Johova Witnesses

Discuss Irish and International politics
egbrennan
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:58 am

Johova Witnesses

Post by egbrennan » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:56 pm

Any opinions on these nutters. I am fairly animated about it. Did anyone see the article written by Patricia Casey in the independent? (Must get some tips from her about how to get your point of view shamlessly publicised - would be good for my business.) In it she says how difficult it must be to chose between your god and your child. WTF?? Not really Patricia!

As a psychiatrist I am amazed at how she can say this. Surely she is familiar with delusion. If I went to her and said that I didn't want my children to get proper medical help because I believed it was contrary to the wishes of the flying spaghetti monster, she would conclude (correctly I think) that I was delusional and lock me up and put the children into care. However if the god in question is not the flying spaghetti monster, but rather is the much older, god of the judeo-bronze-age humans, then it is not so bad and I will not be locked up.

What a load of bollox! Someone should legislate for this and force these nutters to go to court to stop getting the transfusions instead of forcing our doctors and lawyers to go to court to get permission to treat them. Would save the state money and the doctors, time.
Ed.
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Johova Witnesses

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:24 am

egbrennan wrote:Any opinions on these nutters. I am fairly animated about it. Did anyone see the article written by Patricia Casey in the independent? (Must get some tips from her about how to get your point of view shamlessly publicised - would be good for my business.) In it she says how difficult it must be to chose between your god and your child. WTF?? Not really Patricia!

As a psychiatrist I am amazed at how she can say this. Surely she is familiar with delusion. If I went to her and said that I didn't want my children to get proper medical help because I believed it was contrary to the wishes of the flying spaghetti monster, she would conclude (correctly I think) that I was delusional and lock me up and put the children into care. However if the god in question is not the flying spaghetti monster, but rather is the much older, god of the judeo-bronze-age humans, then it is not so bad and I will not be locked up.

What a load of bollox! Someone should legislate for this and force these nutters to go to court to stop getting the transfusions instead of forcing our doctors and lawyers to go to court to get permission to treat them. Would save the state money and the doctors, time.
Ed.
Well we have a precedent now for a number of scenarios. IMHO I can see why it should be the decision of an adult to choose treatment or not... in fact I'd support voluntary euthenasia so that's a no brainer... but at the same time I feel that anyone who dies as a result of this kind of thing is a victim of the brain disease we call faith. Parents who suffer from this brain disease should not be allowed to condemn their kids to death. As for the today's case, the woman should have made it clear she was a deluded fool at a time when she was of sound mind to make the decision to refuse the blood transfusion. For some reason she had signed in as a Roman Cattleick.
FXR
Posts: 3176
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:44 pm
Location: Dublin

Post by FXR » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:54 pm

It's not just the Jehovahs. .
I had a blazing row in a maternity hospital years ago. With my girlfriend at the time we were visiting her sister who'd just had a baby. The subject came up about if it was a choice between saving the mothers life or the baby's the baby would come first.
What!
Apparently since the CCL runs the show the baby has to be saved because its has'nt had the benifit of being wet with some tepid water by a sexually repressed male virgin.

Religionism has no place in medicine but you'd never know that on a visit to an Irish hospital. Witness the HSE trying to stop a girl travelling to abort a brain damaged baby that was going to die anyway.
Human communication is a very rickety rope bridge between minds. Its too narrow to allow but a few thoughts to cross at a time. Many are lost in the chasms of noise, suspicion, misinterpretation and shooting the message through dislike of the messenger.
lostexpectation
Posts: 1993
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:28 pm

Post by lostexpectation » Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:09 am

the jehovahs public reps body were strangley meek over the verdict, i think they were embarrassed and trying to distance themselves from the 2 million bill.

in this case they actually saved the mother for the sake of the child.
test
garlandgreen
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:17 pm

Post by garlandgreen » Sun Apr 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Well it's interesting isn't it. Maybe in the world of religion the right to life of the child only applies to the unborn. It's only after birth that they can be left for dead to satisfy the parents religious fetishes
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:46 pm

FXR wrote:It's not just the Jehovahs. .
I had a blazing row in a maternity hospital years ago. With my girlfriend at the time we were visiting her sister who'd just had a baby. The subject came up about if it was a choice between saving the mothers life or the baby's the baby would come first.
What!
Apparently since the CCL runs the show the baby has to be saved because its has'nt had the benifit of being wet with some tepid water by a sexually repressed male virgin.

Religionism has no place in medicine but you'd never know that on a visit to an Irish hospital. Witness the HSE trying to stop a girl travelling to abort a brain damaged baby that was going to die anyway.
Having recently been resident in an irish hospital and listening to a number of doctors speaking in relation to this case, I have to say I find it very difficult to believe that the CCL would have that much say when it comes to preference overy child or mother.
inedifix
Posts: 959
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:57 pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by inedifix » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:27 am

I was told by a Jehovah's Witness once that they refuse blood transfusions because they believe the soul resides in human blood, therefore a transfusion would destroy the soul, making it impossible to go to heaven. You'd think that five minutes with a good microscope and a doctor would be enough to prove it ain't there. But no doubt we'd be told that it's in a different dimension within blood that can't be seen under a microscope.
“What we call chaos is just patterns we haven't recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher. What we can't understand we call nonsense. There is no free will. There are no variables. There is only the inevitable.” Chuck Palahniuk
bipedalhumanoid
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Post by bipedalhumanoid » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:42 am

inedifix wrote:I was told by a Jehovah's Witness once that they refuse blood transfusions because they believe the soul resides in human blood, therefore a transfusion would destroy the soul, making it impossible to go to heaven. You'd think that five minutes with a good microscope and a doctor would be enough to prove it ain't there. But no doubt we'd be told that it's in a different dimension within blood that can't be seen under a microscope.
The invisible and the non-existent look appear to have very similar properties.
Ygern
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
Posts: 3003
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:02 pm
Location: Cork
Contact:

Post by Ygern » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:25 pm

I think the only way for any state to handle this sort of situation is to say that while they admit that anyone has the right to refuse themselves medical treatment; they do not have the right to make this decision on behalf of a minor.

There will always be a few people wringing their hands in angst over it, but it really is the only way to go.
CelticAtheist
Posts: 284
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:55 pm

Post by CelticAtheist » Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:48 pm

Religious commentary on medicine is generally from an ignorant, slanted, misguided point of view..
Post Reply