A 23-year-old Congolese woman gave birth to a healthy baby boy yesterday at the Coombe Women’s Hospital in Dublin. She began to hemorrhage badly and loss 75-80 percent of her blood. Death was imminent when a brilliant doctor realized that we live in the 21st century. He had the crazy idea of taking blood from another person and putting into her body. Eureka he thought!
Well his joy was short-lived when the woman declined this extraordinary procedure. She claimed that it was against her religious beliefs. Now imagine that just for a second. This women is about to begin a new life with her first child. They have their whole lives ahead of them, but she’s going to die. Sure, a simple procedure can heal her, but faith in her religion is going to ultimately kill her. She puts her beliefs ahead of her own child’s welfare. Unbelievable!
Now the doctors went to get a court order to forcibly give her the transfusion. They won and ended up saving her dumb ass. But this does make one wonder if they had any right to do so. Is the child’s welfare worth disrespecting her mother’s religious beliefs?
My opinion in the matter is very simple. Forget the transfusion, respect her ignorant religious beliefs, and let nature take its course. Hopefully her child will grow up to see the error in his mother’s way and not make the same mistake.
Having kids myself, this woman is the reason why I have such disdain for devout religious beliefs. If you’re going to have faith in anyone or anything… have faith in yourself.
Hmmm, that’s got a nice ring to it. ReligiousFreaks.com – "Have faith in yourself"
No related posts.
conclusive evidence that religion is a bad trait, and that its being weeded out of the gene pool?
No, no, no, no, it’s not being weeded out if she survived long enough to reproduce.
If she lives, she’ll only pollute her childs mind, and create another psycho.
My glib first thought is the doctor should have let her die, some people are too stupid to bother saving, and let someone more intelligent raise the child. Realistically the child would have probably ended up with someone just as bad if not worse. Hopefully, she’ll raise a strong, healthy child and tell him/her this story and that child will have an epiphany and reject his stupid mother’s religion.
I wonder, though, now what will the woman do? Will she consider herself full of evil, so to speak? I can’t help but worry she’ll do something really stupid and take that poor kid with her.
I think now she’ll go around biting people on the neck and wearing black with sunglassess on at all times. I mean, that’s what I’d do if I thought I was unholy from taking someone else’s blood.
She could even try to seduce young virgin Jim Carey’s.
I agree that the JW’s practice of refusing transfusions is ridiculous – it is based on totally arbitrary principles disseminated by the Watchtower. I mean, check this out:
http://www.ajwrb.org
You can not accept whole blood components, but albumin is OK, for example.
It’s interesting that you’ve hit on the slogan “have faith in yourself”, gasmonso. That is probably the antithesis of Christianity – what I would identify as the great lie that is the root cause of man’s just condemnation before God.
Ditto about “Have faith in yourself”. Sounds fantastic.
I wouldn’t want my donated blood wasted on someone who doesn’t want it. Let the lady do her religious duty and let some other person receive the blood, preferably hot blonds.
These are hard times my friends, religious freaks are whispering unholy words into everybody’s ears, but we must have faith… we must have faith in ourself and in our ability to do the right thing.
Any religion that means me or someone i care about has to die because some stupid blood transplantation or any other thing isn’t allowed will face dire trouble, you hear me you freaks?
On a more logical note, blood transplantation isn’t allowed because it is unnatural and if god had wanted to heal you, he would be doing it without BT. someone tell me, if an omni potent god wants to heal you, can’t he do so THROUGH the doctor? how do you know that doctor isn’t but god’s devine instrument to save your life?
this really sounds self contradicting to me. anybody willing to enlighten me?
and Blood donor, blonds aren’t that hot:D i want my blood given to brunettes!
“Forget the transfusion, respect her ignorant religious beliefs, and let nature take its course.”
indeed.
If ever we need more proof that Darwin’s right, point here.
Their believes and rules are even completely random, the bible says nothing about it being wrong to recieve blood from another (mostly because A: It’s NOT a guide for live, you morons, and B: There were no transfusions in 400AD) The worst thing is not the people who choose to be JW’s, It’s really sad when children are born into the “religion”
when you choose to be an idiot, fine by me, but take your kids down with you.
Religions are subject to natural selection in a way. It is logical that the religions that survive and spread would be the ones that preach life, since all those that preach death (suicide cults) tend not to last very long. It also stands to reason that those religions that insist that they are spread by their believers would spread faster and overtake those that don’t.
This can also explain the standoff between religions like christianity, judaism, and islam. All three preach life, and all three demand spreading nearly equally, and to an extreme.
O_o, good point Father!
” those religions that insist that they are spread by their believers would spread faster ”
huh, i don’t get that. which religion isn’t spread by it’s believers?
If any existed, they wouldn’t last very long, nomatter what their message was. My point is that the way christians/muslims spread their religion can only be described as frantic. It is deeply ingraned in their religion that they need to “save” everyone by converting them. Those religions that obsess over converting non-believers get bigger.
Another, less important, factor in the success of a religion is its appeal. Ancient greek/roman religions had the same old soul punishment/reward thing, but christianish religions made it more appealling (Jesus loves you, you will be saved, 72 virgins, etc…).
What I found amazing about it was that she was prepared to die and leave her newborn son without any family or relations in the country to take care of him.
Dave
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/angela.htm
The other side of forced medical procedures.
What other side? From what I read of your article, everyone was in agreement that it was in the girl’s best interest not to try and save her unborn child. Do you think it is some kind of tragedy that the woman’s life wasn’t put at further risk to try and save a potential person?
It’s one thing to argue that you respect all human life even if it isn’t life yet, but it’s another to weigh potential life against a woman’s life. This is really just another example of religious people preaching idiocy.
What I got from the article and what I THINK Mina is saying that the COURTS and SUITS forced the pregnant mother to have a c-section over her objections to save a fetus instead of trying to save the mother.
well. In the lincked story you can have either do nothing and have A. or you can remove the “non-person” and have B.
A – a small chance a healthy child will be born, and a large chance the mother will die.
B- a healthy mother.
well i’d know which one i’d pick
It wasn’t quite that simple, there was no guarantee the mother would survive a third chemo/radiation treatment series. That said I agree with you.
[...] A simple choice: Get a blood transfusion and raise your newborn or die. Apparently, some people have a really hard time with the modern world. [...]
In the title article, the decision was made by the hospital to save as many lives as possible, namely both. In this situation, it was decided that the needs of the child outweighed the wishes of the mother, and is a decision that I personally don’t see a problem with – when I decide to have children, I’m doing a lot more than simply having a bit of fire and forget fun.
In the article linked from 17., the decision was to sacrifice the mother for a 60% chance of the child’s survival.
At a purely mathematical level, if the mother’s survival chance is higher than that, then she needs to be saved, else the baby takes priority. Yes, that’s a cold, barren, unemotional way of looking at it, but that’s life.
I don’t see the link between the two articles however. The first is a decision made that the child needs a mother in a strange land, the other is an either or situation in which odds were you could not have both.
Dave
Ok folks… one simple question WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL THAT WOMAN WHAT TO DO??? can you not see that by imposing YOUR belief system you are simply getting it as wrong as that womans church??
If she wants to refuse treatment LET HER. it is HER BODY and HER CHOICE
I hate all organised religion. I’m an independant thinker and for my own PERSONAL reasons I dont believe in transfusion or donation either. Never read a copy of watchtower in my life and have no intention of ever doing so… Before you ask NO i would not ask any child I may have to follow that view but I would sure as hell hope they would respect my rite to follow MY belief…
dangerous persident people… as someone who was once diagnosed with personality disorders the thought of being forced to have ANY form of medical treament makes me sick.
What next? ban all requests for DNR??
@benben
i think most people here are not eager to impose their “belief” onto that woman. i agree with a previous comment that she SHOULD have died (unfortunately she managed to procreate). i (and probably some others) am merely shocked that in this day and age, with all the wonderful advances we’ve made and knowledge we’ve gathered people are still thinking and behaving in these primitive ways.
@BenBen
Sorry, that is not going to fly. Part of the bargain (implied) in living in a society is that you surrender some individual rights to the will of the group. You cannot simply say ‘let me die, fate will take care of the child.’ By your thinking we (society) should let children consume chocolate all day if they wish, after all it’s their body. And before you say children are different (if you were ;) ) society also decides when someone is an adult.
From the linked article:
The Humanist Association of Ireland described the court decision as “absolutely outrageous”. Its vice-chairman Dick Spicer said the decision set a dreadful precedent. “It overrides individual religious rights. It overrides the right to refuse treatment and the ramifications of this could be enormous in the future”, he said.
~ emphasis added to make the point
BenBen, you are correct in that the state should not force its will on her. However, I think most people are shocked that you would simply disregard your child by not having a procedure.
Having kids myself, I wouldn’t give up that easy. I would take the damn transfusion so I could enjoy the rest of my life with my child.
It’s just weird.
gasmonso
@boris
why do you classify it as primative? whilst in this instance it is unfortunate that religion plays its part, what if she had said I believe? Just because her opinion differs from yours? Her life her choice. Only in this case I think we all suspect it came from her association with an organisation that spreads ITS beliefs
@ Elliot
But we already do… how many tenage single mothers out there on benifits???? The state is very much looking after those children. Follow your thinking and I guess you would be force feeding young school girls the pill.
We already let kids eat what the hell they want. Can you give me a case in the UK where anybody has been prosicuted for serving bad food to a child?? No food yes but not for just serving junk.
I dont see why you make the point about age. I see nothing to question that the woman was a minor. I accept that we do surrender some freedom to integrate with the rest of society but I think you are stretching a point..
@gasmonso
No kids of my own and perhaps that freedom does allow me the luxary of some hard edge views.
@ gasmonso
I’ll also accept its weird :-) so long as people can accept its valid.
And yes I guess it does make me more carefull at times.. although I smoke like a chimney and have been given a fiar range of drugs over the years.. go figure? ;-)
Eh, lets just wait for the next time that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ leaders need a boost in living expenses. Like they always do, they’ll predict the end of the world by ‘interpreting scripture’ again… which they’ve gotten wrong around 5 times in the past. They’ll all sell everything they have, give all their money to the church, stop going to college, and stop having children. With as fast as society moves now, having them cut themselves down like that would severely damage them. And now that fraud lawsuits can be filed, I doubt the leaders would get to enjoy those lavish lifestyles built on the chared remains of their follower’s once futures like they did in the Depression.
@BenBen
I used children to illustrate that you shouldn’t necessarily allow someone to do something simply because it’s their body. It was a bad example to a point. However, a responsible parent should make an attempt to control a child’s diet.
I’d prefer not to get into teenage pregnancy and birth control because it’ll lead to hijacking the thread.
In general I’m against the gov’t forcing anything on people but sometimes….
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, please allow me to throw in a few comments.
First off, we don’t oppose medical treatment in general and we certainly don’t want to die, but we are willing to die for what we believe. We don’t oppose blood transfusions because they are “unnatural” (as was mentioned in an earlier post), but because in the Bible blood is considered sacred, and it says to abstain from blood (Acts 15:28, 29). By refusing blood, we’re not expecting God to miraculously cure us.
As for post #5 which wondered if the woman would now feel she was full of evil or something along those lines – it’s doubtful. We don’t see blood itself as somehow evil or sinful. She was forced to receive the transfusion against her will, her conscience should be clean – it wasn’t voluntary, she did her best to be obedient. But like I said, I’m sure she’s very upset and depressed over the situation and will take her some time to get over it (I don’t personally know her).
And don’t overlook to advances in bloodless medicine that have been largely a result of Jehovah’s Witnesses stance on blood. EVERYONE benefits from that, not just Witnesses.
Fizzer, though i don’t agree with you, how about contacting gasmonso for a Just Ask section about JW? this seems to be the best way to debunk the myth about JW.
Blood is sacred? Sure i can live with that. But what about the blood of your brother/child? Would it be wrong to transfuse it? There isn’t that much difference in blood between direct relatives.
“To abstain oneself from blood” since in Jesus’s time there was no such thing as blood transfusion, i chose to interpret this as “to abstain oneself from SHEDDING blood” as this translation sounds more correct to me(i might be wrong… but please if i am, tell me why i am wrong and you are right)
Or to abstain from consuming blood perhaps, which would get back into the idea that the mosaic perscriptions on eating habits were based on a time when cleanliness of food could not be gauranteed. Meat that still contained blood would not have been cooked enough to destroy the myriad of things that could grow in it due to unsanitary kitchens and storage.
Actually Humanistic Jones is closer to the point, and I meant to put in the full text of the verses I referenced.
Here it is:
Acts 15:28,29 “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”
(the “YOU” in all caps indicates that it’s a plural “you”, not singular)
So yes, basically that is referring to eating blood or animals that had not been properly bled after being killed. Obviously the concept of blood transfusions came long afterward. However, we feel that injecting blood into our veins is still taking blood into our bodies, just not through the mouth. One illustration that is frequently mentioned is alcohol. If you were an alcoholic and needed to avoid alcohol, would it be ok to inject it directly into your veins?
As far as using a close relative’s blood goes, it’s not different. We view that as the misuse of blood. We won’t even store our own blood beforehand in case of a planned surgery.
The Bible talks in many places about blood and its value and symbolism. We don’t hang that whole belief on just the verse I quoted above. I invite you to read more on the subject here: http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_01.htm
As far as doing a Just Ask feature, I’m not sure. I’m not an official spokesman or anything like that and would not want my words to be taken as the official party line. The best way is to go to http://www.watchtower.org and read more there, or ask the next Witness who comes to your house. Also my time is somewhat limited, I work full time and have other responsibilities to attend to. Yes, believe it or not, we have real jobs too! :-) And not everything has a quick and easy answer. But I will consider it, and gasmonso has already contacted me.
@fizzer
honestly, the whole thing is very silly, and it will appear so to anyone with half a brain. lets assume for a second that the bible’s mention of blood wasn’t completely frivolous and had some practical merit. our knowledge of chemistry and medicine has progressed… a lot… i think the alcohol example is not really valid, noone gets addicted to blood, reasons for avoiding alcohol are much different. not very many people will care to force their beliefs onto JW, but when asked for comment and opinion, anyone with no religious bias and some sort of education will immidiately realize how silly the whole thing is.
The point boris, is that, at one time, this must have made complete sense from an atheist standpoint as well (like circumcission and not eating pigs etc etc)
Over the years, however, science improved and religion has remained stubbornly the same. (as both will allways do) Leading to a zealous adhearance to the rules, without realy knowing why.
If you want a nice analogy, go see Beneath the planet of the Apes, pay close attention to the mutants worshipping “the peacemaker” (a nuklear weapon) because it has “brought them peace for thousands of years”
You said she puts her beliefs ahead of her own child’s welfare. I think that’s a funny statement. Who in their right mind doesn’t put their beliefs in front of anything else? Think about it for a moment…if you believe walking to the store will help you get some eggs, then why would you stay home when you need some eggs? You believe it, so you do it. It’s your beliefs!
Believing that you can get some eggs by going to the store is confirmable, most religious beliefs are not confirmable. We dislike the fact that this woman put her unconformable (and thus possibly untrue) beliefs ahead of her own child’s health.
Alcari:
An even better example is one given to me in my training as a technical consultant. We have to deal with companies that have done things the same way for years, sometimes since the company was founded, they don’t really know why they do it, but the person before them said that’s why they need to do it and many of them invent reasons for why it is done that are completely off from the original source of the process. The example I was given was this.
A woman was cooking a roast for a family get together, her friend noticed that she cut the ends off of the roast and asked why. The woman responded that her mother taught her this way, and that with it the heat would cook the roast more evenly. The friend asked the mother, who gave a similar response and said she learned it from her mother. When the friend inquired the grandmother as to how she came to the conclusion that cutting off the ends of the roast made it cook better she laughed and informed the friend that when she was younger, her oven was so small that the only reason she cut the ends off was to fit the roast in the oven. Habit from an old necesity spawned tradition with invented reasons.
Hey Humanistic Jones, please contact me soon. I’ve tried emailing you, but not sure if they’re getting through. Thanks!
gasmonso
im a church of england christian and i cannot believe what you are saying about this woman. i dnt no if u have any idea why she made the choice she did, but all i can say is hats off to her for sticking by her guns and not letting an unfortunate incident turn her from God. now, i don’t agree with what she did, but it is not my place to comment on her beliefs, and if her child grows to be a JW like his mother, then good on him for not letting something stand in his way. God may be my crutch, but without Him i keep falling flat on my nose, just like you keep doing.
Can’t remember the last time I fell flat on my nose. Maybe you just weren’t taught the right way to stand on your own two feet. That is sort of what religion does, doesn’t it? One sad little person needs motivation or support, and then they teach that to their children, who teach it to their children, etc. The foolish might believe it’s better to die than to change but I sincerely hope they are the minority. Personally, the doctor should have let her die. She is no different than a drug addict that keeps overdosing or a depressed person that keeps trying to kill them self. They should all be left to die so they can’t do any more damage to society.
I truly favored reading your post regarding this, and I saw a couple of other individuals as well – really informative and valuable facts with out a bunch of BS!
Excellent web site. Lots of useful info here. I am sending it to some friends ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course, thanks on your effort!