new mother gives birth to twins then later dies after family would not allow her to recieve a blood transfusion..now those two babies have no mum. is this wrong? your thought please.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071105/tuk-uk-britain-jehovah-fa6b408_2.html
2007-11-05 00:09:39 · 69 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Her choice - it leaves the blood for someone who wants it, gets rid of another stupid person, and maybe the kids will realise as they grow up that their mother died because of a silly religious reason with no sensible grounding, and won't follow the same choice.
2007-11-05 00:12:32 · answer #1 · answered by cuddles_gb 6 · 11⤊ 10⤋
If you had of read the whole news article it said that a blood transfusion would not have saved her life anyway.
This means that the whole issue is mute.
Of course that wont stop the ones sensationalizing the whole thing and trying to hang the blame on the Jehovah Witnesses.
The fact is (and ALL people that have an operation must face) that sometimes things go wrong , and when they go wrong , there is often nothing that can be done.
Additionally it must also be recognized that Jehovah's Witnesses have fought hard for the medical rights and freedom that YOU yourself enjoy today.
2007-11-05 01:35:13 · answer #2 · answered by I♥U 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure, but I believe that Jehovahs Witnesses are asked in advance of their wishes should anything like this occur, therefore the mother involved would have done this. If this was done then, it being her choice, the correct decision was taken. If she was not asked then she should have been. At the end of the day there are millions of people all over the world who believe that this life is just a prelude to the next, and even though millions more may not agree, none of us in this world will ever know for sure.
2007-11-05 00:29:49 · answer #3 · answered by StevieD 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Each one of us has a chose, what might seem right to us will be wrong in somebody Else's eyes.
I look at other peoples faiths and I might not believe that things they believe in are right, & one day the father of the two babies will have to explain to them that their mother died because of the family's beliefs. It will then be up to the children to decided if the choise was right or wrong.
JW's believe that 'The Blood' of a person/animal carries the spirit of that being, so if you accept the blood from another person, then not only do you revieve the blood but you also recieve the spirit & sins of that person. Well that is an outline of what they believe & and I am sure that some JW's will put me right.
But I do agree about the loss/waste of a life, but I also understand where the JW's point of view is from & in the end it is up to the individuals beliefes
2007-11-05 00:26:03 · answer #4 · answered by Joolz of Salopia 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ok this is a very unfortunate thing to happen,but it was her decision. What about all the christian men who CHOSE to go to war and died and therefore left all their children behind? Oh wow they are HEROS for standing up for what they believe is right? So why cant this woman be a HERO for standing up for what she believes?I know a few Witnesses and they will live/die for what they believe.The bible commands to obstain from blood and thats what she did. Im sure they tried every other bloodless procedure and ill bet even a transfusion wouldnt have helped. My understanding on blood loss is ,the main concern is to restore the volume of the blood,not necessarily blood itself. Im sure she tried blood expanders and did no good ,so a transfusion was worthless anyway. The funny thing is she would have made the papers either way! She would have been criticised for taking blood and not standing for what she believes,or she dies and shes stupid for not taking blood. Get real ppl
2007-11-05 01:03:59 · answer #5 · answered by daddyjohndeer 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Defintely regretable.
The article was unclear though about who's idea it was for her not to get blood. If it was her idea alone, I don't agree with her. I think the consequences of her actions will have grave effects for her children. But as an autonomous adult, she has the right to make that decision.
If she was coerced by her family and husband out of a medical treatment she wanted, that is more than regretable. Not only was a poor decision made, but the person it affected most had no real say.
2007-11-05 00:30:36 · answer #6 · answered by K 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would think heart surgery isn't a procedure where you'd expect a large blood loss... so transfusion is more of a cautionary measure there. And may indeed not be without risk. But if you have major trauma, blood transfusions can pretty obviously save your life.
2016-04-02 05:49:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's up to the patient and if she's a JW she would have refused it herself, given the chance. The family will have to look after those babies and explain the reason why their mother died but if those kids are going to be brought up with that faith then they will probably accept it too. The family didn't kill her, they just prevented her life from being saved.
I don't believe in what they're doing and would want my loved-one to be saved no matter what, but people have a right to believe in what they want, it's nobody else's business except theirs I'm afraid!
2007-11-05 00:22:07 · answer #8 · answered by Chucksey 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is very tragic when someone so young loses thier life. However, a persons family members cannot decide for them in such circumstances. The young woman had obviously filled out her own medical directive and made her own decision. Although Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept whole blood transfusions, we do accept many alternatives such as nonblood volume expanders {for example: dextran, saline or Ringer's solution, or hetastarch} and other nonblood management. These alternatives are very effective and viable in managing blood loss.
2007-11-05 00:21:24 · answer #9 · answered by peekabugaboo 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Death is unnatural, and saddens every reasonable person. It seems crass, however, when some choose to turn a tragic death into a platform for their opinionated rantings.
This tragedy occurred nearly two weeks ago, on October 25, 2007. Despite what pro-blood activists and anti-Witness critics might pretend, her doctors informed the family that Mrs. Gough would have died even if she had received blood transfusions.
That's little consolation, but it is unsurprising.
During a hemorrhagic event, artificial expanders almost always work better than blood itself at keeping veins and arteries from collapsing. In addition, targeted treatment of specific blood fractions is considered preferable to old-fashioned "throw everything at it and see what sticks" thinking of whole blood transfusions. Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses generally accept artificial products and fractions derived from plasma, platelets, and red/white cells.
Since Jehovah's Witnesses only refuse whole blood and its four major components, doctors still have many many proven products and techniques. In fact, many or most doctors have come to prefer these products and techniques for ALL their patients.
It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who decide that blood is sacred. It is Almighty God who declares it so, as the Divine Author of the Holy Bible!
As God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.
As Christians, they are bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". Ironically, this decree was the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). God and Christ apparently felt (and feel) that respect for blood is quite important.
Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:
(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 29 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.
Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.
A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?
Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm
2007-11-05 05:16:00 · answer #10 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There ARE options besides blood transfusions that are safe and successful. Maybe those options were not exercised in this case. But yes, it is sad that this woman died and left two babies behind.
2007-11-05 00:24:42 · answer #11 · answered by ♥ terry g ♥ 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋