Jehovah's Witness objects to wife's blood transfusion

[Jub]

I'm all for free will and stupid choices but what about the doctor? He doesn't get any choice in the matter, but he gets stuck with the blame and guilt if things go wrong. Would you be in support of a JW doctor not being willing to give patients blood transfusions? I mean the results would be the same either way and for the same reasons.

EDIT: Also, how is this any different than suicide? We have laws and programs that prevent people from self harm, so why is this a special case?

[Broomstick]

These are decisions made by people presumed to be competent, as opposed to the suicidal, who are presumed incompetent until proven otherwise.

[Jub]

Refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the bible forbade something that the people who wrote it could never have dreamed of seems pretty incompetent to me. It's also just as selfish as suicide if it ends up costing you, people will still be sad that you're gone. Besides, in the end, people can overcome the loss of faith, but they can't come back from the grave.

Then again I'm pretty much a technocrat who thinks people care too much about control over the small things in life and ignore the fact that they are losing control of far more important things by being so myopic.

[PeZook]

I'm all for free will and stupid choices but what about the doctor? He doesn't get any choice in the matter, but he gets stuck with the blame and guilt if things go wrong.

Obviously, the doctor must not, in any circumstances, be blamed for failing to save a patient whose wishes made the medical professionals unable to. People who lash out at the doctors in such a situation can, as I wrote before, fuck off.

Would you be in support of a JW doctor not being willing to give patients blood transfusions? I mean the results would be the same either way and for the same reasons.

No, the result would NOT be the same, and I can't believe you don't see the major difference: A JW doctor who refuses to give blood to a patient is, get this, violating the patient's wishes!

EDIT: Also, how is this any different than suicide? We have laws and programs that prevent people from self harm, so why is this a special case?

Because people who refuse certain treatments would still like to survive, perhaps? The doctor should inform them of their chances, of course, but it's their decision to make.

Refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the bible forbade something that the people who wrote it could never have dreamed of seems pretty incompetent to me. It's also just as selfish as suicide if it ends up costing you, people will still be sad that you're gone. Besides, in the end, people can overcome the loss of faith, but they can't come back from the grave.

Do you seriously lack empathy to such a degree that you can't see why, for a religious person, sinning can in fact be worse than death?

Do a rational analysis while accepting the premise that God will be angry with you and send you to Hell for sinning against his instructions, and it's really not surprising at all that the religious may sometimes risk death to avoid sinning. So talking about how "Oh don't worry people get over their loss of faith" doesn't do jack, because they believe the faithless are going to hell.

And yeah, it's silly and dumb and everyone would be better off if such beliefs disappeared, but if you force people like that all you'll be doing is creating public backlash against such positive change.

Then again I'm pretty much a technocrat who thinks people care too much about control over the small things in life and ignore the fact that they are losing control of far more important things by being so myopic.

If the government can just override your wishes regarding your own body on a whim, it's not a little thing at all, and people would be rightly pushing back against this.

In fact, I seriously doubt doctors themselves would be all that thrilled to force treatment upon patients, because it would require constant supervision, restraints, physical security etc. - which complicates every single procedure. I literally can't see the public interest in forcing people to undergo treatment they don't want.

[Jub]

I'm all for free will and stupid choices but what about the doctor? He doesn't get any choice in the matter, but he gets stuck with the blame and guilt if things go wrong.

Obviously, the doctor must not, in any circumstances, be blamed for failing to save a patient whose wishes made the medical professionals unable to. People who lash out at the doctors in such a situation can, as I wrote before, fuck off.

Call me when the litigation happy nature of the western world - not to mention the sensationalist media - starts to die down and we can talk.

Would you be in support of a JW doctor not being willing to give patients blood transfusions? I mean the results would be the same either way and for the same reasons.

No, the result would NOT be the same, and I can't believe you don't see the major difference: A JW doctor who refuses to give blood to a patient is, get this, violating the patient's wishes!

I don't give a crap about the patients wishes, I care about getting healthy patients. If we can't refuse to treat the morons it would be easier to let people know that if you go to a public hospital you can get this treatment done this way, if you don't like that option pay for private treatment. You're not forcing anybody to do anything that way.

EDIT: Also, how is this any different than suicide? We have laws and programs that prevent people from self harm, so why is this a special case?

Because people who refuse certain treatments would still like to survive, perhaps? The doctor should inform them of their chances, of course, but it's their decision to make.

Okay, if they want to do that they waive the right to any insurance or financial aid for complications resulting from that choice. Once again, they can still choose to be morons, but it will cost them.

Refusing medical treatment on the grounds that the bible forbade something that the people who wrote it could never have dreamed of seems pretty incompetent to me. It's also just as selfish as suicide if it ends up costing you, people will still be sad that you're gone. Besides, in the end, people can overcome the loss of faith, but they can't come back from the grave.

Do you seriously lack empathy to such a degree that you can't see why, for a religious person, sinning can in fact be worse than death?

Yes, I don't empathize at all for somebody who thinks they will burn for all eternity if they care for a medical condition properly. The same way I don't empathize with an modern smokers or drug addicts that fuck themselves up for equally stupid reasons.

Do a rational analysis while accepting the premise that God will be angry with you and send you to Hell for sinning against his instructions, and it's really not surprising at all that the religious may sometimes risk death to avoid sinning. So talking about how "Oh don't worry people get over their loss of faith" doesn't do jack, because they believe the faithless are going to hell.

Most Christian faiths accept that man will sin, the whole reason the religion became popular is that it was easy to get into heaven and didn't require strict rituals of prayer and sacrifice. These people are literally doing it wrong.

And yeah, it's silly and dumb and everyone would be better off if such beliefs disappeared, but if you force people like that all you'll be doing is creating public backlash against such positive change.

The best way to beat them is through a strong secular education system and taxation of churches. You call me when we stop using round about methods to solve simple ass problems.

Then again I'm pretty much a technocrat who thinks people care too much about control over the small things in life and ignore the fact that they are losing control of far more important things by being so myopic.

If the government can just override your wishes regarding your own body on a whim, it's not a little thing at all, and people would be rightly pushing back against this.

In fact, I seriously doubt doctors themselves would be all that thrilled to force treatment upon patients, because it would require constant supervision, restraints, physical security etc. - which complicates every single procedure. I literally can't see the public interest in forcing people to undergo treatment they don't want.

I work in tech support, I and some people can't run an email client or operate a TV without fucking things up; what makes you think people have any idea what's best for them?

It's not all that hard to charge somebody or bill their HMO for the extra time and expense in treating an unwilling patient. People will comply pretty quickly if not complying voids their medical insurance. Besides, when has recent large scale policy even remotely represented public interest? At best any policy already only favors a vocal minority and the largely apathetic people hardly bat an eye when they get bent over. What makes you think this would change anything?

[PeZook]

Call me when the litigation happy nature of the western world - not to mention the sensationalist media - starts to die down and we can talk.

That's pretty funny: so you say American culture will blame doctors for deaths of such patients, but then just run off the deep end and propose massively onerous policies which, of course, will not be opposed by the public for cultural reasons AT ALL?

How are your policies better, cheaper or more efficient than simply protecting doctors in cases such as these?

I don't give a crap about the patients wishes, I care about getting healthy patients. If we can't refuse to treat the morons it would be easier to let people know that if you go to a public hospital you can get this treatment done this way, if you don't like that option pay for private treatment. You're not forcing anybody to do anything that way.

You personally might not give a crap, but the patients, the voting public and medical ethics boards all do, and you're not General Admiral President Prime Minister Of The World yet. You're essentially the German General who say he can win WW2, easy...if only Russia is taken out of the picture and the English Channel stops being a problem.

Okay, if they want to do that they waive the right to any insurance or financial aid for complications resulting from that choice. Once again, they can still choose to be morons, but it will cost them.

"You religious person you, the state will financially punish you for following the tenets of your religion!"

Somehow, I doubt you'd push this through congress, or any parliament anywhere for that matter. Furthermore, by that logic you should also waive medical insurance to anyone who does anything stupid ever ; Why do you single out religion?

"Oh my, you ate HOW much red meat, citizen? Pay for your own cancer treatment, you fucking moron!"

Yes, I don't empathize at all for somebody who thinks they will burn for all eternity if they care for a medical condition properly. The same way I don't empathize with an modern smokers or drug addicts that fuck themselves up for equally stupid reasons.

Yeah, I guess you'd flip out and start opressing the fuck out of the religious when you use your RATIONALITY and REASON and they don't immediately accept your arguments and deconvert. I'm sure you will be able to technocratically rule a nation without any sort of trouble at all WHEN THE MAJORITY OF YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS RELIGIOUS.

Most Christian faiths accept that man will sin, the whole reason the religion became popular is that it was easy to get into heaven and didn't require strict rituals of prayer and sacrifice. These people are literally doing it wrong.

What the hell are you smoking?

Christian theology does not allow man to knowingly live in sin and still get into Heaven.

The best way to beat them is through a strong secular education system and taxation of churches. You call me when we stop using round about methods to solve simple ass problems.

You're not talking about secular education, you're talking about direct and immediate policies related to financing health care and ignoring issues of patient's consent altogether.

I work in tech support, I and some people can't run an email client or operate a TV without fucking things up; what makes you think people have any idea what's best for them?

What makes you think YOU have any idea what's best for other people?

It's not all that hard to charge somebody or bill their HMO for the extra time and expense in treating an unwilling patient. People will comply pretty quickly if not complying voids their medical insurance. Besides, when has recent large scale policy even remotely represented public interest? At best any policy already only favors a vocal minority and the largely apathetic people hardly bat an eye when they get bent over. What makes you think this would change anything?

"You will do whatever we, the doctors, tell you to, or we will ruin you financially. You WILL have dialisysis, we do not care if it makes your life a living hell - resist, and we bill your HMO for extra measures used to force you to. You WILL have chemotherapy for that cancer. Resist, and you will have nothing left to pass on to your children once we're done with you."

You're everything that's wrong with people who like to call themselves technocrats: you'd be a terrible ruler. And best of all, when you are inevitably driven out of power because your edicts and decrees ignore reality and practical concerns and the wishes of the population, you will have no idea where you went wrong.

[Thanas]

Jub does not recognize that in nearly all European legislation, the patients wishes are important and prevent the doctor from going to prison. The issue is consent. A person cutting you up without your consent is committing a crime. If you die on the table, it is manslaughter and even possibly murder.

Incomplete information (like the doctor giving you blood transfusions without you knowing it) may constitute invalid consent.

[PeZook]

It's pretty sad because technocratism is supposed to be a utilitarian approach, IE. one that aims to minimize suffering and maximize happiness, through the implementation of rational, analysis-based policies. I can already see how suffering of the patient is diminished by having burly orderlies strapping him/her down and forcibly inserting an IV.

And, of course, the "rational" part includes such things as not shoving a policy down with a heaping of brutal enforcement against every wish of the populace. That's ideological, not rational: rationalism needs to take into account the reality on the ground, otherwise you get bayonet-instilled democracy, egalitarianism enforced by secret police and brotherhood through the guillotine.

...or a dead law that nobody bothers to enforce, because even the enforcers themselves think it's stupid, pointless or unjust.

[Broomstick]

I'm all for free will and stupid choices but what about the doctor? He doesn't get any choice in the matter, but he gets stuck with the blame and guilt if things go wrong.

Obviously, the doctor must not, in any circumstances, be blamed for failing to save a patient whose wishes made the medical professionals unable to. People who lash out at the doctors in such a situation can, as I wrote before, fuck off.

Call me when the litigation happy nature of the western world - not to mention the sensationalist media - starts to die down and we can talk.

From what my medical acquaintances tell me (including my sister, whose practice arguably deals more with NOT providing treatments than providing them in many cases) a doctor in the US is far more likely to be prosecuted for acting against a patient's expressed wishes than acting in compliance with them. For those with medical directives end of life care frequently involves simply not doing things and indeed the patient doesn't have to give the basis for his/her decisions. My mother's directive very strongly said no intubation for any reason, no CPR for any reason, no resuscitation for any reason. If she stopped breathing nothing was to be done. If her heart stopped nothing was to be done. Whether her decisions were based on religion or lack of religion was irrelevant - it was her decision and it was respected.

I don't give a crap about the patients wishes, I care about getting healthy patients.

I see. You don't think people can be trusted with their own lives and bodies.

I'm guessing you've never had to deal with a serious medical issue yourself, right?

If we can't refuse to treat the morons it would be easier to let people know that if you go to a public hospital you can get this treatment done this way, if you don't like that option pay for private treatment. You're not forcing anybody to do anything that way.

Er... I don't think you understand "public" and "private" treatment. Medical directives are equally binding on BOTH public and private facilities.

Please come back when you have some actual knowledge on these matters, m'kay?

Okay, if they want to do that they waive the right to any insurance or financial aid for complications resulting from that choice. Once again, they can still choose to be morons, but it will cost them.

In other words, anyone who makes a decision different than you should be punished. Got it.

Do you seriously lack empathy to such a degree that you can't see why, for a religious person, sinning can in fact be worse than death?

Yes, I don't empathize at all for somebody who thinks they will burn for all eternity if they care for a medical condition properly. The same way I don't empathize with an modern smokers or drug addicts that fuck themselves up for equally stupid reasons.

In other words, Jub lacks empathy for others who have flaws because, I presume, he thinks he's such a paragon of perfection.

So, Jub, if the Power That Be decide YOU'VE made an asshat decision you would have no objection to them imposing their will upon you, right? Because you're people and people don't know what's good for them including you.

If the government can just override your wishes regarding your own body on a whim, it's not a little thing at all, and people would be rightly pushing back against this.

^ This. This is not a little thing at all.

Jub, in such a world you wouldn't be in charge of making decisions about your own body. You don't have a problem with that?

I work in tech support, I and some people can't run an email client or operate a TV without fucking things up; what makes you think people have any idea what's best for them?

What makes you think you have any clue about how to provide medical care?

People will comply pretty quickly if not complying voids their medical insurance.

Actually, history gives evidence that quite a few Christians would rather father horrific torture and death than give up their beliefs, see "martyrs". For the True Believer they'll put up with no medical insurance if they think the alternative is an eternity burning in hell. Since you lack empathy you don't understand this. You have faith that rationality and logic will override belief systems. They don't always.

At best any policy already only favors a vocal minority and the largely apathetic people hardly bat an eye when they get bent over.

What you don't seem to understand is that in the US, at least, religious people are the majority, not the minority.

[Knife]

Informed consent comprises of, a) the Pt knowing the plus's, the con's, and alternatives. b) the patient being of sound mind and able to understand the information, and c) no coercion. These are the three legal points of informed consent. For Tort, they need to show harm, intent, and negligence. If the doctor can show an informed consent, most of that is moot.

To boot, the idea of autonomy is paramount in the medical field. Just because you CAN fix them doesn't mean they want to be fixed.

[PainRack]

Hmmm. It seems that one of my earlier post was eaten up.

To reiterate, as I said to Stas, not respecting their wishes could constitute assault and battery, a crime. Its not even about informed consent at this point.
Afterall, its not as if a person has made an informed choice, the doctor can discharge the person from his practice, a duty of care is still owed.

I love some of the mental judo that happens though.. Sure, right, its our fault that we're not treating you.

I mean it, I literally seen several person blame the healthcare team for not treating them and in the other situation, I reinforced to the gentleman in question that he CHOSE this route. It doesn't matter what my wound Nurse specialist can do for you and did for you in the past, you're the one who refused the 'best; treatment and chose the subpar treatment that we're applying to you now. So, stop claiming that we're NOT treating you. This is the reality of that informed choice you made. Now, if you want to REVERSE that decision...............

[aussiemuscle308]

I find all these religious objections to emergency medical procedures very silly.

i think JW objections are based on the bit in the bible that says you shouldn't eat the blood or entrails of animals. it's a bit of a stretch to say you shouldn't use other people's body parts to fix your own.