JW beliefs kill mother

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2007-11-05 11:57am

And she's a year younger than me. Ugh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 078455.stm

A young mother has died after giving birth to twins, amid claims that she had refused a blood transfusion because of her faith.

Jehovah's Witness Emma Gough, 22, from Telford, Shropshire, gave birth on 25 October.

The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital said an internal review into the case would take place.

Family friend Terry Lovejoy said: "They are going through an immense amount of turmoil and grief."

He added: "We follow the Bible and abstain from blood and I've got no reason to believe that Emma didn't share those views."

Patient confidentiality

The twins, a boy and a girl, are healthy and being cared for by their father, Anthony Gough, 24.

Christine Harris, a friend of Ms Gough's mother-in-law Sham Gough, said: "The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved Emma."

Tom Taylor, chief executive of the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, said: "We have offered our deepest condolences to the family, and our thoughts are with them at this difficult time.

"Because events such as this are so rare, it is normal practice to undertake a full internal review and also to inform the coroner so an inquest can take place."

An inquest has been opened and adjourned for a date to be fixed. Emma Gough's funeral is taking place at the Telford crematorium at 1530 GMT.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin.

Head of Science and Ethics at the British Medical Association, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, said: "If somebody believes that having blood will excommunicate them from their religious beliefs, then they will often say no and accept the risk of death."

-----

This reminds me of that lie spread by an ancient and others that there's alternatives to blood transfusions that make them more or less obsolete. What a load of shit.

Dartzap · Post by **Dartzap** » 2007-11-05 12:40pm

It is indeed frightening that people still believe that being given anouther persons blood is a sin. You'd think blood being given by other people of their own free will to help save peoples lives would be considered the opposite, really.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2007-11-05 12:55pm

Can it be considered a Darwin Award? After all she reproduced bafore removing herself from the gen pool.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-05 01:00pm

salm wrote:Can it be considered a Darwin Award? After all she reproduced bafore removing herself from the gen pool.

No. Even though refusing a blood transfusion is dumb, it's entirely possible she was pressured into not accepting through her family it and wasn't just her decision.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-05 01:05pm

General Zod wrote:
salm wrote:Can it be considered a Darwin Award? After all she reproduced bafore removing herself from the gen pool.
No. Even though refusing a blood transfusion is dumb, it's entirely possible she was pressured into not accepting through her family it and wasn't just her decision.

Since when does social pressure negate stupidity?

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2007-11-05 01:12pm

salm wrote:Can it be considered a Darwin Award? After all she reproduced bafore removing herself from the gen pool.

On the other hand, that she was married and having children relatively young may well be due to her religious beliefs, which seems to go against the sentiment of the Darwin Awards.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-05 01:18pm

Darth Wong wrote: Since when does social pressure negate stupidity?

It doesn't, but if the cause wasn't entirely her fault and she wasn't capable of making sound judgment, then she's not eligible for a Darwin Award as per the criteria.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2007-11-05 02:49pm

This is a big *shrug* moment for me. If the dead woman was fully informed about the medical ramifications of not accepting blood products, and refused them anyways, well, she's an adult and can accept the consequences. Her children will grow up without a mother, but with or without their mother around, they probably would have ended up being JW morons anyways.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-11-05 04:44pm

General Zod wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Since when does social pressure negate stupidity?
It doesn't, but if the cause wasn't entirely her fault and she wasn't capable of making sound judgment, then she's not eligible for a Darwin Award as per the criteria.

How the hell was it not entirely her fault? Was the 9/11 attack not entirely the fault of the terrorists, on account of them being brainwashed?

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-05 04:45pm

Once you make the choice to believe something, you are responsible for the consequences of acting according to that choice.

Junghalli · Post by **Junghalli** » 2007-11-05 04:55pm

A stupid waste of human life, but at least she only harmed herself with her stupidity. That's more than you can say for a lot of fundies.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-05 04:58pm

Leaving her children motherless probably qualifies as harm to the children.

[R_H] · Post by **[R_H]** » 2007-11-05 05:01pm

One thing I don't understand about their jammering about blood.

From what I know, it's not explicitly stated, yet it's interpreted by them to mean "no blood transfusions". How can they justify being YECs/taking everything written in the Bible literally? And why don't the eat meat then, most meat still has some blood in it?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2007-11-05 05:05pm

Darth Wong wrote: How the hell was it not entirely her fault? Was the 9/11 attack not entirely the fault of the terrorists, on account of them being brainwashed?

Hrm, I guess it would meet that criteria then. But there's also the problem of excellence. Enough idiot Jehovas Witness are stupid about blood transfusions to disqualify it as a unique enough situation to be a Darwin Award winner.

Wyrm · Post by **Wyrm** » 2007-11-05 05:17pm

Morm[i]<del>[/i]ons wrote:Christine Harris, a friend of Ms Gough's mother-in-law Sham Gough, said: "The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved Emma."

Is that 'saved' as in 'she would be alive now', or 'saved' as in 'tight with Jeebus'?

Morm[i]<del>[/i]ons wrote:Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin.

Given that proper blood transfusions, with full understanding of blood types and sterilization and such, did not exist when the bible was written, I find this claim highly suspect.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2007-11-05 05:26pm

They probably thought it just as wrong. Maybe they thought it would be like inheriting the guys sins along with the blood, or something.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-05 05:29pm

Zablorg wrote:They probably thought it just as wrong. Maybe they thought it would be like inheriting the guys sins along with the blood, or something.

The OT has endless, tiresome, detailed ritual practices concerning the spilling and disposal of blood. I think that's where they're starting from.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-11-05 05:32pm

Christine Harris, a friend of Ms Gough's mother-in-law Sham Gough, said: "The family have told me that a blood transfusion wouldn't have saved Emma."

And since when does "The Family" get to make a medical diagnosis like that? Oh wait, they're probably talking acout sallllllVAtion, praise!!!!

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2007-11-05 05:36pm

From Wikipedia (I know, I know!): Jehova's Witnesses and blood.

Seems that this has only been an issue since 1945. Mind you, that's probably because blood transfusions weren't common procedures before WW2.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2007-11-05 05:37pm

Anyone know if they refuse to eat black puddings?

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2007-11-05 05:37pm

Kanastrous wrote:
Zablorg wrote:They probably thought it just as wrong. Maybe they thought it would be like inheriting the guys sins along with the blood, or something.
The OT has endless, tiresome, detailed ritual practices concerning the spilling and disposal of blood. I think that's where they're starting from.

The article makes explicit reference of "abstain from blood" which comes from Acts 15: 20

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2007-11-05 05:39pm

Which is an NT continuation of OT directives. The fact that it's drawn from the NT making it more relevant from the JH perspective, I guess.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2007-11-05 08:04pm

Although I am normally happy to join in with the "JW's refusing blood transfusions is Teh Stoopid", I am curious as to what, exactly, went wrong during childbirth. Hemorrhage during childbirth can be so rapid that indeed transfusion will not work. It's rare, fortunately, but if this is such a case then her beliefs are irrelevant, other than saving 8-10 pints of blood (or however much would have been pumped vainly into her).

If the Wiki is to be trusted (and we all know Wikis are to be taken with a large grain of salt) this doctrine had its roots in either the late 19th Century or very early 20th - a time when blood transfusions were not nearly as safe as they are today. I have to wonder if that had something to do with the adoption of this doctrine. Of course, maintaining that position would sort of ignore a century of medical progress.

In the end, though, I can't work up much outrage - we're talking about an adult who refused medical treatment which, supposedly, she is allowed to do. I'd be much more outraged if her babies had needed a blood transfusion and died for lack of one.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2007-11-05 08:51pm

Broomstick wrote:Although I am normally happy to join in with the "JW's refusing blood transfusions is Teh Stoopid", I am curious as to what, exactly, went wrong during childbirth. Hemorrhage during childbirth can be so rapid that indeed transfusion will not work. It's rare, fortunately, but if this is such a case then her beliefs are irrelevant, other than saving 8-10 pints of blood (or however much would have been pumped vainly into her).

I can give you one scenario from personal experience. Just after the birth of our first child, my wife's uterus wouldn't contract, and she lost quite a bit of blood. She had to be hustled to the OR for an emergency D&C. Over the next 24 hours she was transfused with a total of six units of blood products (four of whole blood and two of plasma, IIRC). As our family doctor put it, if we'd been in a hut in Africa somewhere, her chances wouldn't have been very good.

(As an aside, it did give me a chance to spend about two hours with my daughter in my arms in a darkened, quiet delivery room. I was also wondering about whether or not my wife was going to pull through, so there were definitely some weird thoughts going through my head at the time.)

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-11-06 12:20am

salm wrote:Can it be considered a Darwin Award? After all she reproduced bafore removing herself from the gen pool.

No, because she had the kids.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

JW beliefs kill mother

JW beliefs kill mother

Re: JW beliefs kill mother

Re: JW beliefs kill mother