Should health care precede religious belief... - Political Forum

Viv · #1 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 04:42 PM

This family refused life-saving treatment because of their religious beliefs, resulting in the birth of two healthy babies and the death of their 22-year-old mother.

For me, this is a nonsense and a prime example that religion requires regulation by law, to ensure the rights of the individual are protected in the face of unreasonable outdated fanatacism.

Do posters feel the family were right to stand by their beliefs, or should medical assistance have been given irrespective?

Quote:

| the Daily Mail

A young mother died hours after giving birth to twins because her faith prohibited a life-saving blood transfusion.
Emma Gough, 22, was able to hold her son and daughter after the natural delivery, but suffered a sudden haemorrhage and lost a great deal of blood.
As a Jehovah's Witness, Mrs Gough had signed a form before the birth insisting that she should not be given blood.
Staff at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital begged her husband Anthony, 24, who is also a Jehovah's Witness, and other relatives to allow the transfusion. But followers believe that blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible and the family would not sanction the treatment.
Mrs Gough, a shop worker from Dawley, Telford, Shropshire, died early on October 25.
The twins are being cared for by their father, who yesterday led the mourners at his wife's funeral…Mrs Gough's death devastated both sides of the family, all Jehovah's Witnesses…What makes it even more sad is Emma had time to bond with her twins before the complications set in." …Mrs Gough's parents, Glenda and James Delaney, a long- distance lorry driver, were too upset to comment at their Telford home yesterday.
But an elderly neighbour criticised the family for sticking to their beliefs.
She said: "How could she make that decision not to have a transfusion and leave those babies without a mother? It's terrible, I don't care what your beliefs are, to refuse treatment like that is awful."
Another neighbour said: "A friend of the family told us she had suffered a haemorrhage after giving birth to the twins naturally and had refused a transfusion. They couldn't understand why she hadn't been given a Caesarean."
A member of the Kingdom Hall congregation in Madeley, Telford, said: "The basis of the faith is that we follow commands from the scriptures and it is a scriptural command to abstain from blood.
"It is one of a number of things in the scriptures about things you can and cannot do. It is, of course, up to the individual to decide how strongly to follow these requirements. I accept that the faith will receive criticism over this. Some of our beliefs do attract criticism."
He denied that Mrs Gough was being selfish by putting her own beliefs before the needs of her children, adding: "Children are always a priority. We respect life. We seek the best medical attention we can get but the requirement we have is that we do so without receiving blood. It is very sad and there is a lot of support for the family."
Dr Maggie Blott, a consultant obstetrician, said women pregnant with non-identical twins are at increased risk of needing a blood transfusion at birth…Last year only 17 women died in childbirth in Britain.
• The Jehovah's Witness movement, an offshoot of Christianity, was developed by the American preacher Charles Taze Russell in the late 19th century.
Its adherents believe Christ's second coming is imminent, and that soon afterwards the world will be destroyed and 144,000 of the most faithful believers will ascend to heaven.
They consider the Bible to be the word of God - whom they call Jehovah - and interpret many of its scriptures literally.
Witnesses believe three Biblical passages explicitly prevent them from receiving blood transfusions. However the faith's ruling Watchtower Society allows Witnesses to receive organ transplants, as long as the organ is completely drained of blood.
There are 6.5million active Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, 125,000 of them in Britain. Followers include Michael Jackson and tennis stars Venus and Serena Williams.

FRYandBENDER · #2 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 04:44 PM

She signed up for it. I would say to let her do what she wants. It is sad, but she should have the right to decide what treatment she will or will not receive.

Viv · #3 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:04 PM

How can you say that?? How can it be right to allow a 22-year-old woman to kill herself, leaving two babies without a mother, when simple medical processes would have prevented it and those facilities were on hand?
Have you gone mad, along with the religious....maniacs (for lack of a better word).

FRYandBENDER · #4 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:05 PM

No, I haven't gone mad. What are you wanting to happen? To have someone, maybe the government, start forcing people do things that they do not want to do? When it involves their own bodies?

apawllo · #5 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Yeah, you can't force someone to stay alive just because they have kids. The fact that this woman didn't realize that she should have made a greater effort to remain alive to raise her children makes me believe that she wasn't ready for children in the first place. Viv, as you said, this woman was obviously not all there....perhaps these children will lead a better life without her.

Viv · #6 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

No, I haven't gone mad. What are you wanting to happen? To have someone, maybe the government, start forcing people do things that they do not want to do? When it involves their own bodies?

Yes, if it saves their lives.
It's one thing to have liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, but not when it involves loss of life in such a pointless way.
What could be the logic of that?
What is your view, for example, on suicide? Should you let someone jump from the bridge because they want to, or should the cop try to save them?
And there are other people involved. The children have rights too.

africanhope · #7 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:24 PM

I hear what you are saying Fry, but what if her choice put the childrens lifes in danger, would it changethen?

AH

Viv · #8 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Medal

If a person want's to commit suicide than they will. I think people should attempt to coax them out of it, but if they really want to do it then it's their choice.

Well, what would the woman have done if they forcefully administered treatment against her will? I'm not familiar with her cult so I don't know what she would have done.

I believe they would view it as assault.

The belief IMO is wrong and should be challenged. The church should be challenged and made to change it as it is not in the best interests of the congregation.

FRYandBENDER · #9 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viv

Yes, if it saves their lives.
It's one thing to have liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, but not when it involves loss of life in such a pointless way.
What could be the logic of that?
What is your view, for example, on suicide? Should you let someone jump from the bridge because they want to, or should the cop try to save them?
And there are other people involved. The children have rights too.

If they can jump off the bridge without harming other people then yes, they should be allowed to do it. Well, let me re-think that. I would say no to jumping off of bridges because someone will have to clean it up and the person will not be able to pay for said clean up.

I think that if people want to take their own life they should be able to go to a doctor and get and injection, go to sleep, and then have their funeral or cremation.

You ask what good are freedoms if you are not alive to enjoy them.

I ask what good is life if you are not free to do as you want.

FRYandBENDER · #10 (**permalink**) 11-06-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by africanhope

I hear what you are saying Fry, but what if her choice put the childrens lifes in danger, would it changethen?

AH

As in she hasn't had the babies yet? Then I guess the "Its my body" argument would go into effect. I'm not saying I agree with it, hell, I don't agree with abortion, but if that is the choice they make, I'm not going to give them hell for it.

I don't really know, I would say do what you can to save the kids, that is what seems right to me. After that if she wants to throw her life away I say let her do it.