Do I Message Him Or Let Him Message Me?
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Can You Tell Right From Wrong?
55 Answers
Of course I do,’ you might say. Yet today’s rapidly deteriorating moral standards indicate it is not so.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
More to the point Goodlife, can you?
For example, if the child of a Jehovah Witness requires a full blood transfusion (ie. the primary blood components such as red cells, platelets, white cells, etc.) in order to save its life, should this relatively routine and safe procedure be denied the child if the parents refuse on religious grounds?
In essence, should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs"?
For example, if the child of a Jehovah Witness requires a full blood transfusion (ie. the primary blood components such as red cells, platelets, white cells, etc.) in order to save its life, should this relatively routine and safe procedure be denied the child if the parents refuse on religious grounds?
In essence, should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs"?
The Bible was written for True Christians. Most of you here are atheists, so how can you criticize that which is not applicable to yourselves (according to you).You say you don't believe in God, or the Bible. So according to the standards of atheists, what is right and wrong? Is terrorism the answer? If God does not enter the equation, then people don't have his standards.
With regard to the question of blood! Go do more research! Medical authorities acknowledge that people who do not have blood have better chances of survival than those who do. Blood is cheap and does not require the skill that is needed for those who refuse blood.
With regard to the question of blood! Go do more research! Medical authorities acknowledge that people who do not have blood have better chances of survival than those who do. Blood is cheap and does not require the skill that is needed for those who refuse blood.
Birdie; He has a point. Though I have often given blood, but now classed as "too old" - ouch! and I would accept blood if it would perhaps save my life, it is when you think about it an extraordinary thing to do, and it can be (and has been) the cause of the passing on of a large amount of known, and perhaps unknown diseases and deficiencies.
http://
http://
Goodlife - "... With regard to the question of blood! Go do more research! Medical authorities acknowledge that people who do not have blood have better chances of survival than those who do..."
Really? Let me get this straight - you're saying that someone who *requires* a blood transfusion (due to, say, a severe infection for example) has a better chance of survival if they *don't* have the transfusion. Is that what you're saying? If so, you're absolutely wrong. But if you think you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to show me the evidence.
By the way, you didn't answer my question. But of course you already know that. Nevertheless, I live in hope so I'll ask it again:
'Should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs"'?
Really? Let me get this straight - you're saying that someone who *requires* a blood transfusion (due to, say, a severe infection for example) has a better chance of survival if they *don't* have the transfusion. Is that what you're saying? If so, you're absolutely wrong. But if you think you have evidence to the contrary, please feel free to show me the evidence.
By the way, you didn't answer my question. But of course you already know that. Nevertheless, I live in hope so I'll ask it again:
'Should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs"'?
Khandro - "... and [blood transfusion] can be (and has been) the cause of the passing on of a large amount of known, and perhaps unknown diseases and deficiencies..."
Actually, the likelihood of passing on diseases through blood transfusions is minute. Like all forms or surgery or other invasive procedures there is always a 'risk' of one kind or another. I accept that transference of diseases has happened and probably will happen again but the benefits of such a treatment vastly outweighs the potential risks. Transfusions are used extensively for cancer treatment when the patient is undergoing chemotherapy; an accident victim may require many tens of pints of blood in the initial phase of their treatment; suffers of sickle cell disease require many blood transfusions over the course of their lives.
The fact is, blood transfusions are carried out every day in just about every country on Earth. Millions and millions of them worldwide every year. The number of patients who inadvertently acquire a disease through infected blood is vanishingly small.
You also say, "... I would accept blood if it would perhaps save my life...". That's precisely my point and the question I'm asking Goodlife. If a blood transfusion is the best and only viable treatment in a given situation, is it right or wrong for the parents of a child facing this scenario to deny their child treatment based on their religious beliefs?
Actually, the likelihood of passing on diseases through blood transfusions is minute. Like all forms or surgery or other invasive procedures there is always a 'risk' of one kind or another. I accept that transference of diseases has happened and probably will happen again but the benefits of such a treatment vastly outweighs the potential risks. Transfusions are used extensively for cancer treatment when the patient is undergoing chemotherapy; an accident victim may require many tens of pints of blood in the initial phase of their treatment; suffers of sickle cell disease require many blood transfusions over the course of their lives.
The fact is, blood transfusions are carried out every day in just about every country on Earth. Millions and millions of them worldwide every year. The number of patients who inadvertently acquire a disease through infected blood is vanishingly small.
You also say, "... I would accept blood if it would perhaps save my life...". That's precisely my point and the question I'm asking Goodlife. If a blood transfusion is the best and only viable treatment in a given situation, is it right or wrong for the parents of a child facing this scenario to deny their child treatment based on their religious beliefs?
Here are some sites to look at.
https:/
http://
http://
http://
https:/
http://
http://
http://
Goodlife -
Blood transfusions aside*, you're still avoiding the central question which I have now asked twice. If you're not willing to answer it, just say, "I'm not willing to answer your question.". At least then we'd all know where you stand.
In case you've forgotten it, I shall post my original question for the third time:
"Should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs?"
Just answer this very simple question Goodlife and stop beating around the bush.
* a brief look at your links does not invalidate anything I've stated about blood transfusions. In fact, the statement I made to Khandro earlier says it all: "The fact is, blood transfusions are carried out every day in just about every country on Earth. Millions and millions of them worldwide every year. The number of patients who inadvertently acquire a disease through infected blood is vanishingly small."
Please educate yourself.
Blood transfusions aside*, you're still avoiding the central question which I have now asked twice. If you're not willing to answer it, just say, "I'm not willing to answer your question.". At least then we'd all know where you stand.
In case you've forgotten it, I shall post my original question for the third time:
"Should the parents of any child have the right to deny life saving treatment to their kids based on nothing more than their "beliefs?"
Just answer this very simple question Goodlife and stop beating around the bush.
* a brief look at your links does not invalidate anything I've stated about blood transfusions. In fact, the statement I made to Khandro earlier says it all: "The fact is, blood transfusions are carried out every day in just about every country on Earth. Millions and millions of them worldwide every year. The number of patients who inadvertently acquire a disease through infected blood is vanishingly small."
Please educate yourself.
Birdie; I'm not looking for argument but just want to mediate, as I said earlier he (and they) do have a point. Have you seen;
http://
Blood is an extraordinary substance containing millions of ingredients, some testable - hepatitis etc. and some not. I live, walk and play golf in an area of high risk from tic bites, and so have injections against contracting Lymes disease, a good thing perhaps, but antibodies would be in any blood I donated. Your blood may contain other things you have been inoculated against. Blood groups were only discovered about a 100 years ago long-term effects of mixing blood could lead to a lot of unknown complications, though having said that it can and does save lives every day.
http://
Blood is an extraordinary substance containing millions of ingredients, some testable - hepatitis etc. and some not. I live, walk and play golf in an area of high risk from tic bites, and so have injections against contracting Lymes disease, a good thing perhaps, but antibodies would be in any blood I donated. Your blood may contain other things you have been inoculated against. Blood groups were only discovered about a 100 years ago long-term effects of mixing blood could lead to a lot of unknown complications, though having said that it can and does save lives every day.
Khandro - "Birdie; I'm not looking for argument..."
Nor me. Genuinely, I'm not looking to cross swords with you.
I was simply pointing out that blood transfusions are - in the grand scheme of things - relatively safe. As I previously said, all invasive forms of treatment are potentially dangerous and life threatening but blood transfusions are way, way down on the list of such 'risky' procedures.
Interesting, don't you think, that Goodlife has quickly bowed out of this thread once people start to discuss things in any depth. It's almost as if his knowledge of many matters is paper thin...
Nor me. Genuinely, I'm not looking to cross swords with you.
I was simply pointing out that blood transfusions are - in the grand scheme of things - relatively safe. As I previously said, all invasive forms of treatment are potentially dangerous and life threatening but blood transfusions are way, way down on the list of such 'risky' procedures.
Interesting, don't you think, that Goodlife has quickly bowed out of this thread once people start to discuss things in any depth. It's almost as if his knowledge of many matters is paper thin...
