This is one of the biggest problems I have with religious beliefs.

[Chino]

I'm not sure if any of you heard, but yesterday in New Britain CT, there was a a shooting at a hospital not far from my school. One of the people shot was my uncle's brother in law. Well he and his wife are jehova's witnesses. The guy who was shot is in severe critical condition, and if he doesn't get surgery within 2 days they say he's going to die. The surgeons say that he needs a blood transfusion before they can operate because he will most definitely bleed out. Apparently jehova's witnesses do not allow themselves to undergo blood transfusions. I don't understand what is going on in these people's heads. The wife would rather her husband die in agony than going through with the procedure, and the husband has no problem letting himself die and leaving behind his wife and kids... What the fuck.

[Sigz]

Meh, the guy is an adult with his own beliefs and is capable of making his own decisions.

[King Postwhore]

It's very hard to see their point of view when it comes to living but what can you do.  It's something we as people will wrestle with all the time.

[yeshaberto]

I agree, this is a sad example of a poor approach to understanding scripture

[bosk1]

I agree, this is a sad example of a poor approach to understanding scripture

[j]

It's dumb, but as you said:

the husband has no problem letting himself die

Although his reasoning is moronic, it's really the same as the debate over the legality of suicide, withholding excessive treatments in certain medical situations, euthanasia, etc.

-J

[rumborak]

I don't care what adults do with their lives. It's when JWs let their kids die because of it, then it's an issue.

rumborak

[SeRoX]

So can we say religion beliefs block our mental side? I guess we can. That example is the bad side of religion traditions, there are good ones but in my eyes, this kind of thing can cover all good things.

[Nekov]

I agree with most of you that he is an adult capable of making his own decissions but if the guy has a kid maybe he should consider that letting himself die will affect the kid a lot. To be honest it is a very selfish decission.

[Adami]

Well this thread is rather insulting.


Good thing Jehovah's Witnesses make the list of "Religions that are "okay" to insult" on this board.

[j]

Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms.  Just expressing disagreement.

-J

[jammindude]

I'm sorry, Chino.   This is really sad, and I don't like hearing about ANYONE suffering.

But the facts are that the doctors sound like hacks.   The facts are that doctors have alternatives...and Witnesses are open to alternate methods...just not blood transfusions.

I could go down a HUGE laundry list of alternatives.   I personally know of someone who went through a liver transplant (an *extremely* bloody surgery) with NO BLOOD TRANSFUSION.   

There were many doctors who refused to do the procedure because he wouldn't accept a blood transfusion.   But it's mostly doctors who are living in the dark ages with old school mentalities. 

There are volume expanders, blood substitutes, cell savors...etc etc etc.   

Non-blood hospitals are starting to pop up all over the country because it is, quite honestly, the wave of the future.   Quicker recovery times, no risk of rejection.    New research is coming out every day that gives us more and more alternatives that do not require blood during surgery.

Trust me, I'm sure your BIL will find a better doctor who looks forwards instead of backwards.   And I'm sure that he is *NOT* just rolling over and dying (in spite of the way a few of you have made it sound).   This guy is fighting for his life to find ANY method that doesn't violate his conscience.   And I would guess that any of you would do the same.

[Nekov]

Jammindude, I see why blood wouldn't be necessary in a planned surgery but in this case the guy was shot and has probably lost lots of blood to this point. During a surgery blood will be lost and in a normal situation it would be hard for someone to lose enough blood to die but if a guy has already been losing blood and now needs to be cut open to get fixed then it is a very different story. I'm no medical expert so I may be completely wrong here.

[Adami]

Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms.  Just expressing disagreement.

-J

The OP is pretty insulting.

[jammindude]

What they've discovered recently is that the body can function on far less blood that was previously thought...the problem is that when it gets to certain point, there's not enough to keep circulating. 

The answer was pretty simple, volume expanders.  Fluids can almost always buy you some extra time while you treat with iron to raise red blood cell count.   Add to that, cell savers (wherein the blood lost is salvaged, cleaned and then recirculated back into the patient) has made blood transfusions almost obsolete. 

San Antonio (I believe....it was definitely Texas) opened up the USA's first 100% BLOODLESS hospital a few years back, and more are starting to crop up. 

Both Bridgeport and Hartford have fullblown bloodless surgery centers in their hospitals...I'm sure he was most likely rushed to one of those if they were relatively close.


And I take no offence to the OP.   I feel his pain, and I'm sure he's very frustrated right now.  He doesn't need the rest of you piling on his already difficult circumstance. 

[Rina]

I take no offense either. But as mentioned, there are bloodless surgery options available. And more often than not, those are the safer ones. It's not a matter of giving up, it's fighting for your life in every other possible way.

[Chino]

Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms.  Just expressing disagreement.

-J

The OP is pretty insulting.

How was it insulting?

[El Barto]

I'm with Adami on this.  These people have their beliefs and they're willing to die for them.  More power to them.     I personally think they're misguided, but I think that about most religious people.  And while I'm not sure I'd call it insulting, the Christians here looking down on their beliefs aren't looking too good themselves in my point of view.

[yeshaberto]

my apologies if my post was considered offensive.  I have learned a number of things from the JW and have respect for them regarding their passion for their beliefs. 
the interpretation of the "eating of blood" as including transfusions, though, is a poor interpretation IMO. 
the fact that they are willing to die for this belief is extremely commendable

[YtseJam]

Haven't noticed any outright insulting of the religion, unless you count bosk's and yeshua's criticisms.  Just expressing disagreement.

-J

The OP is pretty insulting.

Then you are easily insulted.

-Chino I'm going to Bridgeport Saturday hoping I don't get shot. I feel for you man, hopefully he'll pull through regardless of religion.

[bosk1]

And while I'm not sure I'd call it insulting, the Christians here looking down on their beliefs aren't looking too good themselves in my point of view.

  I haven't seen anyone in this thread "looking down on their beliefs."  But as Yesh said, and I quoted, it is indeed sad that, due to his mistaken interpretation of scripture, he is likely going to leave behind a family that, I would guess, would want/need him around.  I legitimately feel sad for him and his family. 

[El Barto]

I found it a tad condescending.  For one thing I don't recognize your authority to deem his beliefs mistaken.  That also applies to whether or not a person's demise is considered sad or joyful.  He is, after all, probably going to die in what they likely consider a state of grace and go off to a better place.  Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean that they might not be happy for him, or perhaps complacent with the will of God. 

Or maybe they'll be devastated, who knows?  The point is, we don't.

Regardless, I'm not too troubled.  I don't think y'all were trying to be hostile or insensitive about it.  It just struck me as a bit arrogant.

[Ben_Jamin]

I see no problem, plus that's none of my business.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

I don't believe this story has much to do with flaws in religious beliefs as much as the story has to do with the flaws of people in general.

[jammindude]

Here's food for thought.   Really...in the broad scheme of things...how different is it than dying for your country?

In either case...isn't it simply dying for something *you believe in*?

[Chino]

100% completely different.

[Nekov]

I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.

[kári]

I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.

[Nekov]

I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.

You believe you did. Do you really think the US made any difference invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think every soldier that goes to war makes a difference and dies for a fair cause? I certainly don't and I know there are other people that don't believe that either.

[kirksnosehair]

I don't care what adults do with their lives. It's when JWs let their kids die because of it, then it's an issue.

rumborak

[Chino]

I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.

No. When you die for your country (maybe not today, but in WWII), It's to keep other people safe and out of harms way. Any person injured in a war dies because they are not able to be saved, I'm sure they'd prevent their death if they could. Letting yourself die in a hospital because of something that's not even tangible (as opposed to a country) is no where near the same thing. My uncle's brother in law isn't dying for the god he believes in, he's dying because of what he believes god wants him to believe in, the god will not benefit at all from him dying. Dying for your country is sacrificing your life in order to preserve the lives of others, it's an act of heroism and being part of a greater good. What does letting yourself die in the hospital, when it's easily preventable, do for anyone?

[Nekov]

I agree with jammindude on this one. Both are dying for what you believe. In one case you believe in the need of protecting your country in the other one you believe in God's teaching. One might argue that a religious belief is not the same as believing in your country but in the end both are things you believe in and you might consider dying for.

No. When you die for your country (maybe not today, but in WWII), It's to keep other people safe and out of harms way. Any person injured in a war dies because they are not able to be saved, I'm sure they'd prevent their death if they could. Letting yourself die in a hospital because of something that's not even tangible (as opposed to a country) is no where near the same thing. My uncle's brother in law isn't dying for the god he believes in, he's dying because of what he believes god wants him to believe in, the god will not benefit at all from him dying. Dying for your country is sacrificing your life in order to preserve the lives of others, it's an act of heroism and being part of a greater good. What does letting yourself die in the hospital, when it's easily preventable, do for anyone?

From his point of view it means he will go to heaven as opposed to staying longer in this world but then not being able to ascend. I think it's a selfish decision but it's his to make.
And as far as going to war, you could also say that you don't go to war for what you believe but what your country wants you to believe. If your government tells you that going to war will save peoples lives and you believe that that's up to you but on the other hand there are other people that don't believe in that and hence don't want to go to war.

[kári]

I disagree because in the case of "dying for your country" you were doing something (well, before you died) that made an actual tangible difference.

You believe you did. Do you really think the US made any difference invading Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think every soldier that goes to war makes a difference and dies for a fair cause? I certainly don't and I know there are other people that don't believe that either.

Well wether it's Iraq, Afghanistan or Germany in WWII, any soldier that died in a war made an infinitely bigger difference on what he was dying for than a religious person dying for personal beliefs when they didn't "have to".

[kári]

And as far as going to war, you could also say that you don't go to war for what you believe but what your country wants you to believe. If your government tells you that going to war will save peoples lives and you believe that that's up to you but on the other hand there are other people that don't believe in that and hence don't want to go to war.

Wether you believe that the war is the right things doesn't change the fact that you do make a difference, even if it is tiny.

[Nick]

I for one actually find it refreshing to see people actually stand up for their faith for a change. Sure I don't agree with it, but if you're going to believe in any particular religion then you should truly believe. Especially in the protestant and Catholic churches the number of "believers" is ridiculous.