Mother dies refusing Blood Transfusion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Acts 15:29: 29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, [b]and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.

It's her life; if she wants to refuse medical treatment that's her right.[/b]

what of the right of the children...? ...to grow up knowing their mother..?

Originally posted by eatmybishop
what of the right of the children...? ...to grow up knowing their mother..?

There is no such right. That would rule out adoption, among other things.

http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/224771.html

woman's relatives sues hospital after she dies; she was bitten by a snake during snake handling religious practices...

seems like putting yourself in danger may not be all that uncommon; but for a verse in Mark?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/224771.html

woman's relatives sues hospital after she dies; she was bitten by a snake during snake handling religious practices...

seems like putting yourself in danger may not be all that uncommon; but for a verse in Mark?

You do realize that this case is kinda the exact opposite of the first one?

Interestingly, that quote in Mark is undoubtedly a later addition missing from the earliest copies and not mentioned by the first Christian writers in their commentaries on the Gospel of Mark.

Edit: I wonder if that group also "drinks deadly poisons" as part of its religious ceremonies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
He is probably right. But statistics can be misleading. The lives saved by transfusions is probably way higher than both those numbers.
....etc etc.....

Found this study referring to a Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths (CEMD) Report, extract as follows:

In the CEMD the very high risk of mortality in women
who refuse blood transfusion was highlighted. The
death rate in this group was 1 per 1,000 maternities compared
with an expected incidence of less than 1 per 100,
000 maternities. A survey of 147 labour wards in the United
Kingdom found only two units had recommendations
for the management of women who refuse blood transfusion
with more information about this very unusual complication
of pregnancy.

(http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2393-2-7.pdf)

Originally posted by snowinscotland
http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/224771.html

woman's relatives sues hospital after she dies; she was bitten by a snake during snake handling religious practices...

seems like putting yourself in danger may not be all that uncommon; but for a verse in Mark?

"Handling snakes in a religious service is a misdemeanor in Kentucky, but police rarely pursue charges because the practice involves a matter of religious freedom..."

If it's in the law that it's a misdemeanor to handle them in religious services how is it a complication for the police that it involves a matter of religious freedom. Police should worry about upholding the law, not about interpreting it, that's for judges to worry about. I mean, the law specifically mentions religious services!

Originally posted by agryson
"Handling snakes in a religious service is a misdemeanor in Kentucky, but police rarely pursue charges because the practice involves a matter of religious freedom..."

If it's in the law that it's a misdemeanor to handle them [b]in religious services how is it a complication for the police that it involves a matter of religious freedom. Police should w ...[text shortened]... that's for judges to worry about. I mean, the law specifically mentions religious services![/b]

What is strange is that if you add the word 'religion' to a practice it seems to confer inviolability upon the practice, however self harming etc. For centuries we have shied away from even questioning the all too real results of the practices; and it looks as if you have picked up on another one. Very mixed up concepts.

I used to work in a blood bank, on one occasion a JW refused transfusion treatment for her kid. We matched the blood while the kid was made a 'ward of the state' by a local magistrate. The transfusion was then sanctioned and the kid survived.

I never understood the actions of the parents that night allowing their child to die!

Originally posted by bostonranger
I used to work in a blood bank, on one occasion a JW refused transfusion treatment for her kid. We matched the blood while the kid was made a 'ward of the state' by a local magistrate. The transfusion was then sanctioned and the kid survived.

I never understood the actions of the parents that night allowing their child to die!

there are those on this site who would argue that it is the right of the parent to allow their kids to die and that by refusing them that right we are in effect taking away their 'God given rights'.

I find this a difficult area because, while I support the rights of any individual to do what they like to themselves, I think they should be accountable for what part they play in other peoples hurt, suffering and death. The question is that in the case of this mother, there is an argument that she chose herself to refuse what would be considered appropriate medical care; I believe that 'choice' was heavily influenced by others (who significantly did not share the risk), to the point of creating social exclusion of that individual. The second mother was testament to the pressures involved.

In effect, religious organisations that enforce rules and regulations should be treated like clubs; if the rule results in death of an individual, there should be some culpability...

Originally posted by bostonranger
I used to work in a blood bank, on one occasion a JW refused transfusion treatment for her kid. We matched the blood while the kid was made a 'ward of the state' by a local magistrate. The transfusion was then sanctioned and the kid survived.

I never understood the actions of the parents that night allowing their child to die!

Yet another interesting angle to the debate. Does the state have the right to step in and mandate medical care for children? If so, how far does it go? At what point is the state usurping the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yet another interesting angle to the debate. Does the state have the right to step in and mandate medical care for children? If so, how far does it go? At what point is the state usurping the parent's right to raise their child as they see fit?

Clearly the state felt that it is in the child's best interests to have the 'best' possible medical care.

I think there is still room for debate here; it is similar to the legistation on seatbelts here in the UK; There were those who said it infringed on the right of an individual not to wear a seatbelt, but it became law.
I suppose the right of the state to the 'least harm' ie those killed/injured by wearing seatbelts were so far outweighed by those killed/injured by not wearing seatbelts that it became a no-brainer to 'infringe' on liberty to protect the majority.

It was not uncommon for the state (Scotland, UK) to take over responsibility for a child in such circumstances, but it mainly involved newborns whose parents were habitual drug abusers.

To me it was a no brainer, these parents were clearly brain washed, with no rational thought of their own!!

Originally posted by bostonranger
It was not uncommon for the state (Scotland, UK) to take over responsibility for a child in such circumstances, but it mainly involved newborns whose parents were habitual drug abusers.

To me it was a no brainer, these parents were clearly brain washed, with no rational thought of their own!!

so should it follow, that if the parents are putting their children at risk, they should be on a register of 'child at risk'?