The Telegraph: JW refuses transfusion for injured husband

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.

The Times: Scientists pressure Prince over woo medicine

17 April 2008 · Comments Off 

The efficacy of abstinence

Kent Hovind is (still) barking

BBC: Headscarves and toothache

The Guardian: Prayer and miracles fail. Again

26 January 2007 · Comments Off 

Faith based healthcare for muslims

12 January 2007 · Comments Off 

Faith schools, why not faith hospitals?

There's probably no god.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.