Venting about JW's.... - Page 2

berettafan · 01-09-2008, 08:58 AM

HD i'm not sure if a person can be a party to the death of another human and not be affected.

By 'party to' i don't mean contributing but rather being in the circle when it happens.

Moses · 01-09-2008, 09:01 AM

I am not a JW. In my practice I take care of a lot of JW patients as part of a "bloodless surgery" program. I have had countless lengthy discussions with JW's about their medical choices. These people are not irrational and they do not have a death wish. It's about faith. Faith does not require outside validation.

In my early days I struggled with the idea that patients might make decisions that might put them at risk. I thought long and hard about "Do Not Resuscitate" orders and the concepts of self determination and personal liberty. I am completely at peace with the JW traditions regarding blood transfusion. In fact, working with JW patients in our bloodless surgery program is one of the most satisfying parts of my practice.

Yes, there are tragedies. Even preventable deaths. It's important to remember that a JW's faith puts no one at risk but himself.

Another point to remember; our new bloodless surgery techniques have been pioneered to a large degree to meet the demands of the JW community. We all benefit from that technology. If there weren't a large JW population in the Bay Area, I doubt we would have a bloodless surgery program. These programs are saving the lives of non JWs every day.

Moneyguy1 · 01-09-2008, 09:02 AM

beretta:

I think you are correct. Watching a life cease is a personal experience that most of us have difficulty (some more, some less) coping with. We are reminded of our own mortality.

notfarnow · 01-09-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afterburn 549

... it is better to let some one die with their integrity intact then force them into our mold of thinking, we all are the same and yet very differant?? J.M.O.
.

+1

I respect anyone's right to decide how they will deal with illness, whether it's based on their religion or just their personal choices. It's really not about being a JW, it's about individual freedom.

I knew an old guy who had a treatable cancer, but he refused chemo & radiation. He didn't want to risk spending his final years in & out of the hospital. Technology probably could have saved him, but it didn't jiive with his beliefs (albeit, non-religious).

I admit that I do struggle when a child is prevented from gettimg treatment.

frogger · 01-09-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses

Another point to remember; our new bloodless surgery techniques have been pioneered to a large degree to meet the demands of the JW community. We all benefit from that technology. If there weren't a large JW population in the Bay Area, I doubt we would have a bloodless surgery program. These programs are saving the lives of non JWs every day.

That's encouraging, Moses. I hope Rick's patient is able to benefit from these techniques.

trekkor · 01-09-2008, 09:05 AM

Mark, I will buy you a beer!

KT

afterburn 549 · 01-09-2008, 09:21 AM

Once in a while we have to ask our selfs "If we perform this "what ever" we he live anyway"?
In the long run the ans is no. A blood copunt dwn 4 to or 3 is a magical nu that someone came up with .We have all seen people survive this and lots less.
Do what the patent request ,evryone will feel better.
I am sure he is on irop ? or some builder ?? no matter his body, his rights If we start enforceing our thoughts into others what good is that, where dose it stop ??

chapo · 01-09-2008, 09:23 AM

Can anybody spell anymore ? Or at least use the little button so as to appear literate?

afterburn 549 · 01-09-2008, 09:28 AM

sorry, my puter crashed and on this one I do not know where the SP ck. is and no time to find it.
Again it all about understanding some one else circumstance...................................... .......

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I find it odd that one of the rallying cries in this forum is around "personal responsibility." Here you have an individual who is taking responsibility for their own decisions about their own body. It probably isn't the choice I'd make, but I'm not in that situation.

I'm with frogger. Let's ban all topics in OT. It is the only fair thing to do. To protect us from our thoughts and words.

frogger · 01-09-2008, 09:41 AM

Maybe we could just talk about cuddly teddie bears. Oh wait, animal rights activists would probably complain, and the teddie bears were probably manufactured in China and have lead, and...

varmint · 01-09-2008, 09:48 AM

old joke.

the levee breaks and the farms are flooding. the sheriff comes by in a boat and offers to evacuate the preachers family. the preacher holds up his bible and says "i have faith that the lord will protect me". a few hours later the water is at the front steps and the boat comes again. and again the preacher refuses. his trust is in the lord. as night falls the water is still rising. and the preacher is on the roof. he tells the sheriff his faith is strong, and he does not need to be rescued.

by dawn the preacher is dead. now, he's lead a good life, and arrives at the pearly gates. but with a sour expression on his face. he tells st. peter "i put my trust in the lord to save me. what the hell happened?"

st. peter said "well, god sent the boat three times."

BeyGon · 11:41 AM

I don't have a problem letting someone die for their beliefs, I think older people should have a choice also. I may be there someday.

Moneyguy1 · 01-09-2008, 09:58 AM

Dean:

I agree. We show more mercy to a sick pet than we do to people suffering from incurable diseases.

trekkor · 01-09-2008, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Let's ban all topics in OT

Not really necessary . I think asking people to reply in a respectful and mature way without calling each other moron, stupid, retard, delusional or any other thing would be a start.

Oh wait a minute, those are the rules here...

KT

Jims5543 · 01-09-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses

I am not a JW. In my practice I take care of a lot of JW patients as part of a "bloodless surgery" program. I have had countless lengthy discussions with JW's about their medical choices. These people are not irrational and they do not have a death wish. It's about faith. Faith does not require outside validation.

In my early days I struggled with the idea that patients might make decisions that might put them at risk. I thought long and hard about "Do Not Resuscitate" orders and the concepts of self determination and personal liberty. I am completely at peace with the JW traditions regarding blood transfusion. In fact, working with JW patients in our bloodless surgery program is one of the most satisfying parts of my practice.

Yes, there are tragedies. Even preventable deaths. It's important to remember that a JW's faith puts no one at risk but himself.

Another point to remember; our new bloodless surgery techniques have been pioneered to a large degree to meet the demands of the JW community. We all benefit from that technology. If there weren't a large JW population in the Bay Area, I doubt we would have a bloodless surgery program. These programs are saving the lives of non JWs every day.

I am curious if you noticed that JW's do not drink in excess nor do they smoke. How does that affect them in surgery?

Frogger you missed my point entirely.

frogger · 01-09-2008, 10:25 AM

No, I didn't. You weren't really that subtle.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Sure, the guy can do what he wants with his life. However, if he's a husband and a father, he has other responsibilities that are greater than himself. It's one thing to engage in risky behavior that might get you killed. But it's quite another to have a totally curable problem, especially one brought about by elective surgery, that, if left alone could really make life hard on your wife and kids. If the guy is single or retired or a widower, let him do what he wants. I'd be pretty PO'ed if I were his life insurer and the guy chose to die too. BTW, do JW's have a hard time getting life insurance? Seems to me most places would just assume an insured wants to stay alive. I guess some don't.

widgeon13 · 01-09-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeyGon

I don't have a problem letting someone die for their beliefs, I think older people should have a choice also. I maybe there someday.

To some extent they do have a choice, it's a DNR order for the elderly or terminally ill. I believe available in all states. Also a healthcare proxy.

I think it just boils down to respecting the wishes and beliefs of the individual. I used to do a fair amount of business with JW'w when I was working and got to know them well. While it's not my choice of religion or belief, I respect them completely.

Doing business with them was one of the most rewarding and honest business relationships I had with a "customer" in 30+ years.

Jims5543 · 01-09-2008, 10:46 AM

No Rick they do not have trouble getting life insurance. They are more concerned about your drinking and smoking habits and your weight.

Your more likely to die from weight, smoking and drinking problems than refusal to take a blood transfusion.

Still no response on the whole millions of babies being killed each year. No outrage at all?

Once again and probably for good, I am taking a break from this place. The rules are selectively enforced and the name calling rude and uncalled for.