A 14-year-old boy, Dennis Lindberg, killed himself under the instructions of a sadistic cult. This action was blessed by Skagit County (Washington) Superior Court Judge, John Meyer, who prohibited the State of Washington from interfering in the youth’s suicide pact.
Unfortunately, no criminal action will be brought against either the “Cult” or Judge Meyer, because the “Cult” is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the method of suicide the youth chose was to refuse treatment that would have given him a 70% chance of survival.
TJM author Luci recently wrote about another senseless death associated with Jehovah’s Witness prohibition on accepting blood transfusions.
Basically, JWs are prohibited from consuming the blood of an animal. “Church” leaders decided that hospital patients can be fed intravenously, a blood transfusion is food.
What?
TJM reader Jerry Jones (his link) commented:
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body’s circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body’s digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item.
Before you start thinking that I’m singling out JW’s, remember that MANY religions/dogmatic beliefs require the individual to harm himself/herself in the name of worship and/or conformity. Judaism (and others) requires the partial amputation of male genitalia. Sects of Islam require adherents to flog and/or lacerate themselves as a part of their worship. (Check out “Ashoura”) Female Genital Mutilation is still widely practiced in several locations around the world. Foot Binding, an old Chinese custom, has crippled millions of women.
Dogmatism turns otherwise rational people into lemmings. Religion is the single largest source of Dogmatism. Religion is also the most “Protected” in its application. Without Religion to back up this boy’s decision, his parents would have been brought up on child endangerment charges, he would be declared a ward of the court, and his doctors would be ordered to begin treatment.
Read more:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/religion_kills.php
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/29/jehovahs.witness.ap/index.html
Care to post a link to the original story?
This senseless death is indicative of the underlying problem of religion in this country. That problem being: Which is supreme, the church or the state? Without the protection and the very structure of the state, no religion can exist on its own. And yet time and time again we see instances where the state bows in subservience to religion. This is just one more.
Rather that separate the two, we have in fact colluded to allow the usurpation of religion over the state. And as a result, the state has failed in its most important and principle role: that of protecting its citizens.
Should any entity be legally allowed to continue an operation wherein its “services and/or products” are detrimental to one’s health? Aren’t factories and chemical companies prohibited from fouling our water and air? Aren’t food companies required to operate within health and safety guidelines? And these entities pay taxes! The church is allowed to skirt these same requirements and they add nothing, nothing to the public. I agree, religion is an overall detriment to society. Not just in this case. Its words and beliefs as shown here in this case, are just worthless doggerel.
When tenets such as in this case, are adhered to; irrespective of the wishes of its followers, they should not be allowed to operate in the US, any more so than we would allow any other polluter of deadly substances to continue in operation.
The irony here is that the same deference paid to religion in this instance, prohibits one from deciding their own fate in another. Such as in the cases of euthanasia. Or when a woman choose to have an abortion, ending the prospect of “potential life.” So then religion is all over the spectrum on these issues, which when one studies religious beliefs, that is understandable. They can’t keep any of it straight. I can understand that religion has a vested interest in wanting to end abortions, due to the simple fact of the loss of its customers.
But these other cases are simply exercises and demonstrations of the power of religion over the right of human beings to choose our their fate. Because there is NO WAY a 14-year old can conceivably understand the consequences of such a decision. And all such decisions, when confronted against religious dogma, should be assumed by the state where the health and safety of a minor is at stake.
@ aaron, rivalarriva, did. They’re not linked but posted under “Read More”
Here ya go:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/29/jehovahs.witness.ap/index.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/religion_kills.php
Doh. Thanks! What a tragedy.
8th grader kill himself for god??? okay, if thats how you see it, I read the story that tells about a 14 year old with luekemia and no garantee that a blood tranfusion will save his life, I am not a JW but I respect freedom of religion, and just because I dont understand why some people believe the way they do doesnt give me the right to say Im right your wrong, maybe they are wrong in there beliefs, but I believe this boy was doing what he thought was right and was willing to die for something he believes, titleing your column 8th grader kills himself for god just tells me that your problem is with anyone who believes in god- if you dont believe that particular law even comes from god, then why say the boy killed himself for god?
Now he had the courage of his convictions, let’s give him that. Unfortunately, there’s no heaven for him to go, and no St. Pete that’ll pat his back and say “well done.” He traded the chance of prolonging his only life for religious beliefs that he thinks might help him gain a next one.
It was religion that killed this young man. Religion is poison.
LeeAnne,
You are quite right – I have little respect for Religion.
No, there was no guarantee that the transfusion would save his life. That said, doctors gave him a 7 in 10 chance of surviving at least 5 years, IF he was treated. 70%.
You assumed that I could not understand why someone would do this – quite the contrary. I understand all too well how someone could come to judge it virtuous to harm himself.
You said: “I believe this boy was doing what he thought was right and was willing to die for something he believes”
You demonstrated the problem quite succinctly. He thought he was doing right, thought he was following the Bible. The same bible that says it is OK to own slaves, OK to subjugate women, and wrong to question authority.
We start with a document that demands a skeptical point of view, we build a religion on top of it, we make wide sweeping rules based on various interpretations of this document, and suddenly we need not be skeptical about the entire thing anymore? I’m waving a “Bullshit” flag on that play.
You are partially correct: I don’t have a problem with people who believe in god. Why should I care that you think there is an invisible SkyDude looking down on you?
I do have a problem with life and death decisions based on the alleged wants of this admittedly imperceivable SkyDude.
“if you dont believe that particular law even comes from god, then why say the boy killed himself for god?”
Excellent question! The short answer is “Shock Value”. the long answer: I could have called it “Delusional Kid refuses medical treatment, dies” or “Suicide Cult claims another victim”. Both of these are fairly accurate. Given, though, that JWs are granted “Mainstream Religion” status in the general public (rather than “Cult”), and the boy was of sound mind (according to the Judge) the title I chose was appropriate. He specifically refused life saving treatment to follow his religious ideals. He CHOSE to die, which is arguably no different from killing himself. He felt he was dying in a manner that would please God.
The fact of the matter is that he DID kill himself for god. Whether or not us skeptics believe in his god or not is besides the point. He believed in it and lost his life following what HE believed was his god’s law. The statement, whether for shock value or not, is quite correct.
The death of a young person is always tragic, no question about it. You can be sure he would have far rather lived. Yet people routinely put their lives on the line for any number of causes, and they are generally lauded as heroes for it, not deluded nuts. Which are they? Take the one who “gives his life for his country,” for example. Only some of that person’s own countrymen will think his death noble. Everyone else will conclude he died in vain.
The lad suffered from leukemia. Nobody imagined they could cure him. Instead doctors thought he would likely (70% chance) survive at least for the next 5 years with their regimen which included transfusions. The courageous youngster was assessed by a judge who interviewed the parents, his aunt (who had custody), social workers and the boy’s doctor. “I don’t believe Dennis’ decision is the result of any coercion,” the judge stated. “He is mature and understands the consequences of his decision.”
Being of the same faith and familiar with his mindset, I can identify with his thinking. He would not want to be portrayed as a fanatic nor the victim of fanatics. (The boy’s father states “My sister has done a good job of raising him for the past four years,” though he feels she imposed her religious beliefs on him. The facts speak otherwise. Dennis had made he beliefs his own.
Don’t more youngsters die each year in high school sports than in refusing transfusions? Each year I read a few local examples of the former. I’m not sure I would know any of the latter were it not for news media relaying any such event around the globe. Does anyone think high school sports should be banned or it’s coaches judged accessories to “negligent homicide,” as some bloggers thought would be appropriate for those who may have contributed to Dennis’ mindset? Witness youngsters finding themselves in Dennis predicament are proportionately no more than aforementioned victims of sports.
But one also must address the assumption, never challenged in the media, that rejecting a transfusion is tantamount to suicide. (The judge stated that “I don’t think Dennis is trying to commit suicide. This isn’t something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy.”) How often does one read the noun “blood transfusion” not proceeded by the adjective “life-saving?” The facts suggest the label is not especially fitting.
For example, Surgeon Bruce Spiess addresses the Australian and New Zealand College of Anesthetists (google it, if you like) a few months ago, and declares blood transfusions have hurt more people than they’ve helped. Transfusions, he observes, are “almost a religion” because physicians practice them without solid evidence that they help. Several recent studies support his statement.
We all know that blood is a foreign tissue and we all know that the body tries to reject foreign tissue, even when the types match.
Jehovah’s Witnesses steadfastly refuse blood transfusions (for religious reasons, not medical) and have created hundreds of Hospital Liaison Committees composed of members who interact with local hospitals and doctors. As a result, some in the medical field have pioneered bloodless techniques. By eliminating the risk of foreign tissue, human error, and blood-borne diseases, these new techniques offer a safety margin that conventional blood transfusions do not. The film Knocking states there are over 140 medical centers in North America that offer some form of bloodless surgical techniques. Might the day come, or is it even here already, when the number of lives saved through such medicine will outnumber those lost by a few members of a relatively tiny religious group that stuck to its principles amidst much opposition?
Tom,
JWs have a policy of shunning and disowning those who defy Watchtower teachings. This situation demonstrates that death is preferable to the punishment for disobeying Watchtower elders.
He is at least one of those, if not both.
And he had no help in coming to that position? This kid, like every other child of an organized religion, was a victim of brainwashing.
Ok, Ok, there might be a FEW exceptions, but for a totalitarian organization like the Watchtower, it is completely irrational to claim that he came to adopt JW beliefs on his own.
Probably not. When you find a reputable source for those numbers, find the percentage of dead athletes to total athletes and compare to the percentage of those who refuse blood products to those who die because of refusing blood products.
Blood and blood products are prescribed sparingly. Despite that the vast majority of people can give, blood is a fairly scarce commodity, and must be conserved. Blood is generally prescribed in a life and death situation, so I feel quite confident in saying that refusing a transfusion is quite often tantamount to suicide.
$20 says Spiess is a JW. I did as you suggested, and his name pops up right next to Jehovah’s Witness a LOT.
Perhaps. Some people also go into anaphylactic shock and suffocate because their bodies reject pollen and bee stings. Some medication (like TB drugs) can cause damage to organs, especially the liver and kidneys. The facts are simple: a low hematocrit is lethal, and blood transfusions resolve that. Blood expanders do not. If there is a problem with rejection, it can be treated later, after the blood saves the person’s life.
Absolutely. When the risk of using a bloodless technique is less than the risk for a traditional method, of course the bloodless technique should be used.
Unfortunately, bloodless techniques to treat Dennis’s leukemia were significantly higher risk than traditional treatments, and Dennis died because of it.
Medical personnel have been studying bloodless techniques. Great. When engineers design cars, bikes, skateboards, buses, bricks, rebar, knives, and baseballs to cause only injuries that will not require blood products, I might start to be swayed toward your position.
In any event, bloodless research will be conducted whether or not JWs kill themselves for god. Blood bank shortages have cost far more lives than people refusing available blood products.
I’ve got no problem with YOU sticking to YOUR principles. What of the lives of children of JW parents? Parents who face shunning and discrimination from other JWs simply because they chose to allow their children to live?
From what I understand, Tom, your religion prohibits you from reading this link.
Let me summarize: Former JW parents recount their experiences with their religion. JW leaders insisted they allow their infant daughter to die, and planned to kidnap the child from the hospital after Children’s Services removed her from the parent’s care. When the parent’s refused to cooperate with their kidnapping plan, the JWs ostracized them.
I can understand you being willing to die for your delusions, and I’ll illuminate that insanity in the hopes that potential victims can learn from your mistakes. But are you willing to kill for your beliefs? Do you take personal responsibility for refusing life saving treatment for your children, or do you pawn that responsibility off on “God’s will”?
“Don’t more youngsters die each year in high school sports than in refusing transfusions?”
What’s the point of this question, Tom?
Even if is should be true, to the youngsters who die on the sport field choose to die rather than get treatment for injuries?
If this young man wasn’t so brainwashed he may still have been alive today. He chose death because he did not know better.
~ lu
I have read only two (besides my own) non-condemnatory posts on this subject, perhaps from the two most qualified to speak, since they spoke to or knew people involved. Everyone else gave knee-jerk responses based on the newspaper account. I gave the sources in my own post.
One of the blogs (by a friend of Dennis) says this:
A related side note: I have read twenty years of the New England Journal of Medicine’s articles on what he had. In the list of treatments recomended, Blood transfusion was not mentioned. The only reason they recommended it was to try to buy more time for the blood thickening drugs to bring the levels up so he could accept the continuation of chemotherapy. Also, they got to it too late. He’d already had leukemia for a long time and nothing could save him; the only thing a transfusion could do was extend his misery a couple years at most.
The other (by a med student who spoke to some involved) says this:
The treatment denied by the judge was not the stem cell transplant. It was a blood transfusion. Why is this distinction important? Stem cell transplants are the single most expensive procedure in medicine (hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do the procedure). We do them (and many health insurers cover them) because they work, but not all patients facing leukemia choose to be transplanted. Some cannot afford it. Some do not want to go through the pain of the procedure. Others (like this patient) have different reasons. If after providing all of the information, the patient does not consent to a procedure, the medical establishment usually respects this decision. Keep in mind that the legal decision here was related to the blood transfusion which could keep the patient alive for several days, not the stem cell transplant, which has 70% survival at 5 years as reported in the media. It’s not as simple as a 750 word article would have you believe. (Although the Seattle PI wrote a good story overall.)
There is no rationalization of this, no justification. This is insanity. If this kid was a Scientologist, or a member of some obscure cult, no impartial judge in their right mind would have allowed him to make this decision. This kid died because he believed Watchtower policy. End Of Story.
This link is directly at odds with that quote. From the page:
Don’t distract from the issue. The 5-year survival statistics for all types of leukemia range from 20.7% to 90.4%, numbers which include those who have refused treatment. When you consider just his age group, that 20.7% rises to 44.4% – Youths have a much higher survival rate than adults.
By refusing blood transfusions (which we’ve already determined are required by nearly all leukemia patients) this kid signed his death warrant. Justify it however you want, he died trying to obey an arbitrary religious policy based on an arbitrary interpretation of a passage in a self-contradictory book.
This is an absolutely outrageous situation that should never have happened. This was child abuse, child endangerment, and quite possibly manslaughter. We don’t know why the kid was living with his aunt, but it is safe to say that he would have been shunned and ostracized from his community had he freely accepted the blood that would keep him alive.
Jehovah’s Witnesses hung this kid from the Watchtower.
[...] I don’t think I need to say anymore, but if you’re a new visitor, you might figure out my feelings on this subject from this post by TJM author Luci, or my own article Here. [...]
$20 says Spiess is a JW. I did as you suggested, and his name pops up right next to Jehovah’s Witness a LOT.
While a layman may confuse cause and effect, surely someone of logic should not. It is more likely that many have noted how his statement dovetails with JW beliefs.
In fact, blood alternatives is his area of special research, and this article shows:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/9e367f36fca9e010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd/3.html
From what I understand, Tom, your religion prohibits you from reading this link.
What makes you think I am not prohibited from reading this site? Where are you getting this stuff? Isn’t that view a little juvenile? Who is going to prohibit it? How would anyone ever know what you’re reading anyway?
I grant you, sites that have the sole purpose of tearing apart JWs, sites that do nothing else, are not likely to be on any JW’s recommended reading list. But that’s not the same as a prohibition, is it?
Tom,
Most of the links I explored were from his own works. If I had definitive evidence of his religious ideologies, I would have provided it. Better than even money says he IS a Jehovah’s witness, especially if he makes preposterous claims that more people have been harmed than helped from blood transfusions.
If this claim were true, there should be clear evidence to support it. I want to see that evidence, not your interpretation.
And don’t give me some bullshit about specific circumstances – the claim is more people are harmed than helped by blood transfusions. Any idiot can find a specific situation where blood transfusion is contraindicated.
Read the article I linked: former JWs spoke out about watchtower prohibition of anti-JW information. I would call that prohibition juvenile. I quote from the link in question:
Would you like me to locate and provide additional references?
The fact is, Tom, you don’t have a leg to stand on.
for we were forbidden to read any anti-Witness material.
Were those the words of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses or someone who once was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and who just concievably might not be the most objective source.
JWs take definite positions outside the mainstream on many topics Any such group is going to have many enemies.There are a number of sites on the internet intent on disparaging Jehovah’s Witnesses, where every opposer and person with an axe to grind hops on board. On occasion JW publications have given cautionary remarks about such material. That’s not the same as prohibition.
Packs of cigarettes contain strong warning about how the contents may bring harm. But that’s not the same as a prohibition, is it?
Tom,
And rightfully so, when we look at some those positions. What’s the difference between denying medical treatment and euthanasia?
Those particular words were the words of former JWs-turned-moderate-Christian. There are a few possible explanations for the number of internet sites challenging JWs – one is that your religion is being unfairly oppressed. Another reason is that people are trying to expose an unnecessarily hostile situation.
Many former JWs, some who have spent decades in the organization as loyal adherents, now condemn the Watchtower. What motivation do these people have to leave your organization? Why are they so bitter? They may not be the MOST objective people, but are they ALL liars?
Interesting analogy. Would you care to define “Apostasy”? How do JWs treat people “convicted” of this “crime”? What does the term “Shunning” mean to you?
You expect us to believe that although reading the Bible is (basically) prohibited, reading anti-JW material is not?
This article has extensive instructions on how to separate oneself from the Watchtower. Why would such a detailed plan be important to any JW?
Keep shooting those foot-bullets, Tom. You’ve almost managed to place the Watchtower in the same light as “Elron” Hubbard.
Why are they so bitter?
In general it’s good to not be bitter. People reassess their goals and values all the time. It is best if, having done so, they endeavor to move on in life.
Most paths that are engrossing (as our faith certainly is) require some readustment if one suddenly decides to abandon it and go another way. It’s hardly exclusive to religion. Careers are often that way.
Sorry, I just noticed this:
What does the term “Shunning” mean to you?
I’ve written a post on this:
http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2007/07/in-defense-of-s.html
It doesn’t cover every scenario, but it addresses some. The category Organization has a lot of similar material.
Tom,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vISWAgy_emg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6SLNM0mtQ
Oh yeah, I LOVE this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZS86DFZBg8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uc2JrRd7B4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CppijrqHSMU
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/
http://exjw.meetup.com/
http://www.virushead.net/exjw.html
http://www.freeminds.org/stories/stories.htm
http://www.exjws.net/meetpeople/boards.htm
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/mount-gretna-pa/TKG3V5E2VPNEN9JF2
And I’m getting tired of copy/pasting…
Tom,
You can’t bat away reality that easily.
For the rest of the readers, according to former JWs, Apostasy is any doubts about Watchtower authority or JW beliefs. The punishment for apostasy is disfellowship – they throw you out of the cult and forbid JW family and friends from contacting you, ever.
Let’s think about this: A 14-year-old boy, abandoned by his real parents at age 10 and sent to live with his aunt. He is told “You cannot accept this blood transfusion. If you do, your family and friends will completely disown you. If you do not accept this transfusion, you will die.”
Kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place, now isn’t he?
The ONLY chance this kid had at survival was a judge saying “You are too young to rationally comprehend the ramifications of your actions.”
Had the judge done this, Dennis would be alive, and the JWs would be angry that a judge placed more value on the life of a 14-year-old than on their belief system.
There are further developments re advisablility of transfusions. I’ve posted about it.
http://carriertom.typepad.com/sheep_and_goats/2008/05/new-scientist-a.html
Should you care to comment on either your blog or mine, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
Thanks for the heads-up, Tom. I’ve cross-posted the following, as response to the article on your site:
I want to point out that heterologous blood transfusions are typically performed only in the most catastrophic of cases, where the body’s own blood is incapable (or becoming incapable) of supporting life. These cases include uncontrollable bleeding and leukemia.
The preferred method of transfusion during elective surgery is autologous – using the patient’s own blood, collected in advance, to replace blood lost during the surgery. Obviously, this is not an option for emergent care.
Repeat after me: Correlation does not imply causation. It is very likely that the people who needed a red cell transfusion were the same ones who had the riskiest surgeries. I would be interested in the mortality statistics of those patients that refuse blood after their doctor decides it is in their best interest to accept it.
There’s nothing to gloat over. Your “experts” aren’t saying what you seem to want them to say – that blood is bad. They are saying that blood should be considered a hail-mary play, administered only when it is the least risky of the available life saving options. Which is exactly when it is administered anyway.
In any event, why would you be gloating anyway? As one of your readers pointed out, science should not be ego driven.
When a patient is suffering from life-threatening blood loss or low hemoglobin, a patient WILL “get better” after receiving a properly administered unit of blood. Blood probably isn’t going to cure a person’s hemorrhoids, but it’s not prescribed for that particular symptom anyway.
Let’s run a couple thought experiments. I’m sure you could find data about the efficacy of blood transfusions in the following situations, and I’m also sure that you won’t post it, because it directly contradicts what you are saying here.
Lets say that you, a non-smoking, non-drinking, healthy individual, get hit by a drunk driver, lacerate your femoral artery, and lose 70% of your blood volume in a matter of moments.
How about, an elevator accident? Chain saw? Industrial accident involving a large saw? Agricultural accident involving a combine? The common theme to these accidents is “You lose a LOT of blood”.
What are the survival rates of persons who accept blood transfusions in these cases, and what are the survival rates of persons who do not?
After you show demonstrate that blood transfusion should be contraindicated for a person who has lost 70% of his blood volume, we can start talking about leukemia treatments. After that, if your numbers still point in that direction, you can tell me that blood transfusions are bad.
I whole-heartedly agree.ANY ego is too much, and this is the primary reason why I am arguing with Tom about this issue. It seems to me that Tom is primarily concerned about finding a specific type of data that agrees with his hypothesis, and ignoring anything that does not – the very accusations that are being leveled at the medical community also seem to apply in this community.
This is absolutely absurd. The effects of transfusions have been studied for nearly 200 years, and numerous advances have made blood transfusions today far safer than those of even a few years ago. Thousands of formal and informal studies have been conducted on millions of patients in the past 200 years. There are a few dozen studies on blood and transfusions open right now.
Science does correct its mistakes – or more correctly, it learns to stop making them.
Instead of presuming that science has simply erred in this particular case, you could explore a significant portion of the studies conducted on transfusions, and not just the ones that lend credence to your own preconceived notions that blood=bad.
There is a reason they were hailed as a wonder-cure. They cure bacterial infections in a matter of days, rather than weeks, or months. They literally save lives. MRSA is a bad bug, but so is tuberculosis.
There are several alternatives to blood transfusions, each carries certain risks and certain benefits. To date, I have yet to see a study that concluded any of the O2 carrying alternatives were as safe, let alone safer, than red blood cells.
The benefits of most of these alternatives was that they could be stored at room temperature and could be readily employed earlier in the chain of care – by paramedics in the field, rather than doctors and nurses at the hospital. This particular benefit may outweigh the risks of these products, which appear, as yet, to be less helpful than real blood products.
To my knowledge, none of these alternatives have met with FDA approval yet, but several are in various trial stages.
“They are saying that blood should be considered a hail-mary play, administered only when it is the least risky of the available life saving options. Which is exactly when it is administered anyway.”
Not according to the New Scientist article:
“But now, far from being restricted to catastrophic bleeding, transfusions are routinely used as an optional treatment, most commonly for patients in intensive care or undergoing major surgery.”
and
“Most general surgery patients who receive a transfusion get one or two units of blood. With careful surgery you can avoid losing that amount in the first place.”
What is changing is the popular conception that blood transfusion is risk free and as beneficial as a band aid. As “Student B” [in my post] put it: “Refusing a life saving blood transfusion (which hasn’t even any side effects) is clearly insane…” They have significant side effects, enough to rule them out in all but the most dire circumstances.
I did not dispute that, for now, blood transfusions are considered the most effective treatment for the catastrophic examples you offered. Instead, I conjectured that, based on current trends and research, that may one day change.
You make it sound like everyone who goes in for a tonsillectomy or nose job is given a pint for the road!
But I digress…
I can’t seem to find the article in question… I personally don’t consider New Scientist a reputable journal of medicine, but I haven’t read the article, its references, or the analysis, so I can’t comment on the veracity of the article. However, I do have some responses for the quotes you have provided:
Major surgery is an instance where “catastrophic bleeding” often occurs by design. Slicing open a human being to repair a major defect isn’t a neat-and-clean process. Numerous studies have demonstrated that low hemoglobin extends recovery times.
Major Surgery and Intensive Care are exactly where one would expect a large number of transfusions. When, exactly, does the article suggest that blood transfusions are “optional” and when they are “necessary”? Is it “necessary” only where the patient can survive without it, and “optional” where it only accelerates recovery?
That says nothing about typical surgery cases, it’s talking about surgery WHERE TRANSFUSIONS were done. It’s probable that these surgeries are the more complicated surgeries, where even with careful hemodynamic control, the patient still loses several pints of blood.
Furthermore, there are other risks during surgery. There is a direct correlation between time on the table, and post-surgery complications. Surgeons must weigh the risks of taking the extra time (And numerous other factors) against the risks of transfusing. Hopefully, the patient was a part of this process, is aware of the risks of each course of action, agrees with the recommended course, and is not unduly influenced by disinterested parties.
Agreed. Today, though, studies of the alternatives conclude that blood products are safer and/or more effective in the hospital environment than the synthetic alternatives coming on the market. As I mentioned before, the benefits of most of these products is that they can be delivered during pre-hospital care. Better “good enough” RIGHT NOW, than “typed and cross matched” after the patient is dead.
Hopefully, you are right – synthetic blood products would not be limited to whatever can be collected from donors, so doctors could be much less discriminating on who receives transfusions. Assuming that the synthetic products are at least as safe and efficacious as real blood products, the synthetics clearly win out in availability.
My mother is a JW. >.<
“Foot Binding, an old Chinese custom, has crippled millions of women.”
Foot binding has been illegal in China for over 100 years. The only people left who still bind or who have the misshapen feet from being bound are old as the hills and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with class and social stature. Sorry, but the West’s obsession with foot binding is the perennial itchy-anus of China scholars. Mention it, and you’re sure to receive an eye-roll that would send the Earth into reverse rotation.
Everyone seems to have to dwell on the fact that God was the factor for his death. It was a mere side factor, in the end.
It’s like believing video games killed him or that voices in his head told him to reject modern medicine.
No, inherently, his decision was his own, based on his logic as a human to conceive notions on his own accord.
Basically, you may blame God for the good or bad way.
I blame him instead, his choice, his action, not God’s, that had him neglect further life.
In fact, I’m glad the little guy’s dead. Once less religiously strict person to grow up and waste their life away believing in myths and stories.
And I say this sincerely, since, you know, those Muslims and other strict religious people /so/ value life enough to save others.
Every single religion, every single one, has caused unnecessary death in one form or another.
If you’re more than willing to sacrifice yourself to your God, so be it. At least I won’t have to deal with your dumb ass as I enjoy my sandwich, which I’ll be having because I’m still alive to enjoy it.
Thank you.
When someone you trust tells you “If you touch this electrical outlet, you’ll get hurt” and you ignore them, you end up in pain. When someone you trust tells you “Don’t run out in the street, or you’ll get hit by a car” and you get hit by a car, you end up in pain.
When someone you trust tells you that if you do not accept a transfusion, you might die, but it will be god’s will, but if you accept the transfusion, god is going to prescribe an infinite punishment, do you really have a choice in the matter?
Nobody here has been arguing that god did this, god did that. The atheists here have been claiming that religion killed this boy. The religious here have been claiming that blood transfusions are bad, there is no guarantee they would have saved him, and that the boy was capable of making his own decisions.
One more religious nut gone.
Just have to keep hoping the rest will follow.
So, I’ll take it from the view that you are not a religious person first:
He’s gone He doesn’t have leukemia anymore, and is in no more pain. What the fuck does it matter?
Now I’ll take it from a Jehovah’s Witness view:
He’s gone. He doesn’t have leukemia anymore, and is in no more pain. He has saved his soul. What the fuck does it matter?
Now from any other Christian perspective:
He’s gone. He doesn’t have leukemia anymore, and is in no more pain. He has saved his soul. He’s in heaven now. What the fuck does it matter?
Now from a Buddhist perspective:
He’s gone. He doesn’t have leukemia anymore, and is in no more pain. He will be back. What the fuck does it matter?
From a Malthusian point of view:
He’s gone. He doesn’t have leukemia anymore, and is in no more pain. There are too many people anyways. What the fuck does it matter?
Which brings me to my final point: It doesn’t matter. It was his life to end as he pleased. You people who think he should have been forced into treatment are crazier than him. It’s not your life. Get over it.
Point 1) It matters due to the fact that in certain circumstances and cases, Leukemia can be treated enough that the person may lead a normal life. Life ought to be preserved, therefor it matters.
Point 2) JW’s point of view, correct.
Point 3) False. Most other Christians would assert that JW’s do not recognize Jesus as Gods’ son and are, therefor, not “saved.” Thus, all is lost, both body and spirit.
While I do not believe that he should have been “forced” into treatment, I do find it disturbing that people will so blindly follow dogma that is clearly derived from the minds of men to the point of death. This person made a choice to end his life due to a belief in a fairy tale over the very real statistical probability of life, no matter how low the statistic. I find that quite disturbing.
PROTIP: Christian sects (even some groups of Catholics) practice flogging, not just Muslims.
At the risk of over simplifying this. I’d just like to say that plenty of humans do plenty of stupid things. Religion is one in a long list of reasons to do stupid things. Keep in mind that just like any other human invention, religion can be used for good, or for evil. However, I have to mention that if the story that was reported here is true, then the Jehovah witnesses are in need of a serious reality check. With that being said, to the author: Be cautious with the choice of words you use. Logical arguments are best made when one does not try to stir the emotions of the audience.
Don’t care. everytime I hear about one of these nut job jesus freaks that goes and dies because they wouldnt accept modern medicine or its some hippie that wants to try holistic medicine i could still give less than a shit that theyre dead. really to me its one less idiot in the world and hopefull all them would die this young before they could reproduce and have little idiot kids. yeah we get it theyre dumb. just be happy we dont have to suffer one more fool. hopefully this becomes a trend in most major religions and they all die off from the sniffles