TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Treatment refused on religious grounds vs. child's right to a family
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Treatment refused on religious grounds vs. child's right to a family - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Exactly - but you didn't answer my question. Do such things, or breaches, mean that you only have part-time faith? If the Bible told you to go out and kill, would you? If you wouldn't, does that mean you only have part-time faith?

I believe this woman could have made a morally right decision regarding the future of her children without sacrificing her faith.

Quote:
You dont get to pick what parts of a faith are convenient today.
Absolutely you do not - I couldn't agree more with that statement. But I do feel that you can interpret your faith to make right and good decisions, that are for the benefit of others. As in this case - I believe that those children having a mother was far more morally and ethically important than refusing a blood transfusion.

I think this decision would make you braver and stronger than just blindly following a teaching. Again, I ask you, if the Bible told you to go out and kill, would you? You don't get to pick what parts of faith are convenient, after all.
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Exactly - but you didn't answer my question. Do such things, or breaches, mean that you only have part-time faith? If the Bible told you to go out and kill, would you? If you wouldn't, does that mean you only have part-time faith?

I believe this woman could have made a morally right decision regarding the future of her children without sacrificing her faith.
you keep saying the bible, try picking something else. last i looked bible said dont kill.

that may be what you believe was the right choice for her, You dont get to pick for her. It not your morals its hers. and i would guess her morals where for more then show.
post #33 of 51
Yes I keep saying the Bible, being the central teaching for Christianity - and I said IF that's what the Bible said, would you do it? Just answer the question - you're the one talking about part-time faith.

If you were a Buddhist, but you ate some chicken, would that make your faith part-time?

I'm really trying to get an answer here - you seem to say that faith is absolute, no interpretations, no deviations, no personal take on questionable teachings. You either have faith, or you don't, is what you seem to be trying to say.

And you're right - I don't get to make the choices for this woman. However this thread is about what WE think of what she did. So that's why I get to comment.

I would really like to hear what some others have to say on this subject, because I think that it is possible to make a decision for the greater good that seems to compromise your faith at the time. If this woman made the decision to take the transfusion in order to make sure her children had a mother, who could say that she wasn't truly faithful?

What do the Christians, and Buddhists, and Pagans, and Catholics here think of this idea? This may be edited by the mods for going off-topic - but I really believe this is very much related to the topic at hand. This woman refused to be distracted from what she believed her faith allowed. Can faith be interpreted in accordance with a set of moral values that you hold, or does it have to be blindly adhered to?
post #34 of 51
if i was a Buddhist and lets say i did not believe in rebirth how could i call myself a buddhist
she chose, for what ever reason to think getting blood was wrong, well that up to her.
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I think she gave up the right to refuse a blood transfusion when she expected all the other medical treatment that goes with delivering twins. Doctors are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which means that they MUST do everything in their power to save a life, if they can. They did everything else under the sun to help her deliver those twins, she expected full patronage of the hospital and all their facilities and services, and yet she can then turn around and deny the doctors the opportunity to save her, and her children have been denied a mother. I'm sorry, but that isn't right.

If you are willing to get pregnant and have a child or children you have a responsibility to do everything in your power to stick around and raise them. There is always potential danger in pregnancy and especially when having twins, and there was a real possibility of there being complications. If she couldn't be saved then, sure, it would be sad but that would be life. If she refused to be saved then that's just plain wrong, and utterly ridiculous. You can't expect to be afforded all the care you want, have your babies, and then just say `no, no I'm not going to live because despite them needing me and all the efforts everyone has gone to to help me, I just don't believe in it'. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Not to mention all the other people in her life who have had no choice in this situation and now have two children to raise - never mind what they might have been planning to do for the next fifty years or so.

I can't believe anyone could be so selfish. Have your beliefs, have your faith - but you have to learn that if these beliefs are going to significantly impact on the lives of those around you, and mean that you cannot be a mother to your children, sometimes it's time to just get over yourself and do the RIGHT thing.
I could not have said it better myself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
Of course things still happen during childbirth - it is still dangerous and thousands of women - particularly in the third world - die as a result.

This was a preventable death, though, and she has left two orphans behind because of her own personal preferences. It makes me so sad when there are so many people out there desperate to have children, who can't, to see someone behave in such a fashion.
Once again- VERY well put! ( i am one of those people with fertility issues- so i definitely agree with that statement )
post #36 of 51
oh yea, forgot to add, as a child you dont have rights. heck y ou dont even have the right to be born, so, No, the child has no rights to have a living mother.
post #37 of 51
Goodness! That's a controversial opinion. And one I actually have spent a lot of time thinking about. I believe there are inherent rights you are born with - to have a family isn't really one of them, no, but I think that it's pretty harsh to say that as a child you don't have rights. Jeepers!

Nikki - a dear friend of mine (who is also a doctor) has really serious fertility issues. I've never met anyone with such problems. They have done EVERYTHING - literally. She has just now flown back from California where she has managed to find a surrogate. I cannot imagine her making the decision to allow her children to grow up motherless, when all she wants to be in the world is a mother, and she can't be. It's so sad.
post #38 of 51
IMO she was very selfish. Her kids will never get to know a mother, they will have to deal with the fact that she chose to die for them.

Her faith meant more to her than her own kids did.

She had two options:
1) die for her faith
2) live for her kids

She chose her faith over her kids. How can a faith that comdemns children to be motherless be "right"(for lack of a better word)?
post #39 of 51
I think she had a right to choose not to have a blood transfusion, but as someone who doesn't share her beliefs I find it hard to comprehend a mother making such a choice, knowing it would likely leave her children motherless.
post #40 of 51
Each one to their own i say. That's her religion and she should be respected for it.

I think it's wrong because i wasn't brought up to believe what they believe in, but i'm sure theres things in my beliefs that they don't agree with.

We had a young JW work in the office. When she was a baby she had open heart surgery and needed a transfusion, the mother refused but thanks to her father who wasn't a JW, he put his foot down and she had one otherwise she wouldn't be here.

To this day she hates what her father did, but she just can't grasp that if he hadn't she wouldn't be able to enjoy things like her mp3, dvd's etc...

Oh, and the father had enough of their beliefs and he divorced the mother just recently
post #41 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbantigers View Post
I think she had a right to choose not to have a blood transfusion, but as someone who doesn't share her beliefs I find it hard to comprehend a mother making such a choice, knowing it would likely leave her children motherless.
I think that is a perfect way of summing up this situation
post #42 of 51
I'm no psychologist, but I think that I'd worry if the mother did violate her faith and take the transfusion. Imagine years later when she started to detest the decision she made and how she may feel that she had sin and was unsaved. She might just take those feelings out on the very children she had been thinking of when she did it.

If her faith was that strong, it was not only right, but in the best interest of those involved, for the doctors to respect her wishes.
post #43 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm no psychologist, but I think that I'd worry if the mother did violate her faith and take the transfusion. Imagine years later when she started to detest the decision she made and how she may feel that she had sin and was unsaved. She might just take those feelings out on the very children she had been thinking of when she did it.

If her faith was that strong, it was not only right, but in the best interest of those involved, for the doctors to respect her wishes.
I agree with this. Asking her to go against her faith is imo asking her to choose her child over God. If I believed God was against blood transfusions I would not want it either. I don't think she was selfish at all.
post #44 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by white cat lover View Post
IMO she was very selfish. Her kids will never get to know a mother, they will have to deal with the fact that she chose to die for them.
The kid could be adopted and might never know what the mother did. If the child grows up from babyhood in the adoptive home, the adoptive parents ARE mother and father. At some point in life as a mature adult the adopted child might choose to find out, but as a child there's no reason to know.
post #45 of 51
Just as a note here, when the doctors didn't give her treatment that would have saved her life her faith had very little to do with it. Any adult of sound mind and body has the right to refuse any type of medical treatment.

I know I keep going back to this but it's like a terminal cancer patient stopping all therapy. She refused treatment, they honored her wishes. It's really that simple.
post #46 of 51
Sorry, I screwed up.......trying to read all this and make sense of it before I'm awake. But the father is still living and has custody of and taking care of the child. But the same applies.....there's no reason the child needs to know until old enough and mature enough.

I wanted to say something about "part-time faith" discussed earlier in the thread. I don't think there is any such thing. Faith can grow stronger and weaker, weaker and stronger; it can be lost and regained; faith can coexist with a disagreement about the teachings of the church. But faith, or a piece of that faith, cannot be turned off and on at will. Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and all your mind." In other words, faith infuses the entire being of a person. There is no "part-time" faith.
post #47 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm no psychologist, but I think that I'd worry if the mother did violate her faith and take the transfusion. Imagine years later when she started to detest the decision she made and how she may feel that she had sin and was unsaved. She might just take those feelings out on the very children she had been thinking of when she did it.

If her faith was that strong, it was not only right, but in the best interest of those involved, for the doctors to respect her wishes.
What about when those children find out the way their mother died? I'm no psychologist, either, and they could be incredibly proud of her - particularly if they are raised as JWs themselves. But if not? That's a terrible burden for children...terrible.

The lady I used to work with had a mother who was a JW - and this lady still has terrible issues with the things that religion did to their family. I have to say, if this was her and her mother had died during childbirth, she probably would have been grateful
post #48 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
I know I keep going back to this but it's like a terminal cancer patient stopping all therapy. She refused treatment, they honored her wishes. It's really that simple.
that was how my mother was, after 3 years, and i forgot how many rounds of treatments, it was just to much for her.
post #49 of 51
I wouldn't have a problem with that - in fact I am a definite supporter of euthanasia in such circumstances.
post #50 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
I wouldn't have a problem with that - in fact I am a definite supporter of euthanasia in such circumstances.
Yea, that last week or so was pointless. Of course they said she felt no pain.
but who knows.

She was not the first person i have seen die. the sound that comes a dying person is not something you ever forget and stays with you, life does not give up easy.
post #51 of 51
You know, my Mum said the same thing when my grandmother finally passed after years of struggling with a horrible illness. The sound she made when she died....ohhh that makes me sad.

And life doesn't give up easily, does it? Mum said poor old Grandma wanted to go for ever so long - she really struggled, but her strong old heart just kept on going. It wasn't until Mum said to her `It's ok, you can go. We love you, and we'll be ok' that she finally died.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Treatment refused on religious grounds vs. child's right to a family