Congolese Woman Forcibly Transfused

by Wisdom - The Truth Sun Oct 15, 2006 07:30 wisdomtofeaston at hotmail dot com

The Judge Had another choice available to him!

If he knew that the Woman viewed his action of: Using force to insert another persons body fluid into her against her will in the most invasive all encompassing way possible, with potentially irreversible physical, spiritual and emotional damage, and the loss of her everlasting life...including the effect this would have on her marriage, friendships and her ability to raise a child in a "normal" nurturing environment....as an assault worse than RAPE.

And Yet if He believed that His everlasting life could be at risk if he made the wrong Decision.

Then He Had Another Option available...He could have refused to Judge this case!! In that case He would be free from Violating her Rights and everlasting life and also Free from making the wrong decision thus preserving His own everlasting life.

After all It would be Gods creation without Mans interference that would take it's natural course whether she Lived or Died.

And For those Who do not know JW's beliefs or lifestyle you can be assured that if that child was left with no natural family to care for it...the child would be more loved by thousands of adoptive parents and siblings and raised in a more supportive and nurturing environment than most none witness children experience with their natural families.

Hundreds of millions of innocent lives as well as millions of soldiers have been Killed in the name of Religion and their Gods very often by members of their own church because of racial, social and national divides. If you supported or have been a part of either Religions or Governments of this world at any time in your life then the Blood of all those millions of lives is on your Hands too!!!

Thousands of people Die every year, specifically because they received Blood transfusions. Even more people kill themselves and others with smoking and over drinking and recreational Drugs and violence and reckless lifestyles that show no respect for life. More Die because of the lack of respect that people have for our environment! Millions are Dying from Starvation as your Governments Pour Tonnes of Good food into the oceans because they produce too much and are too greedy to give it out cheap or free!

How many more will YOU LET DIE or KILL Because of your choices!

Jehovah's Witnesses Are free from the blood of all those innocent lives...they are politically neutral and never support or Go to war and they abandon lifestyles that are health risks to themselves or others!
And they have Genuine love for God, their Neighbour, each other and the planet!...Jesus said his Followers would be no part of the world and would have and demonstrate this Genuine Love. Jesus Could have cured everyone of everything, he could have removed all injustice and evil when he was here...But He only cured a few as an example of his power! If ever there was a case to be made of malpractice or letting millions within his power die it would be against Jesus...but he knew the real life was waiting and far more important than possibly extending this temporary life by 10 or 50 years!

Furthermore the Guarantee from Gods word is that the resurrection of both righteous and unrighteous will take place very soon on Earth where we will all be reunited with loved ones we lost in Death.

God Is Willing, Able and Loving enough to Undo all the injustices we experience in life...But he is also Wise enough to know when it is necessary to take action...The Bible indicates it will be soon and that it was necessary for this amount of time to Pass by to answer the ultimate question of importance...that is: Who is the Rightful Sovereign Lord of all creation?!!!

The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is summed up by the theme: "The Vindication of Jehovah's Sovereignty by means of His kingdom and its king, Christ Jesus"

Psalm 83:18
That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.

1Cor 15:24
Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he(Jesus) must rule as king until [Jehovah] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.

Psalm 37:10,29
The meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace....And they will reside forever upon it.

Revelation 21:1-4
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away
3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: "Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them.
4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.

For all who do not believe in God?
Ask yourself who Designed and manufactured your house and everything in it? Or your workplace and everything in it? or your college/sportscentre/church/plane/train and automobile/ and everything in them to the minutest and most complex detail?

I guess you agree All these things Had to be conceived, designed, plans drawn up and constructed by someone!

Well it is sad to say that none of these Human creations have a patch on the simplest natural creation like the DNA molecule or the Human eye or the Brain or a blade of grass or the intricate patterns in the formation of ice or the thousands of varieties of fish, birds, plants, and not to forget the entire order of the planetary systems which all sustain you and me, in our meagre attempt at copying them!

If we as human copiers, claim the credit for designing Planes based on Birds then surely we should Give credit to the Designer of the original Bird. Could the more amazing original have come about by chance if the copy requires the existence of a designer?

Hebrews 3:4 says: "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God."

by Chris Murray Tue Oct 10, 2006 13:53

Have not been following the thread but two things come to mind:

1. No adequate substitute plasma product was available thus necessitating a court order with
optional use of restraint.
2. This woman and her husband need to register their own protest with the support
of an advocacy group. They are after all the victims of both a short-sighted hospital policy and
an invasive treatment-not us.

by M Cotton Tue Oct 10, 2006 13:19

Write to
Dr Chris Fitzpatrick
Master
Coombe Women's Hospital
Dolphins Barn
Dublin 8
Ireland

You could also register your protest with the directors of the hospital - list here:

http://www.coombe.ie/intro/board.html

by Stuart Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:08

The Coombe Hospital has initiated legal proceedings against Ms K and the Attorney General. The Church of the Jehovah's Witnesses has asked to be enjoined as a defence or notice party in respect of future users of medical services. In the High Court on Monday next, 16 October.

by Smurfy - Student Thu Oct 05, 2006 11:58

Apparently this Jehovah's Witness woman was married.

What if she was under doctor or nurse who was a Witness, then she would have been treated with the dignity and respect that she deserved. I am aware of one Witness surgeon, who operated and treated thousands of patients for21 years using blood transfusions before becoming a Jehovah's Witness, then 12 years as a Witness he performed surgery without blood. His conclusion was that he lost many patients whilst using transfusions, although he had never lost one patient whilst he performed surgery without the use of blood.

Thousands of none Jehovah's Witness doctors would also testify that the best transfusion is the one that is never given!

Witnesses expect better treatment .....especially since bloodless practice has been operational since the 1960's.

I personally find the idea of a blood transfusion repulsive, as many surgeons themselves do.

Maybe, these nurses and doctors who were involved with the care of this woman should be forced to endure their own nightmare of repulsion.

I'd make sure that I didn't enter that hospital ....I wouldn't want to find myself under the hands of those Nazis!!! I'm sure that the Witnesses will be making plans to go to a more trust worthy hospital in the future, so that they don't have their rights violated again.

Or is Ireland so much in the dark to the advancement of bloodless medicine and the latest techniques?

www.noblood .com .....a none Witness website .

If you type in search: noblood, bloodless medicine or surgery you will find lots of information regarding such advancement and a list of hospitals who are able to perform every kind of operation or emergency without the use of blood.

by hedgehog Wed Oct 04, 2006 20:27

Thanks for the info.
Mungo is the guy who lives in loughrea and had that famous hit "In the summertime". Who says I'm uninformed!! :)

by Dr. Who Wed Oct 04, 2006 13:09

For those interested in this subject, in the linked PDF file (698kB=half a floppydisk) are some fair use extracts (21page) from a decent medical reference book (published 2004, USA).

Written by medical doctors who do not fancy themselves as Guantánamo prison warders, this material sheds much light on progressive opinion and practice and fully describes the techniques used by those at the forefront in the field of bloodless surgery, as well as giving much basic information on transfusions, etc.

It all seems very different from the current Irish Medical-Legal practice of "Right, Mungo, get the patient in a headlock - she's bloody well having some blood now!"

To get file + view:

1. click this link - http://depositfiles.com/files/295212/
2. wait 20seconds, a DOWNLOAD link + checknumber graphic appears
3. prove you are human by typing the number into the box
4. now hit DOWNLOAD FILE and save to disk
2. let download finish
3. locate the saved file on disk - it should be called "Gale Encyclopedia of Surgery Vol. 1-3 - 2004 - Blood Donation, Bloodless Surgery, Transfusion.pdf"
4. double-click on this to read with Adobe Acrobat Reader
5. if nothing happens you may need to DL + install the reader here - http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

Enjoy an informed opinion

by hedgehog Mon Oct 02, 2006 04:28

First let me say,
Yes, I do believe PD voters are stupid and should not be allowed to vote! :)

"where do you draw the line?

it's not a case of drawing the line. It's a case of applying humane principles based on the best knowledge available


"Some of the people here think that, if someone is refusing to accept medical advice because of their religion, they should be forced. The idea seems to be that they are basing their decision on bad information.
Does this only hold for religion? What if someone is going to a malarial country, but they have read somewhere, in some glossy magazine, that antimalarial drugs are dangerous. On the basis of bad information they refuse prophylaxis against a potentially lethal disease. Should they be forcibly given the drugs?

Well religion is a particular case of terrible information. Comparing this wilful making up of afterlife stories and deliberate misguiding of people to technical ignorance on the part of scientists, with the best intentions is not fair.

In this particular malaria case IMHO, no because there is too much uncertainty, the treatment itself causes problems and most people don't die if they get malaria.
http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/DrugProblems.htm

There IS an obligation to present the best facts to the person travelling about the risks and the options they have available to them by the company profiting from such a journey. There is even a case to be made for disease compensation claims to be allowed against such companies to encourage them to inform travellers properly before departure and to screen returning passengers for diseases.
Of course they shirk these moral obligations as they care only for profit and the Govt don't force them. my moral compass says this state of affairs sucks but I would not force the drugs on them in this particular case.

"And I dont think that this can be restricted to medicine, if you are to be consistent. After all, political decisions can cost lives - if you vote for a party that wants to cut back the health service you may be doing something life-threatening. Of course no party ever says it wants to let people die, so if you vote for them you are doing so on the basis of bad information. Is the logic that people who want to vote PD are easily led, brainwashed or stupid, and therefore should not be allowed to vote as they choose?"

Heh. well again, according to my moral compass, the whole political and capitalist framework gives rise to these problems by it's very nature so I would be in favour of dismantling the whole thing and replacing it with something more humane and representative.

again, not comparing like with like here.

vague nebulous potential for death, one of the contributing factors for which is your tacit support of the killer by being one of thousands who voted for them.

in the case of the transfusion, there is obvious direct cause and effect and a definite path of prevention and obvious bad information

Voting is completely divorced from the actual decision making process and you cannot easily know what these people will do in office or what there motivations are no matter how clever or well informed you are. Are you saying that by voting for someone along with thousands of others, in doing so, you are taking resposnsibility for each of their particular moral choices in which you have absolutely no say?

In the current framework, you don't have a whole lot of good choices. All the main parties will screw us over in much the same way when they gain office.

All you can do is try them and if they tend to do bad then don't vote for them again.

There is no certainty here, unlike the transfusion case, but you are correct, the principle should still apply. Its a difficult problem. However it is a good bet that PD / FF / FG will do the same things you mentioned and will do the bidding of capitalists.

So voting for these people again is probably a silly thing to do. You have already seen what they do and it does cause deaths.

Would i prevent people who I knew were going to vote for PD/FF/FG again from voting if i could?
Yes I think i would.

would things be better if i did? Well I'd certainly like to try it and see!!!

but my moral compass tells me that what is really the problem here is how the political discourse is framed and capitalism itself on a global scale

"I wonder to what extent the authoritarian ideas here are based on prejudice against particular religions, and to what extent on contempt for people in general."

I have no particular prejudice against any particular religion, although some are nastier than others. I dislike all religions pretty much equally. Mostly it's just my contempt for people in general based on observation of their behaviour. That does not preclude me wanting a better fairer world for us all to live in. Just that personally I don't trust most humans not to fuck it all up for selfish short term gain.

"I do think, reading hedgehog's (you know the one I mean!) messages and his responses to murf, that contempt comes across loud and clear. I just wonder how widely he applies it."

The thing you seem to focus on is my contempt for humans. You miss the fact that everything I stand for is to better the lot of these creatures i hold in contempt. Just because I have little regard for humans as a species, doesn't mean I still don't have a moral obligation to try to do what is right for them. And other animals too.

Tell me then, would my subjective ideas be so much worse than what we have?

here are some of the disgusting things my subjective moral compass tells me to support in spite of my contempt for humans:

dismantling of support for global capitalism, total seperation of church and state, removal of religon from schools, education and empowerment of the next generation to resist greed and embrace more humane values,curbs on drink companies, support local produce, green sustainable energy, decentralised small accountable local power structures, the dismantling of the current system of party politics, no support for warmongers, proper integration programs for immigrants, nationalising of our resources such as gas for benefit of citizens, no support for privatisation of core infrastructure, no large scale factory farming, serious changes in how the media operates, whistleblower charter, decent health service, food and a roof for all citizens as a right., protection of our heritage and culture, curbs on the building tindustry, major overhaul of corrupt legal system, accessible transparency of govt, etc etc

by epicurus Sun Oct 01, 2006 07:52

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

by hedgehog Sat Sep 30, 2006 07:46

I must own up to the fact that the previous post by "me" entitled "she should be ok for resurrection" was my little sockie.

Didn't want to ruin all your fun hating my persona by posting something short, only mildly inflammatory and quite reasonable under my own tag. might have confused you! :)

I'll add to the hatred now by saying that actually I have changed my mind and in light of all your thoughtful arguments I have been converted and have now decided that she should have been allowed to bleed to death to safeguard my rights of autonomy in case I might ever need them. The childs difficult life without a mother would have been unfortunate but the greater good is what counts isn't it.

After all, in the words of mr spock, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

Right miriam, murf? Thanks for helping me "see the light" folks. Gosh what was I thinking.

She should sue of course, and has a good chance of winning I think but millions of taxpayers money could never compensate her for having to live potentially for at least another 50 years in satans world and possibly being barred from subsequent resurrection into gods kingdom if he doesn't accept the argument that nasty people forced her against her will to break his law about blood and she did not do it voluntarily. Well, you know how judges can be!

Her only consolation is that she now gets to bring up her little child in the ways of the JW faith. Otherwise, The poor thing might have been brought up by nasty secular people and his/her little soul would be damned forever. Much worse than what has happened to her as she still has that plausible deniability thing going for her.

Also, possibly one other consolation. if she sues, she may win potentially millions of taxpayers money in her courtcase from our cruel satanic society to put back into spreading the word of the JW faith all over the world.

Well for the most part they are very nice people and at least they practice what they preach which is more than most other religions do, so maybe thats not really all that bad a thing. They even have built in respect for animals and the environment. Have a read. It all sounds quite reasonable really if you ignore a few little bits and pieces. And there's a wonderful sense of community that is so lacking among other groups. I'm getting quite fed up of squabbling pc secular lefties who often prefer to emphasise their differences than what they agree on. I long for that unity of purpose. Maybe I'll join up.

http://www.watchtower.org/

by hedgehog Sat Sep 30, 2006 06:32

its ok I knew it was you :)

by Rodger Fri Sep 29, 2006 16:33

This bloody case stinks to high hell of a disgusting medico-legal lash-up to try and justify a shameful assault upon the person concerned, the trampling of human dignity and the rights of us all, based on impulses of sectarian/racist/sexist discrimination and the insatiable need for tiny-minded burocrats to assert themselves arbitrarily over the little-people.

Questions:

1. Is it really the case that the medics involved only discovered post-partum this woman's refusal of any blood transfusion?
That would be highly unusual - all adult JW's normally express their refusal pre-emptively and in writing, on a little card carried in the wallet, like an organ donor card, in case of an accident which might render them unable to dissent from treatment - and JW's going into hospital for any scheduled operation where there is even a slight risk of blood-loss generally consult well in advance with the medical professionals involved, in order to ensure that their wishes will be respected.

2. Is it possible for a person to loose 80% blood and not already be dead within 30 seconds?
Even though this may sound like science fiction, it has been reported that patients who had lost 90% recovered though advanced alternative techniques without transfusions - see this link - http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1998/8/22/article_0...1.htm - so, with cooperating professional medical help the prognosis in such cases improves dramatically.

3. How could the hospital possibly prepare legal papers and bring this to court DURING the height of the medical emergency, when they claim the patient was literally bleeding to death? Should doctors not focus on preventing further blood-loss, stabilise and calm the patient, as opposed to fighting with and threatening her?
It seems more probable that they were well-prepared to implement this strategy as soon as a suitably vulnerable case presented itself.

4. Has this supposed 'court order' any legal weight?
It is a highly suspect device - it appears the hospital wanted it merely as an 'insurance policy' against a later claim, however, it really provides no 'cover' at all, and they might as well have asked a bishop for his blessing. Come to think of it, Abbott, Bishop, what's the difference? In law, there's none. The High Court has here acted as a 'Kangaroo Court of Summary inJustice'. How can only one party to a dispute appear in court and be heard and the matter decided and enforced upon the absent party? This is a fundamental breach of the 'audi alteram partem' principle. Furthermore, there was not the slightest legal reason of any substance offered as to why this woman's rights should be violated. A judge saying 'go ahead and tie her down' does not make this action lawful. This outrage should not be allowed to stand.

5. If an elderly white rabbi were on hunger-strike for political reasons, would it be lawful for doctors to force-feed him with delicious bacon, because he has a young son ?
Maybe in Nazi Germany, but any fool knows this could never be contemplated in any half-decent society today - so why this different rule for young black women with a minority religious belief in Ireland.

6. How much of this sick behaviour is really attributable to the Legion of Mary, Catholic Action, Opus Dei types in official positions of power in this Church-State + its so-called 'Health System', who lust after opportunities to impose themselves upon and thereby publically humiliate their upstart heretical competitiors?

All the best to Ms K. in suing the doctors involved, the hospital, the State and the judge personally for this 'ultra vires' interference in her personal affairs and rights, with punitive and exemplary damages for asault and emotional distress. Pursue this to European Court of Human Rights. Otherwise we are all thrown back at the mercy of these catholic sadists again.

by Miriam Fri Sep 29, 2006 09:50

Im the author of the one titled 'All you do is' - I must have typed 'hedgehog' in the author box accidentally - I emailed the editorial list yesterday to change the author of that message to my name but there seems to be a long delay in delivering moderated messages to the editorial list.

by Fr. Jack Fri Sep 29, 2006 09:42

That would be an ecumenical matter

by me Fri Sep 29, 2006 09:37

Since she did her best to do gods wishes by refusing the blood transfusion, but was forced by others to receive it, A just God cannot possibly hold her responsible. She did her best. Accordingly, I reckon the decision of the doctors / court means

(a) that she lived
(b) that her baby will have a mother
(c) that she is still eligible for resurrection

The best of all worlds surely!!

by J Witness Fri Sep 29, 2006 09:25

Blood is also sacred in God's eyes. God says that the soul, or life, is in the blood. So it is wrong to eat blood. It is also wrong to eat the meat of an animal that has not been properly bled. If an animal is strangled or dies in a trap, it should not be eaten. If it is speared or shot, it must be bled quickly if it is to be eaten.—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:13, 14; Acts 15:28, 29.

Is it wrong to accept a blood transfusion? Remember, Jehovah requires that we abstain from blood. This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people's blood or even our own blood that has been stored. (Acts 21:25) So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God's laws.—Matthew 16:25.

Jehovahs plan
Before this earth can become a paradise, wicked people must be removed. (Psalm 37:38) This will happen at Armageddon, which is God's war to end wickedness. Next, Satan will be imprisoned for 1,000 years. This means that no wicked ones will be left to spoil the earth. Only God's people will survive.—Revelation 16:14, 16; 20:1-3.

Then Jesus Christ will rule as King over this earth for 1,000 years. (Revelation 20:6) He will gradually take sin away from our minds and bodies. We will become perfect humans just as Adam and Eve were before they sinned. Then there will be no more sickness, old age, and death. Sick people will be cured, and old persons will become young again.—Job 33:25; Isaiah 33:24; Revelation 21:3, 4.

During Jesus' Thousand Year Reign, faithful humans will work to turn the whole earth into a paradise. (Luke 23:43) Also, millions of dead ones will be resurrected to human life on the earth. (Acts 24:15) If they do what God requires of them, they will continue to live on earth forever. If not, they will be destroyed forever.—John 5:28, 29; Revelation 20:11-15.

God's original purpose for the earth will thus succeed.

by Stuart Fri Sep 29, 2006 07:17

I fail to see any benefit in bringing pro choice / pro life debate in here, or to pro lifers identifying themselves. The issue here is about an adult woman being denied a decision about her own body, without any direct risk to the health of her child.

by pro choice Fri Sep 29, 2006 03:35

Would the pro lifers please stand up and declare themselves so we can begin to have an intellectually honest discussion on this important topic

by paul f Thu Sep 28, 2006 19:10

Some of the people here think that, if someone is refusing to accept medical advice because of their religion, they should be forced. The idea seems to be that they are basing their decision on bad information.
Does this only hold for religion? What if someone is going to a malarial country, but they have read somewhere, in some glossy magazine, that antimalarial drugs are dangerous. On the basis of bad information they refuse prophylaxis against a potentially lethal disease. Should they be forcibly given the drugs?
And I dont think that this can be restricted to medicine, if you are to be consistent. After all, political decisions can cost lives - if you vote for a party that wants to cut back the health service you may be doing something life-threatening. Of course no party ever says it wants to let people die, so if you vote for them you are doing so on the basis of bad information. Is the logic that people who want to vote PD are easily led, brainwashed or stupid, and therefore should not be allowed to vote as they choose?
I wonder to what extent the authoritarian ideas here are based on prejudice against particular religions, and to what extent on contempt for people in general.
I do think, reading hedgehog's (you know the one I mean!) messages and his responses to murf, that contempt comes across loud and clear. I just wonder how widely he applies it.

by sock puppet Thu Sep 28, 2006 18:07

and reverse.

this thread is used up.....

by Help! Thu Sep 28, 2006 18:04

I take it that the two previous comments, both identified as "Hedgehog", actually come from different people?

by Hedghog Thu Sep 28, 2006 13:31

...is draw endlessly on your personal conviction about what you thought would have been the right thing for the woman to do. You seem to think you have reduced your arguments to a certainty but you have done nothing of the sort. The doctors were not in charge of the woman anymore than you or I. They were assisting, by her permission, in the process of delivering her baby - they did not own the birth process anymore than they owned the woman's beliefs or her rights. Look, we get that you dont like her choice. Bit its none of your business, no matter how much you flail and rail about the morality of it being self-evident to you. Its only evident to people who think like you and actually, a lot of people who would not have refused a blood transfusion in similar circumstances nevertheless think you are wrong to support the imposition of your moral values on other people. So not only is your 'good moral compass' at odds with the Jehovahs Witnesses, it is also at odds with a lot of other peoples' - albeit for different reasons. You play right into the deep seated, bullying paternalism of the medical profession.

by hedgehog Thu Sep 28, 2006 13:12

I am not defending the record of the medical profession or the psychiatric profession which clearly have some answering to do.

I do believe that in this case, they ACTED correctly, although i would have preferred if they had done so on psychiatric grounds too.

If you were a doctor and and she was in your care and If you knew a psychiatric argument might not have succeeded but the child defense would probably succeed and there was little time. What would you do?

Err on the side of life perhaps?

by Stuart Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:16

Treatment is enforced frequently in Ireland. One in every ten psychiatric admissions is an involuntary detention. The largest group involuntarily treated, after psychotics who do not comply with treatment, is women in childbirth who disagree with the mode of delivery forced on them. (A psychiatric order would have been the correct procedure to deal with enforced transfusion, although it is not possible to determine whether it would have succeeded). The rate of psychiatric detention in Ireland is three times the EU average. The provisions of the 2001 Mental Act were designed to address very serious problems in Irish treatment practices identified by the EU, World Health Organisation, UNICEF and Amnesty International. They have still not been put in place, even after five years.

Just for an international perspective, I have seen an occasion where the last rites were denied on medical grounds and many occasions where patients were prohibited mass and confession. I don't believe those medical views should have been enforced on the patients either.

by hedgehog Thu Sep 28, 2006 04:06

miriam you said
"You confuse your personal sense of moral outrage with an objectively definable 'good moral compass' . There is no such thing."

Never said there was an "objectively definable good moral compass". What a peculiar idea!!!!

Please read the post and understand it before demonising me and attributing beliefs to me which I do not profess.

I said that logic is a dangerous tool. It gets you from a premise to a conclusion but tells you nothing about what is good and bad. that comes from somewhere else

I also said
what is the law but the distallate of many good moral compasses with some logic applied to make the wording non ambiguous and consistent

my point being, logic alone is not enough to create a good ethical system. Your premises must come from somewhere. naturally If that somewhere is a screwy place not tempered by empathy, compassion and a desire for all humans and animals to be fairly treated then of course you will come up with shite ethics for humans to live by. that is the reason that we have some form of consensus built in to temper this possibility. read my words. A distillate of many good moral compasses is what I am advocating,
not one bad one gone mad. that is yet another straw man argument from you miriam..sigh

Murf:
Yes the usual "I'm weary of your stupidity" attempt to claim the high ground. How predictable.

before we go any further, this is a smilie :) look up what it means.

You are not the one who decides whether you win an argument or not. that is up to those reading this to decide for themselves (and since I'm probably the only one, I've decided already! :). So stop claiming this all the time. It's just arrogant egoist posturing

I (and everyone else with some empathy and rationality) am completely sick of this stupid discussion too. it is tedious having to point out how you equate things that are not at all comparable to make your points

example:

I said:
"I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy except in certain specific life threatening circumstances"

You said:
It's a little like saying Palestinians are free to elect whoever they want, provided it's not Hamas.

I repeat - certain specific life threatening circumstances.like in this case where giving lip service to a dodgy religious belief is given the same value as a life which could be easily saved

Comparing a medical emergency where the ethical and caring choice is to act to save life, with coerced voting is not reasonable. straw man / convincing by argumentative device

You are using an argumentative device. You are trying to hijack public feeling on a charged emotive news item (palestinian autonomy) and associate it with something else unrelated in an attempt to win your argument by swaying the audience on an irrational emotional level

Rather like republican argumentative technique which often works by ASSOCIATING things with charged emotional issues to confuse and short circuit good clear thinking, usually with media collusion
e.g.

IRAQ - 9/11 - WMD - freedom - safety

In their case the REAL agenda is usually quite different!!

You REMIND me of those people who try to undermine the teaching of evolution in american schools by associating biblical teachings with proper scientific enquiry using the idea of intelligent design, and then as a consequence, letting creationism in through the back door

In their case the real agenda is quite different too

I don't trust the motives of people who argue as you do.

Anthony blair put it best earlier when he said:
"This debate reflects the moral ambivalence and confusion that is displayed in a lot of discussions on Indymedia. For you guys saving someones life is on the same level as paying lip service to someone's religion, even though in the same breath you will say that all religion are wrong, and you hate them all."

It is far too tedious to keep pointing out your little tricks, and in any case I shouldn't need to point them out to a weathered indy audience as they should know better (not that they are reading this if they have any sense!). So this is just a waste of my time. All that keeps me replying is my annoyance at your replies and the possibility that you might actually convince someone to think as you do.

I'm sorry to hear you are an atheist.

In an attempt to salvage our rep: here is a decent atheist:

the root of all evil, part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2vmj8eyMk&mode=related...arch=
interview with richard dawkins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfnDdMRxMHY

And I hope you never get a position on the medical ethics committee of a hospital where anyone I know ever has to go.

by murf Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:54

Frankly this is all getting rather tiresome. Pointing out the flaws in your approach was easy enough, and I am not terribly interested in continuing a discussion with someone I am rapidly concluding is a troll. But, one last swing

"
I respect their right to hold these beliefs and act on them.
I respect your right to hold your beliefs and to express them "

so you respect everyones "right to hold beliefs and act on them" except for me? I on the other hand can only talk about them. Meanie! :)
To express is an act. One cannot express without acting. So, as far as your beliefs go, you can take all the blood transfusions you like and you can complain and issue abuse when somebody does not do as you insist. These are actions. But when you want to cut across somebody else's autonomy, thats' where a line is crossed.
This of course is a line which we corss often as a society - but by and large only where people are damaging others. Murder, rape, torture, abduction etc. In this instance the woman in question wanted, as a result of her religious views, to refuse medical treatment. That is an exercising of her autonomy. Furthermore, it is a fundamental element of medical ethics (if you don't believe that, look it up in any ethics textbook). What you are doing, by arguing that
You said:
"Therefore, strong-minded people (as exemplified by yourself) have the right (the duty?) to intervene and lead their lives for them."

Go fuck yourself. I NEVER said that. SAVE their lives in a life and death crisis, perhaps
is that you recognise autonomy up to a point. But then the logic and decency cavalry, in the shape of you and like-minded, come charging over the hill to save the idiots from themselves.

You accuse me of misrepresenting you. Apparently I was wrong in saying
"I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy - a point which you seem to reject."
but would have ben correct if i had suggested you were saying
"I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy except in certain specific life threatening circumstances"
The difference here is quantitative rather than qualitative. It's a little like saying Palestinians are free to elect whoever they want, provided it's not Hamas.

You said
I believe I used the term "good moral compass" in the context of criticizing the shortcomings of logic as a tool for making ethical judgements. Please don't take it out of it's original context then use it to set up a straw man.
I did not take it from context. In an earlier post what you said was
Good logic is no substitute for a good moral compass
Therefore, commenting as I did in response
"You speak of a "moral compass". This is a very dangerous idea. "I have my moral compass which tells me what is right or wrong - if anyone does something which I consider wrong, it is appropriate to deny their autonomy and stop them". Do you understand that, if everyone held that view, you could be the one on the receiving end of state force?"
was perfectly valid. Good logic is not a help. Your good moral compass is the tool we should use, it seems.

What do you think the law IS if it is not the embodiment of a distillate of many good moral compasses and a smattering of logic used afterwards in the wording in order to assure consistency and avoid ambiguity in the language.
What I think the law IS is scarcely relevant. But what I can tell you is that to forcibly treat somebody who is competent is usually viewed by the courts as assault. I strongly suspect that if this woman takes a case, she will win. And I hope she does.
And as to your comment about "many good moral compasses" - really? So laws against homosexuality have emanated from good mroal compasses? Against abortion? Against contraception? Against unions?
Laws proceed from a state in which there are different groupings, all co-existing and having power relationships. Those on top make the laws. Therefore they tend to make laws which serve them well. Property laws, anti-union laws etc. Sometimes they must make concessions to those below so as to avert catastrophe - laws re universal suffrage. And of course some laws suit all of society - murder etc. Isn't that kinda elementary?

"In short, it seems to me that your attitude to people is one of contempt. "

Sometimes, yes. thank you for ackowledging this. It makes your arrogance and authoritarianism a lot easier to understand.

A person who believes in the Jehovah's Witness ideology is necessarily suggestible and brainwashed.

I would use the term "likely" rather than "necessarily". They could also be just plain stupid.
Lest there be any doubt, contempt in action.

You weren't exactly agreeing with the tenets of their religion either mr high horse!!! In fact you were rather DISRESPECTFUL AND DISPARAGING of it. leaving aside their "right" to be stupid for a minute here, Does this mean you think believers in this religion as somehow less clued in than yourself because they can't see what you do? Be honest
I am entitled to disagree with all religions. Nothing I have said suggests otherwise. I do consider all religions to be shit. That doesn't mean that I feel others shouldn't be allowed to believe them or act on them. It does not mean that they are shit.

Does that mean the Islamic cartoons were ok?? i mean the authors merely made fun of allah and islam but didn't say anything about the RIGHT of muslims to be muslims.
Personally, I do not think the cartoons were wrong. Because it was an example of a person (people?) expressing their (quite prejudiced) views but not cutting across anybody else's freedoms.

Hey Murf, ever heard of a syllogism?? try learning how to use one properly

goes like this => a=>B B=>C so a=>C

your version:
you seem like someone with attitude X
You seem to believe Y
therefore Z is true

[where Z is a sweeping statement that has little to do with X or Y or reality in general]
I know what a syllogism is, thanks. I frankly don't see how I have reached a conlusion based on 2 premises, so I don't see one here. You feel that certain people (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) are either stupid or brainwashed, and therefore it is appropriate for you and people like you to intervene and prevent them from making choices with which you disagree. Isn't that the case?

Ever heard of the white man's burden?

Parrying your nonsense is becoming a burden......paleface
Not an answer. The white man's burden sugegsted that other races were too primitive to advance, so whites had to take control for them. Sounds like your attitudes here, no?

And you think you know where I get my ideas of right and wrong? I assume you are attempting to suggest that I am a Jehovah's Witness? Are you reduced to this?

Not at all. I wouldn't presume to insult you like that.
No I meant that I think I know where your ideas come from......Your ass!!!
What can I say in response to this? You are reduced to insult which is kinda sad, but all too predictable when you are trying to defend the indefensible.

As a final point, I expect you to lash in another rather poor and easily demolished post. But I'm not petty enough to need the last word and I won't be checking back to see what juvenile insults you have chosen to weave into the fabric of your prejudiced arguments.

In the final analysis, a woman has been denied her right to make decisions about her medical treatment. She has been transfused against her will, and possibly phyiscally restrained in order to facilitate the process. That is what matters here.

by Miriam Wed Sep 27, 2006 09:58

Your rationalisations prove nothing - it all comes to a matter of subjective opinion. You confuse your personal sense of moral outrage with an objectively definable 'good moral compass' . There is no such thing. 'Go fuck yourself', as you say. There are areas of overlap about what is right and wrong which most people generally share but it is in exactly those situations where a minority view is repugnant to the majority that we need to watch out for tyrants like you. The woman was not murdering her own child - you act as though she were. I find it hard too, to think that she could risk not being there to raise the child and to expose it to all the disadvantages that often follow when a child loses a parent. Personally, the moral choice seems clear cut, but then I dont understand blood transfusions to be wrong. She does see. And you have no way of knowing that she is right or wrong about that. Since when are blood transfusions an automatically, unquestionably 'good thing'? But society has a lot less to fear from people who choose to die rather than avail of what they see as immoral medical itervention than we do from people like you who argue with such arrogant, violent certitude - who are prepared to physically assault others 'for their own good'.

by hedgehog Wed Sep 27, 2006 04:23

"
I respect their right to hold these beliefs and act on them.
I respect your right to hold your beliefs and to express them "

so you respect everyones "right to hold beliefs and act on them" except for me? I on the other hand can only talk about them. Meanie! :)

Oh, and please stop misrepresenting me.

You said
"I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy - a point which you seem to reject."

don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is actually
"I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy except in certain specific life threatening circumstances"

You said:
"You speak of a "moral compass". This is a very dangerous idea. "I have my moral compass which tells me what is right or wrong - if anyone does something which I consider wrong, it is appropriate to deny their autonomy and stop them". Do you understand that, if everyone held that view, you could be the one on the receiving end of state force?"


I believe I used the term "good moral compass" in the context of criticizing the shortcomings of logic as a tool for making ethical judgements. Please don't take it out of it's original context then use it to set up a straw man.

What do you think the law IS if it is not the embodiment of a distillate of many good moral compasses and a smattering of logic used afterwards in the wording in order to assure consistency and avoid ambiguity in the language.

And for your information, that is EXACTLY the situation that many activists have found themselves in regarding the law and state force. Myself included.


"In short, it seems to me that your attitude to people is one of contempt. "

Sometimes, yes.

A person who believes in the Jehovah's Witness ideology is necessarily suggestible and brainwashed.

I would use the term "likely" rather than "necessarily". They could also be just plain stupid.

You weren't exactly agreeing with the tenets of their religion either mr high horse!!! In fact you were rather DISRESPECTFUL AND DISPARAGING of it. leaving aside their "right" to be stupid for a minute here, Does this mean you think believers in this religion as somehow less clued in than yourself because they can't see what you do? Be honest

Does that mean the Islamic cartoons were ok?? i mean the authors merely made fun of allah and islam but didn't say anything about the RIGHT of muslims to be muslims.

You said:
"Therefore, strong-minded people (as exemplified by yourself) have the right (the duty?) to intervene and lead their lives for them."

Go fuck yourself. I NEVER said that. SAVE their lives in a life and death crisis, perhaps

Hey Murf, ever heard of a syllogism?? try learning how to use one properly

goes like this => a=>B B=>C so a=>C

your version:
you seem like someone with attitude X
You seem to believe Y
therefore Z is true

[where Z is a sweeping statement that has little to do with X or Y or reality in general]

Ever heard of the white man's burden?

Parrying your nonsense is becoming a burden......paleface

And you think you know where I get my ideas of right and wrong? I assume you are attempting to suggest that I am a Jehovah's Witness? Are you reduced to this?

Not at all. I wouldn't presume to insult you like that.
No I meant that I think I know where your ideas come from......Your ass!!!

by murf Tue Sep 26, 2006 16:17

I am glad that you find someone being deprived of their autonomy amusing. Or perhaps it's the fact that some people would speak out in support of the right to accept or refuse medical treatment as one saw fit. A shame you cannot approach the discussion in any meaningful or intellectually honest sense, however.

"Doctors, Judges, show their inhumanity by saving black woman's life." You couldn't write it.
Funny, I thought you DID write it. Cos nobody else did. Who mentioned doctors' inhumanity? You. Who mentioned judges' inhumanity? You. Since when is skin colour the issue? Easy to set up straw men and knock them down though, isn't it?

The Judge had a stark choice.
Indeed he did. Whether to allow a human being to make decisions regarding her own medical treatment. Bear in mind that the issue of her competence was not a problem, and that many members of her religion are and have been allowed to make this choice. The judge decided, essentially, that having a child and not having any relatives in Ireland meant that she forfeited the right to avail of a basic element of her rights as a patient.

In those circumstances the judge was right to "err on the side of life".
The circumstances you outline are, quite simply, not the circumstances of the case.

Whether or not an appeal to a supreme court would make the same decision is not important. If you have to make a snap decision, and one way means death and the other way means life, you have to choose life.
Posing the matter in such terms is to misrepresent the issue entirely. There is not a debate around this matter in medical ethics. If a person, as a consequence of their beliefs, decides to refuse life-saving treatment, then they are not treated. The issue here was not "is a competent person allowed to refuse treatment", it related to her not having any relative to look after the child. In short, being a single mother without relatives deprives you of your autonomy in relation to medical treatment.

This debate reflects the moral ambivalence and confusion that is displayed in a lot of discussions on Indymedia. For you guys saving someones life is on the same level as paying lip service to someone's religion, even though in the same breath you will say that all religion are wrong, and you hate them all.

That you are seriously angry because a hospital saved someones life. Get a grip.
Nothing to do with moral ambivalence, and the only confusion I see is yours. I don't think you really understand the debate. Maybe it would help if you read something on medical ethics, and maybe looked at the issues under discussion in the case.

As to your assertion that I "hate all religions" - I don't remember saying that. I certainly consider organised religion to be a tool of control, and have no problem saying so, and I do consider religions to be wrong - but hate doesn't enter into it. Also, whether I agree with someone's beliefs or not doesn't mean that they should or should not be allowed to make choices based on them.

Does it?

by Anthony Blair Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:39

I am finding this discussion hilarious. I should have known you guys would get your knickers in a twist. "Doctors, Judges, show their inhumanity by saving black woman's life." You couldn't write it.

The Judge had a stark choice. A forced blood transfusion meant life for the woman, the other option meant death. He only had a few hours to make the decision. No referral to a higher court was possible. Whether the woman lived or died was literally in his hands.

In those circumstances the judge was right to "err on the side of life".

Whether or not an appeal to a supreme court would make the same decision is not important. If you have to make a snap decision, and one way means death and the other way means life, you have to choose life.

This debate reflects the moral ambivalence and confusion that is displayed in a lot of discussions on Indymedia. For you guys saving someones life is on the same level as paying lip service to someone's religion, even though in the same breath you will say that all religion are wrong, and you hate them all.

That you are seriously angry because a hospital saved someones life. Get a grip.

by Stuart Tue Sep 26, 2006 13:35

Can't we just agree to disagree? Absolutely right, and the precise reason that the constitution and statutes provide for the recognition of individual rights to autonomy in so far as they do not impinge on the autonomy of others. Moral compasses are poor guides and cause collisions, which the law arbitrates every day. It doesn't matter what beliefs lead to refusal of treatment, it is a legal duty not to treat without consent. It is a legal obligation to "respect" (in one sense of that word) the patient's wishes excepting where they are irrational as determined by a psychiatric assessment, the patient is a minor or the patient's wishes cannot be determined.

This woman happens to believe a few paltry years on Earth were being traded for Everlasting Life, what more precious thing could you deny? You don't need to accept or believe such a thing to respect her belief and practice. Beliefs about the use of calf-serum, pigs heart valves, leather, cattle gelatin and antipsychotic medication (to name a minute sample) are expressed daily in hospitals and cannot be over-ridden.

(Been there, done that, MY life-threatening wishes were respected...)

by Befuddled Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:04

can't we just agree to disagree.
For instance my child believes that the moon is going to fall on her
and cannot be 'just hanging' up there. its about perception of
difference and supporting choice.
personally I believe that the vatican facilitated the US Empire by
rooting out communism and supporting CIA sponsored agigtations.

now the 'commies' are dealt with they salivate after a religion to
suppress.

Strange things, beliefs. :-)

by murf Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:47

You say I argue that everyone's belief system is equally deserving of respect. I do not. I have no respect for your belief system as you express it here - it seems incredibly arrogant and authoritarian. I do not respect the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses - I consider them absurd and irrational. However, I respect their right to hold these beliefs and act on them. I respect your right to hold your beliefs and to express them - but not to force their conclusion on others. I believe people are entitled to have their opinions and to have agency and autonomy - a point which you seem to reject.

You speak of a "moral compass". This is a very dangerous idea. "I have my moral compass which tells me what is right or wrong - if anyone does something which I consider wrong, it is appropriate to deny their autonomy and stop them". Do you understand that, if everyone held that view, you could be the one on the receiving end of state force?

In short, it seems to me that your attitude to people is one of contempt. A person who believes in the Jehovah's Witness ideology is necessarily suggestible and brainwashed. Therefore, strong-minded people (as exemplified by yourself) have the right (the duty?) to intervene and lead their lives for them.

Ever heard of the white man's burden?

And you think you know where I get my ideas of right and wrong? I assume you are attempting to suggest that I am a Jehovah's Witness? Are you reduced to this?

by hedgehog Tue Sep 26, 2006 06:08

first of all the notion that "everyones belief system is equally deserving of respect" is just another belief

lets take that to a "logical" conclusion,

You believe Everyones belief system is equally deserving of respect
You and I are part of "everyone"
therefore your belief system and my belief system are equally deserving of respect

I believe everyones belief system is not equally deserving of respect (thats my belief system)
from your comment, it is evident you believe your belief system is more deserving of respect than mine

Does anyone else have a slight problem with this? :)

And even if you did consider my belief system equally deserving of respect .......where does that leave you?

Perhaps I'm not the only one with the "cracked garbled logic " problem??

Logic is a dangerous tool. It only gets us from premise to conclusion but it tells us nothing about what is good and bad. That comes from somewhere else.

In your case, murf, I think I just figured out where that somewhere else is! :)

Good logic is no substitute for a good moral compass. That's one of the problems with a lot of internet discussion. And a good moral compass screams "give her the transfusion and don't deprive the baby from having a mother or a young woman from living a full life on the basis of unproven and dodgy conjectures about an afterlife"

by hedgehog Tue Sep 26, 2006 00:12

Murf. So let me clarify your point of view. Are you saying all beliefs are equally good and if they lead to ones own death or the suffering of others then we must still respect them no matter what?

by murf Mon Sep 25, 2006 15:29

Look, I am not for a moment saying that I agree with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses re blood transfusions, but that isn't the point. The point is that SHE believes this stuff to be true, and so her decisions re medical treatment are informed by it. She is not delusional, as her beliefs are not culturally abnormal for one of her religion.

And this is not the same thing as homophobia - that is a matter of taking your religious beliefs and foisting them on others, or using then to justify hate and prejudice. This is a matter of personal choice about one's body and health.

Are we saying that, because we think someone's basic premise in life is wrong, that their decision should be deemed null?

by gerri Mon Sep 25, 2006 15:13

Erudite - I agree that most of the banned things you mention are ridiculous but I must defend an individuals right to make their own decisions on matters pertaining to their own self. Of course there are exceptions to this, particularly if others are involved.

Generally I think Jehovahs W's should be free to decline blood transfusions if they so wish, particularly as blood is in short supply, but in this case the judge may have felt that the lady concerned was not in the whole of her mental health. Perhaps this should constitute grounds for exception. But you cannot seriously be advocating a ban on headscarves?

by Erudite Mon Sep 25, 2006 15:04

How can you expect a doctor to live with himself if he could intervene to save a women with a blood transfusion rather than let her needlessly bleed to death?

I cannot accept that the bizarre beliefs of a screwball religion should have any bearing in this case whatsoever.

For the life of me I cannot understand how an obscure reference to the uncleanliness of contact with blood written by some ignorant goatherder in backwoodsville Israel thousands of years ago should mean that a woman in 2006 Ireland should bleed to death?

Please explain to me why that is right?

I find it truly bizarre that anyone could defend the practice against blood transfusions in the Jehovah Witnesses religion.

Such a practice is as ridiculous as circumcision, headsarves, bans on contraception, hatred of homosexuals and suicide bombing.

by murf Mon Sep 25, 2006 14:12

Hedgehog - your logic is a little garbled, and your descent into insult doesnt really cover the cracks.

Crucial to your argument is the fact that the patient was compus mentus at the time. She had apparently haemmoraged 80% of her blood supply. I'd like to see the result of your medical ethics exam with 80% of the blood supply to your brain gone!

By the same token, anyone who is very ill and has been taking medication that affect attention etc could be said to no longer be able to express an opinion. Also, if you know much about physiology you will know that 80% blood loss is NOT the same as 80% of the blood supply to your brain being lost - blood supply to the vital organs takes precedence. Finally, it seems you read the story carefully enough to know the level of blood loss, but not the know that the judge had stated clearly that she WAS compos mentis.

Plus she was strongly influenced by the erroneous teachings of a cult and led to believe there was a wonderful god waiting for her in the sky where she would be spending eternity .
I believe that this is a phenomenon known as religion. It is surprisingly common. If one subscribes to a religious viewpoint, then expressing a view which is consistent with that religion is not delusional, and cannot be used as a reason to describe someone as being incompetent. It doesn't matter whether the religion in question is Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witness, Islam or any other.

I don't know if you have had any experience of how the jehovahs witness community behaves but having lived in the same building with a group of them for several years, I can tell you that they really do have a close knit community and are constantly re-enforcing their message. If you are in any way suggestable, It would be very difficult to retain any kind of objectivity after that kind of experience.
This may well be the case - i am by no means expert in the ways of these groups. Nonetheless, if somebody is competent to express a belief and an opinion, it is not acceptable to say "ah well they were suggestable and so were brainwashed". The person before you is a human being and is who they are, no matter how they reached this point.

Anyone under the influence of severe blood loss and the strong influence of a cult or religion cannot reasonably be considered totally compus mentus.
Perhaps you should tell that to the court, which said she was.

If she felt that there was no afterlife then it's likely she would have decided instead to continue living and take care of her baby.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. If you had wings you might jump off the top of a tall building. Neither is the case, and can't really be advanced as a basis for a course of action.

There was no time to undo the effect of the lies on her perception of reality so that she could make a better decision not based on those lies as that would have meant her premature death. There was no other way to restore proper brain function other than transfusion.
it is not the role of medical professionals to convince people that their religious beliefs are wrong. It would be entirely unethical to do so. The role of medics in a situation such as this is to state the facts - you have lost a lot of blood, without a transfusion you will die. Full stop. Doctors and nurses do not know whether there is a god, or whether any god that exists would have a problem with transfusions. That is a call that the patient has to make - this is patient autonomy in action. Also, you refer to "proper brain function" - what is your evidence that this was absent? The court considered her competent.

So the doctors made the best decision they could for her since she was in their care.
That is not their role. Doctors are not supposed to make decisions FOR patients - they are operating with different value systems to the patient. Their role is to provide as much information as possible to the patient, and help them to understand their options and the consequences thereof. Once they have done that, the patient makes a decision.

People often wise up and dump their daft religions when they get their blood supply back and get away from the influences of the particular religious community they are involved with.

For all you know, she will lose her faith in this nonsense in years to come and will thank the doctors for their decision. Then I hope she and her child log on to indymedia and read your daft comments. I wonder what they will think?
Wow! Hard to know where so start with this one - I half-suspect that you are trolling when I read this. YOU think her religion is daft - she does not. You say "People often wise up and dump their daft religions when they get their blood supply back" - this sounds a very unlikely scenario to me - can you cite cases? And since when is the possibility that someone MIGHT change their views in the future a good enough reason to disregard their express wishes today?

Religious movements have traditionally spread their diseased memes among poor unsophisticated people in Africa. It was and is a dirty practice. It has helped many people to their untimely deaths over the centuries. It is still doing it's dirty job even today. The pope says something about Islam, some poor nun dies. African women catch aids and die because their religion discourages condom use. A poor deluded woman with severe blood loss prefers to die and leave her innocent baby in state care because her religion dictates it.
She was not deluded - religious beliefs do not constitute delusion. She made a decision based on religious beliefs - she is entitled to do so.

Tony blair talks to god. So does George bush. Bible in one hand, other hand on the button. "tell me when lord, tell me when. Let me be your servant lord". Iran, palestine, the middle east, the bible belt, cartoons. There's some seriously delusional and dangerous behaviour going on around the world. Let me tell you, sometimes I have trouble sleeping at night!!
So what? What does that have to do with this case?

And to cap it all, time after time supposedly rational individuals on supposedly enlightened websites are still churning out the same kind of underhand sophistry that religion does to defend it's practices. Even atheists. Shame on you.
No, shame on YOU. You masquerade as a humanist but in the final analysis your idea seems to be that if someone bases decisions on thoughts with which you disagree, then they ought to be overturned by order. Ignore ideas like autonomy and agency. Disgusting.

Yes the state should normally respect sensible decisions made by it's citizens based on good information (e.g.don't give me that particular drug because I'd rather the ailment than the published side effects) but the state is correct to step in occasionally and make an emergency life saving decision for someone who is incapable of seeing what is best for them and their child, be it due to illness and/or basing their decisions on false information.
Really? "sensible decisions...based on good information". And who defines "sensible" and "good" - you?

by Oswald Boelke - Jsta 1 Mon Sep 25, 2006 06:55

Miriams thought Process's

by hedgehog Mon Sep 25, 2006 01:25

Miriam stop using straw man arguments.

You cannot compare chemotherapy in the later stages of cancer, with all it's uncertainty and side effects to a simple life saving transfusion.

There is a case to be made for voluntary euthanasia when a person is in great pain and their chances of survival are really not good no matter what the medical profession does. There is also a case to be made for allowing people to commit suicide if they wish to though it is a sticky area.

This woman fell into neither category. She was mislead into believing she would be going to some wonderful paradise in the sky if she adhered to absurd religious rules. She was effectively being conned into giving up her own life and ruining the life of her baby for the good of a cult.

Why don't you chastise the religion for misleading a poor woman into believing her own death and making her child an orphan would lead her into everlasting paradise.

The real infringement of this poor womans rights was by the cult that indoctrinated her and lied to her. The doctors and nurses were looking out for her.

Why are feminists like yourself not giving these nutty religions as hard a time as you are giving to the medical profession. Aside from their lies, many of these organisations are clearly sexist in their treatment of women.

Because insanely , in these days of political correctness, it's ok for a religion to tell it's members to die unnecessarily from severe blood loss leaving an orphaned baby behind, but to criticise a religion is not allowed.

Dark ages here we come. And heralding them in are the legions of the politically correct hopping along with great holes in their feet.

by Miriam Mon Sep 25, 2006 00:33

This kinda says it all where some people are coming from on this thread, no?

It was a difficult situation for the medical services and no doubt their actions were rooted in a (albeit paternalistic) desire to do the best possible thing in the circumstances - and not out of any express or otherwise intentional desire to create offence. Its wrong to characterise their motives as malign, imo, but that doesnt mean they got it right, however. This woman was making a choice based on personal conviction. It is surely not fair to equate her choice with forced FMG. If I was diagnosed with cancer tomorrow I would not want to go near chemotherapy or other conventional treatments. Lots of people feel the same. There is no difference between that conviction/choice and that of the woman in this case.

by Ernst Udet 7th - Jasta 11 Sun Sep 24, 2006 21:54

Ahh, The bleeding hearts are out in force again. This woman has had her rights infringed they bleat, she should have been allowed to die, it does not matter that she would leave her child parentless and alone in the world. Now had the state been in the process of deporting this woman, the mother of an Irish citizen, but offered her the option to leave her child in Ireland they would have been up in arms over the seperation of mother and child. Its rubbish to object to the seperation of parent and child by deportation while condoning it by death. Stuff religious beliefs and rights this is the Republic of Ireland where Irish law applies. Ireland did not force this woman to come here she did that of her own free will, she could have opted to live in a country where her ridiculous and pagan
" religious rights " would be protected. I suppose you misguided twats also agree with the religious / cultural right to deform little girls genitals etc etc. Go away and join the moonies or some other shower of nutters you silly people. I applaud the Judge for his actions.

Ernst

by Elle Sun Sep 24, 2006 19:47

Adhering to the code issued by An Bord Altranais is essential for nurses in Ireland - the penalties for failing to adhere to this code are outlined in the Nurses' Act and include sanction up to the point of revoking their license to practice by erasing them from the register of nurses.

Healthcare professionals as I have already stated are madated by legislation to preserve human life. The clinicians sought the help of the Irish courts in this case for that very reason....they needed to be sure that they were acting within the boundaries of the legislation which governs them. The spirit of this legislation as articulated in the codes of conduct written by the regulatory bodies established by statute is clear - clinicians are mandated to preserve human life.

by Stuart Sun Sep 24, 2006 19:30

Taking "all necessary steps to preserve human life" is not the same as "The nurse must at all times maintain the principle that every effort should be made to preserve human life, both born and unborn." There are many occasions when an increased risk of death or a highly probable reduction in survival is balanced against quality of life or other considerations. There is no legal requirement to take all necessary steps to preserve life.

by Elle Sun Sep 24, 2006 17:50

The nurse must at all times maintain the principle that ever effort should be made to preserve human life, both born and unborn. - this is taken directly from the code of conduct issued to ALL nurses by An Bord Altranais. An Bord Altranais is the regulatory body I referred to in my previous post established by the Nurses Act. You will find a similar code applies to doctors.

A modicum of research would have saved you this embarassment.

by Stuart Sun Sep 24, 2006 17:39

The simple fact is that doctors and nurses are mandated by legislation and their respective regulatory bodies to take all necessary steps to preserve human life.

No they are not. There is no regulation and no legislation requiring medical personnel to take "all necessary steps to preserve human life". It would make a great many medical procedures, therapies and care strategies impossible if there were. There is legislation requiring medical personnel to respect the wishes of their patients, although these can be over-ridden under the Mental Health Act 2001, which was not applied in this instance.

by Elle Sun Sep 24, 2006 16:50

"many good practicing catholic women are single mothers" - no they're not actually. They cannot be good practicing catholics while breaking the rules of their own church. Perhaps they are returners to the church....is that what you mean. Are you referring to women who have broken the rules of their church and then returned to that church? Are you referring to newly converted catholics? People who break the rules of the church are not good practicing catholics obviously so what is it that you mean?

I have read a few posts from you on Indymedia and you appear to have a bizarre ability to find incidencts of sexism lurking all around you....in this case you are very wide of the mark, very wide indeed!

The simple fact is that doctors and nurses are mandated by legislation and their respective regulatory bodies to take all necessary steps to preserve human life. The professionals in this incident had little choice. What you actually should be annoyed about is the fact that no provision has been made in our maternity hospitals for women who object to being transfused - it is possible for the doctors and nurses to preserve life and not transfuse in this situation by the use of specialist plasma products. This was simply not available in this case.

The issue is one of resources not religion - your unsophisticated arguments add nothing to this debate.

by Stuart Sun Sep 24, 2006 15:17

For clarity, it was stated to the court that she was single and had no relatives in Ireland. Her husband was in fact present in the hospital at some point in the proceedings prior to the transfusion. He was not able to provide documentary evidence of his relationship sufficient to alter the course of treatment. There appear to have been some translation difficulties (into / from fluent French).

by C murray - . Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:22

she was alone when she gave birth.
that does not pre-suppouse her 'singularity'

she is refugee.

she is jehovah witness.

many good practicing catholic women are single mothers, for whatever reason

is it to be assumed that we have the right to judge the morality of her choice
which is the precedent here?

by TH Sun Sep 24, 2006 11:06

This woman was single, right and she had a baby, hence must have engaged in premartial sex, something which is seen as a sin in the eyes of this religion??? if she was worried about her mortal soul had she not already committed a grave sin in having premartial sex?? I think a blood transfusion was not going to make much difference at that point!

by hedgehog Sun Sep 24, 2006 02:19

yes I know...I spelt it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compos_mentis

by hedgehog Sun Sep 24, 2006 00:54

"I think the key point here is that basic medical ethics require that one act in the interests of the patient, with the patient's agreement/consent. It is plainly obvious that, in this case, the court ordered the medical profession to do otherwise."

Normally yes i would agree. However this is not a normal situation like toothache or a boil on your arse. This is a life threatening situation where time is of the essence and where there will be lifelong consequences for an innocent party if you act wrongly.

Crucial to your argument is the fact that the patient was compus mentus at the time. She had apparently haemmoraged 80% of her blood supply. I'd like to see the result of your medical ethics exam with 80% of the blood supply to your brain gone!

Plus she was strongly influenced by the erroneous teachings of a cult and led to believe there was a wonderful god waiting for her in the sky where she would be spending eternity .

I don't know if you have had any experience of how the jehovahs witness community behaves but having lived in the same building with a group of them for several years, I can tell you that they really do have a close knit community and are constantly re-enforcing their message. If you are in any way suggestable, It would be very difficult to retain any kind of objectivity after that kind of experience.

Anyone under the influence of severe blood loss and the strong influence of a cult or religion cannot reasonably be considered totally compus mentus.

If she felt that there was no afterlife then it's likely she would have decided instead to continue living and take care of her baby.

There was no time to undo the effect of the lies on her perception of reality so that she could make a better decision not based on those lies as that would have meant her premature death. There was no other way to restore proper brain function other than transfusion.

So the doctors made the best decision they could for her since she was in their care.

People often wise up and dump their daft religions when they get their blood supply back and get away from the influences of the particular religious community they are involved with.

For all you know, she will lose her faith in this nonsense in years to come and will thank the doctors for their decision. Then I hope she and her child log on to indymedia and read your daft comments. I wonder what they will think?

Religious movements have traditionally spread their diseased memes among poor unsophisticated people in Africa. It was and is a dirty practice. It has helped many people to their untimely deaths over the centuries. It is still doing it's dirty job even today. The pope says something about Islam, some poor nun dies. African women catch aids and die because their religion discourages condom use. A poor deluded woman with severe blood loss prefers to die and leave her innocent baby in state care because her religion dictates it.

Tony blair talks to god. So does George bush. Bible in one hand, other hand on the button. "tell me when lord, tell me when. Let me be your servant lord". Iran, palestine, the middle east, the bible belt, cartoons. There's some seriously delusional and dangerous behaviour going on around the world. Let me tell you, sometimes I have trouble sleeping at night!!

And to cap it all, time after time supposedly rational individuals on supposedly enlightened websites are still churning out the same kind of underhand sophistry that religion does to defend it's practices. Even atheists. Shame on you.

Yes the state should normally respect sensible decisions made by it's citizens based on good information (e.g.don't give me that particular drug because I'd rather the ailment than the published side effects) but the state is correct to step in occasionally and make an emergency life saving decision for someone who is incapable of seeing what is best for them and their child, be it due to illness and/or basing their decisions on false information.

by murf Sat Sep 23, 2006 17:40

I think the key point here is that basic medical ethics require that one act in the interests of the patient, with the patient's agreement/consent. It is plainly obvious that, in this case, the court ordered the medical profession to do otherwise.

A Jehovah's Witness, irrespective of how absurd it may seem to others, will reject potentially life-saving blood transfusions on principle. In the event of their being compos mentis, as the court recognised this woman was, they are perfectly entitled to refuse any treatment - as is anybody else. If I, as an atheist, choose to refuse treatment for any condition I have on grounds, for example, that I do not want to risk the possible side effects, that is my right. We all own our bodies and we are all entitled to make choices in relation to them.

There are, of course, occasions where the courts have intervened - cases involving children of Jehovah's Witnesses. The logic here is that kids are not yet mature enough to make decisions relating to religion, and they have been introduced into this religious organisation without any choice. Therefore the state takes it upon itself to intervene and act in loco parentis so as to save the child's life where necessary.

This is a qualitatively different situation. The woman in question is in full possession of her mental faculties. She has expressed wishes and beliefs which are in no way delusional for a member of her religion. Rather than be condemned for eternity, she chooses to reject treatment. This is her right. The fact that she has just had a child does not in any way impact on this. It is still her body and her life.

The judge in question made some pretty bizarre comments, from what I have seen. The absence of known relatives to care for her child seems to have been an issue for him - are we to take it that he would be happy to allow her die if she had a sister living in Letterkenny or Carlow? Was his motivation to save the state the bother of caring for a child? Or does he believe that, where a mother has no family, she must act thereafter only in the interests of her child, and ignore her own wishes and beliefs? Would he consider suicide by such a woman to be a crime, where it would not be if she had a sibling living in Ireland?

He said that the hospital authorities should use restraints if necessary, and added that the use of restraint was commonplace in medicine. Has this man visited a hospital since the Victorian era? The use of restraints is rare, and they are only used where a drunk or incompetent person is violent or aggressive. One does not see much in the way of restraint use in maternity wards.

He said his role, as he saw it, was to intervene to save life - and once the smoke had cleared the issues could be discussed in more detail. Of course at that stage the damage, from the patient's view, would be done. It's not as though the blood could be siphoned off afterwards.

In the final analysis, this is a judgement which will not stand up to any legal scrutiny. It is, essentially, a judgement in favour of compulsory medical treatment of a competent adult, and there can be no justification for this, any more than there can be justification for, e.g. force-feeding of hunger-striking political prisoners.

Finally, one of the messages here refers to the Hippocratic Oath. There's nothing in the Hippocratic Oath that requires forcibly transfusing an unwilling person.

by Stuart Sat Sep 23, 2006 12:04

What is remarkable about this case is that medical treatment of a mentally-competent adult has not been enforced before, in Ireland or any legally or administratively equivalent nation. To do so is a criminal assault. Ireland has an exceptionally high level of psychiatric detention. Psychiatric evaluations are used to enforce medical care in childbirth. That would have been the correct procedure in this instance and would probably have failed (her mental state has not been referred to by the hospital or judge).

by Gerri Sat Sep 23, 2006 04:30

Nobody here knows the full facts surrounding this case. What is apparent is that a woman gave birth and in the course of the birth lost a large amount of blood, leading to almost certain death. The hospital intervened, received sanction to give her blood against her will and against her religious beliefs. Again, the full facts with regard to this lady's mental state nor other factors pertaining to her decision not to receive blood to save her life are unknown.

Paul O'Donnell and Stuart, your certainty that the colour of this lady's skin was a factor in the decision made by the judge seems utterly without any basis. You appear to be searching for instances of racism, where there are none apparent

Stuart, you claim that the master of the Dublin hospital where this decision was made, made it on the basis of this lady's gender, family status and her ethnicity, you also say that the master's of Dublin maternity hospitals are xenophobic - by your absurd logic it seems more likely that if this were true, this lady would be allowed to die in accordance with her wishes instead of receive a blood transfusion. Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do, if the master's of Dublin maternity hospitals were motivated as you allege?

Somehow I think that had this lady been actually allowed to die in accordance with her wishes, some of the same posters here would be stating that this decision was motivated by xenophobia or racism...sigh....

by hedgehog Sat Sep 23, 2006 04:12

After all, It's only right.

Did you all become pod people when i went to the bathroom?

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_...blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah_witness

I once asked a jehovah witness if it is possible to extract every molecule of blood from his meat before he ate it or was there some left in the capillaries. And how much was too much.

I don't wish to single out jehovah witnesses particularly. People are always falling over themselves to have respect for religions. I'm tired of this nonsense. the fact is, most religions are completely silly and contradictory in their beliefs. When they attain power over people they have tended to abuse it. It's well documented.

If you want to believe in fairy stories, that is fine but do have the coutrtesy to keep them to yourself and If you must have a fictitious god or gods, try to have have a direct relationship with him/her/it. It really is best to skip the middle man. And one more thing, please, don't make innocent little children suffer because you are deluded. Then I'll respect your religion more.

The jehovah witnesses I have met were generally decent well mannered individuals. However their religion itself like most others is completely batshit insane.

The doctors did the only rational thing they could. They were under the hippocratic oath.

by Paul O'Donnell Fri Sep 22, 2006 20:16

The woman in this case clearly had her human rights set aside by the judge. It was not about the rights of her child or about religion. Every citizen must have a right to decide whether or not they wish to receive medical treatment, particularly when a medical intervention goes contrary to their most deeply held beliefs. This will have profound effects on Irish law and must inevitably be challenged at some time by someone seeking the right to die with dignity and without unwanted medical intervention.

Certainly the fact that the woman was black influenced the judge. I do not believe he would have reached this decision if the woman was white and middle class. Shame on you judge.

by ms Fri Sep 22, 2006 19:13

This case does raise a lot of difficult questions/ possible implications. For one, should a person's right to practice their religion superceed all other rights? For instance in this case, I believe the judge took the view that the baby also has a right - the right to the care and protection of its mother. He took the view that the best interests of the baby would be served by ensuring that his or her mother lived and that this consideration superceeded the right of the mother to practice her religion.

by pat c Fri Sep 22, 2006 18:48

"Masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals played a perverse role in stoking xenophobia before the Citizenship Referendum with cooked up statistics on pregnant asylum seekers, single women, foreigners, "maternity tourists" and "passport tourists" draining the limited Irish health service budgets. "

Did they actually do this? Or were they looking for additional funding based on the greatter number of patients using the Hospitals? I know they claimed that McDowell had misrepresented the representations they had made to him.

As for this woman, she is a sane adult. She is entitled to make her own decisions. The fact that I think the Jeh Ws are a nasty cult is irrelevant in this case. But if she tried to prevent her baby from having a transfusion, thats a different matter.

I was glad to see that the Irish Humanist Association condemned the ruling forcing the transfusion on her.

by Stuart Fri Sep 22, 2006 18:31

If she believes that a transfusion will prolong her life while barring her entry to the Kingdom of Heaven, then her freedom to that religious belief should be protected just like anyone else's. But of course this would not have happened to anyone else - she is single, female and black.

The Masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals played a perverse role in stoking xenophobia before the Citizenship Referendum with cooked up statistics on pregnant asylum seekers, single women, foreigners, "maternity tourists" and "passport tourists" draining the limited Irish health service budgets. They did clumsily disguise their xenophobia as a mysogynistic, paternalist concern for the health problems of late-stage pregnant migrants. They even invented some bizarre case histories of passport tourists that were revealed to be both falsified and invasions of personal privacy.

It was wrong to deny her religious beliefs and utterly unprecedented.