The Telegraph: JW refuses transfusion for injured husband

6 June 2008 · Comments 

The Telegraph: Jehovah’s Witness refuses to let husband have life-saving blood transfusion

I always get quite conflicted when I hear about Jehovah’s witnesses and their literalist attitudes to medical practises. On the one hand, I’m glad that they see fit to remove themselves from the gene pool and not have the world further support them in their idiocy. On the other hand, the humanist is me is both saddened and sickened that people with attitudes like this exist, that they cause harm and suffering not only to themselves but to those that they are responsible for, that real practical and tangible help is available, if only they examined their superstitions and found them as wanting as everyone else who doesn’t hold that particular element of dogma as true. But there doesn’t appear to be helping some people - they crave, nurse and hold on to their beliefs as true no matter what evidence or argument is presented to them.

I guess it’s the equivalent of a DNR for them; if they don’t want their life saved against their will, I can’t and won’t argue against it. That doesn’t mean that I think that a line from an old story is a good reason to refuse medical assistance if they would otherwise accept it.

Tags: <, , , , , , >