Venting about JW's....

[dd74]

Just as long as his religion speaks for himself and his own life in this instance, I see no problem with letting him go.

Hopefully, this man's family are also J.W. They'll need to understand how faith determined fate.

[notfarnow]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

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.

I dunno, I don't think we have a right to judge. We all make moral/ethical choices about what we are willing to do in order to save our lives. In some cultures, the idea of using organs from the deceased is considered absolutely abhorrant. And what about stem cell research? Many are opposed to that.

In the extreme, well-to-do westerners are able to go to India to buy a kidney from someone for a transplant. Would we be failing our family if we refused to do that on moral principles?

[Moneyguy1]

widge:

My Mom, in 1994 at the age of 85 spent her last few months in a nursing home; we could no longer give her the level of help she required. One day, a Doctor told me they were going to install a trach. I informed him that she had, on file, a DNR request that also stated that no mechanical intervention was to be done. He told me that was insufficient and that I would have to sign a release. I respectfully told him that I considered him a moral coward, and signed the release. She passed away peacefully within 24 hours.

Had I not been available to carry out her wishes, she would have had to withstand something she did not want.

So much for allowing the old or the sick to die with dignity.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

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.

Of course rules are selectively enforced...there is no objective way to do it. Judgement call. But if you think there is significant bias one way or another, you are welcome to say so. I don't particularly see it that way...I kinda let people say mostly what they want regardless of their persuasion. Trek gets a lot of flack but takes it in stride. I've taken gobs of crap in the past but just let is slide off my back. I don't see negative comments about an organized religion as a "personal" attack on an individual. I understand that people have deep faith, but if that is the case how can comments on a bbs shake that?

I think JW's should be allowed to make whatever decisions they want. Just like I think that women should be allowed to make choices.

As for the family, the spouse knows what they're getting when they sign on. With the kids, that is more of a gray area to me but should be dealt with case by case as every circumstance is different imho.

[jluetjen]

A couple of thoughts prompted by situations that I've run into...

1) My Dad is 85, and constantly reminds me of George Burns's quote..."At my age, I don't buy green bananas." It's a pretty normal thing for many people to have a living will concerning under what conditions, and by what means they want to be revived if something were to suddenly happen to them. I don't see how this is much different then a JW who says that (s)he doesn't want a blood transfusion. At 85 it's pretty clear cut from his living will that my Dad doesn't want to revived only to exist on a ventilator. A JW doesn't want to be revived to learn that they have someone else's blood in their system.

2) Living near Boston, Christian Scientists are not unknown around here. I had a neighbor who was one many years ago. They would rather be read over rather then treated with medicine. It's not my choice, but if that's what they want, that's OK with me. I do expect though that they will respect a non-Christian Scientist, let's say me who might need medical treatment in front of them and call a doctor before they start reading over me. I would expect the same between JW's and non-JW's.

I like Varmint's joke. Many Christians believe that God will only work by a hand appearing through the clouds. I'm not aware of any scriptural support for this. In fact Jesus's parable of "The Good Sumaritan" strongly suggests that help might very well come from a person that you least expect it to come from.

Finally as a counterpoint to the joke -- none of us gets out of life alive. I don't think that there is anything in Christian theology that says being saved means being able to live another day. Whether you believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead or not, I think that we can all agree that Lazarus is now dead. So nothing that Jesus said or did implied that Lazarus or anyone else is going to live forever in our current existence. So when our time comes to die, that's it. If you're atheist or Christian, the immediate results will be the same. You're body will be dead.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

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

JW parents, in some regard, contribute to that.

[widgeon13]

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

widge:

My Mom, in 1994 at the age of 85 spent her last few months in a nursing home; we could no longer give her the level of help she required. One day, a Doctor told me they were going to install a trach. I informed him that she had, on file, a DNR request that also stated that no mechanical intervention was to be done. He told me that was insufficient and that I would have to sign a release. I respectfully told him that I considered him a moral coward, and signed the release. She passed away peacefully within 24 hours.

Had I not been available to carry out her wishes, she would have had to withstand something she did not want.

So much for allowing the old or the sick to die with dignity.

Thanks for the background and sorry you had to have that experience. I'm not from the legal profession so can't speak to every case. I do know that I have a healthcare proxy for my 95 Y.O. mother (at her request some years ago) and it is a heavy burden to bear no matter what the circumstances.

[Moses]

Originally Posted by dd74

JW parents, in some regard, contribute to that.

Not true. At least in New York and California, parents are not allowed to withhold life saving treatment of a minor child.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by dd74

JW parents, in some regard, contribute to that.

What's wrong with you? Re-read your post before you hit reply next time.

We try to provide the best level of health available.
BTW, the best health care does not include blood. Any honest doctor will tell you that.

Now, as to contributing to the millions dead, parents that choose to abort only want death.

I think you should apologize to society as a whole for that last remark.


It is quite possible that more babies were aborted in the time it took me to compose this post than will die from the supposed refusal of blood.

I say supposed, because many people that accept blood die anyway.
It's no guarantee and you already knew that, too.
Now abortion, that's a definite. They always die...On purpose.

Again, an apology is in order.


KT

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Moses

Not true. At least in New York and California, parents are not allowed to withhold life saving treatment of a minor child.

Yes, at least in New York and California. And the other 48 states?

[Moses]

Originally Posted by dd74

Yes, at least in New York and California. And the other 48 states?

I don't know. I've only been licensed to practice in New York and California.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by trekkor

It is very clear to me what direcion this thread will go.

PPOT friends:

Review the rules for posting and think before you hit "reply".


KT

Originally Posted by trekkor

What's wrong with you? Re-read your post before you hit reply next time.

We try to provide the best level of health available.
BTW, the best health care does not include blood. Any honest doctor will tell you that.

Now, as to contributing to the millions dead, parents that choose to abort only want death.

I think you should apologize to society as a whole for that last remark.


It is quite possible that more babies were aborted in the time it took me to compose this post than will die from the supposed refusal of blood.

I say supposed, because many people that accept blood die anyway.
It's no guarantee and you already knew that, too.
Now abortion, that's a definite. They always die...On purpose.

Again, an apology is in order.


KT

So much for keeping it "civil," huh PPOT friend.

[berettafan]

wonderful post John.


Rick, i agree strongly with your comment that a man w/ wife and kids has responsibilites that take precidence over his own wishes.

i'm not entirely sure how that translates into this situation (it does apply, but what does it dictate?) but it certainly should be kept in mind.

[VenezianBlau 87]

I'd be PO'd if I sauntered in for some elective surgery and subsequently became infected (or whatever) with the effect being pneumonia; and then, not sure how in that order...ended up with kidney failure! I hope the poor fellow pulls through one way or the other.

The JWs that came to my door a few times are nice enough folks. I always chat with them. I think they gave up on me though. I just like to chat.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by dd74

So much for keeping it "civil," huh PPOT friend.

Ummm. I did.
It was YOU that compared refusing blood to abortion.

Who are you?!?

Just apologize and move on.


KT

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Jim Cesiro

Fastpat was banned for telling Noah to go back to Isreal.

he was booted for many reasons, not just one

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

If God created Man and Man created life saving technologies then is God not ultimately responsible for those technologies?

you need to shut your mouth, trying to introduce rational thinking to acts of faith

Originally Posted by dd74

JW parents, in some regard, contribute to that.

Huh? That makes no sense at all

Originally Posted by dd74

So much for keeping it "civil," huh PPOT friend.

I will say it again, since he had no rancor whatsoever in his post

Huh? That makes no sense at all

I would pretty much guarantee that more abortions happen than people dieing from refusing blood transfusions. I have no problem with what people do. I will have to say you are mistaken about the blood transfusion thing Trek. The best healthcare does include blood, among other things. Any honest doctor would tell you that

The next time they come to my house I will be asking them to not come around anymore. Usually this lady and her friend come and chat with the wife. The lady brought her husband with her last time, who offended me greatly when he started telling me his beliefs were right and my beliefs were wrong

[Hawktel]

I'll admit I think its a irrational choice.

Frankly this kinda stuff creeps me out. If a person thinks so little of the basic self interest contract of keeping themselves alive, who knows what else has fallen by the wayside?

If his life means so little to person, could someone else's life mean anything at all?

[dhoward]

I still want to know about the submarines....

[kang]

Originally Posted by trekkor

We try to provide the best level of health available.
BTW, the best health care does not include blood. Any honest doctor will tell you that.

KT

No, honest doctors will tell you that there are certain times that receiving blood is the only way to keep someone alive. The case that started this thread is an example.

[afterburn 549]

Ask any surgon if they would take blood..............