the Witnesses do not wish to interfere with the decisions we ourselves would make on the subject I would say that we can hardly claim the right to interfere with their decisions.
The fact that we consider that we are absolutely right is, in effect, no more justifiable than their belief that they are absolutely right.
Do you really think that the loss of a mother to two babies doesn't interfere with the way I look at society, least of all the extra tax burden that a loss of a parent incurs?
So it's not about the moral issues or anything concerning the children, it's simply about how much it could cost the tax-payer.
And we are to criticise the actions of the mother? :roll:
So it's not about the moral issues or anything concerning the children, it's simply about how much it could cost the tax-payer.
And we are to criticise the actions of the mother? :roll:
I said LEAST of all the tax burden.:roll: Can you not read?
ye canna keep a shark away fae the scent o blood rheg .
it 's a cryin shame for the poor weans . i never heard of recycled blood , maybe it can save jh 's lives but they canna expect to just turn up and demand the service ???
Yes, I read the full sentence and can see no other interpretation or there would have been no requirement for any comment about the extra tax burden the loss of a parent incurs.
Apart from that single comment I have no recollection of the financial implications having been mentioned by anyone.
Richman, I think somebody said that the Hospital was chosen specifically because it did have such facilities. I can't remember if they still do but Hospitals certainly used to ask you your religion as a matter of course so I would have thought would have been well aware of the situation concerning blood transfusions.
That isn't meant as any criticism of the Hospital because I don't know if the situation could have been anticipated or if they were caught out by a sudden last minute appearance of the mother-to-be.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.