O
Odell
Guest
I’m totally against this HHS but I was asked where do you draw the line in conscience it could be blood transfusions on Jehovah whiteness.
- Status
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
The JWs are wrong.
J
joeyvandelmeyer
Guest
Hi everyone. I believe this is important. The following are a list of links to sites regarding important private revelations, Marian apparitions, etc. The holy love.org is especially relevant considering what’s occurring with the healthcare… Please view these, pray about them, and if you believe as I do help propagate them in your families and parishes.
take a look:
directionforourtimes.com/
youshallbelieve.com/
holylove.org/
rosaryoftheunborn.com/
americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/amazing-video-eucharist-is-our-lord.html
focustvonline.com
may God bless
take a look:
directionforourtimes.com/
youshallbelieve.com/
holylove.org/
rosaryoftheunborn.com/
americaneedsfatima.org/Articles/amazing-video-eucharist-is-our-lord.html
focustvonline.com
may God bless
A
Allegra
Guest
I don’t completely understand about Jahovah Witness’ oposition to blood donations. Are they not allowed to recieve them or administer them or both? If they can’t recieve them, then I think it’s their right not to, presuming they are of age to make that decision. If they are against administering them, I guess they have a right not to, though I would not recommend them as a surgeon. If they employ people and don’t cover it in their health insurance package, I would buy supplemental insurance, or find someone else to work for.
C
Castello
Guest
The government should not require the JW’s to buy insurance that covers blood transfusions. Freedom of religion is a tenant of the US Constitution.
We don’t expect the Jews to buy us a ham sandwich either.
We don’t expect the Jews to buy us a ham sandwich either.
O
Odell
Guest
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Ah but they do. Just think of all the farm subsidies. You also make Quakers fund war.
Things like this are part of living in a multi religion/creed/belief society.
H
hannajomar
Guest
No one forces Quakers to personally purchase bombs. And Quakers are not forced to fight in wars, even when there has been a draft.
R
Rence
Guest
JWs aren’t allowed to get them or give them. I don’t think it’s even possible to opt out of blood transfusions in coverage, so that won’t be an issue for them. As for administering blood, If they can’t find someone to cover for them, and their patient is in danger without the transfusion, they either give it or risk losing their license if they cause their patient harm by not giving it. They can also be fired for putting their patient at risk and not following a physician’s order. I’ve never heard of an institution not trying to be accomodating when there is a ‘conscience problem’ with administering a treatment, but they have to know that they have to do it if no one else is available to do it and sometimes that happens. It’s easier to switch assignments on the floors than in the emergency room. However, it takes two nurses to begin a transfusion (they can’t witness for the administering nurse), and if there aren’t two people to cover for the JW, then they have to give it. I wouldn’t mind covering for such a nurse, and I can only think of one or two who might have an issue with it where I work. Generally nurses help each other out though.
R
Rence
Guest
That’s going a bit overboard
Blood transfusions are a life saving treatment and I don’t think you can even opt out of them on insurance policies. They aren’t elective treatments. Where does one draw the line indeed.
H
hazmat
Guest
perhaps a bit off topic, but some birth control can be used for other things:
newscientist.com/article/dn21253-nuns-should-go-on-the-pill-for-anticancer-protection.html
newscientist.com/article/dn21253-nuns-should-go-on-the-pill-for-anticancer-protection.html
E
edwest2
Guest
I worked in a hospital for nearly ten years. From time to time, a Jehovah’s Witness would take out a card identifying himself as a Jehovah’s Witness and informing me he could not have a blood transfusion. The instructions we received included the fact that a patient could refuse medical treatment, including a blood transfusion.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
A
Allegra
Guest
That’s true, but I believe that insurance companies can agree to pay for a specific treatment for one occasion and not for another. I’ve heard of, for example, a doctor recommending a certain transplant or surgery for one ailment, but the insurance denying the claim because it wasn’t on their list of treatments for that specific problem.
R
Rence
Guest
Yeah, a patient can refuse any treatment if they’re competent.
J
JimG
Guest
So by the same token, a JW employer should not be forced to provide coverage for a treatment to which they object.
A
asia53
Guest
You’re right, you can’t opt out on insurance policies.That’s going a bit overboard
However, every treatment is elective. You have the right as a patient to refuse treatment, whether it’s a drug, surgery, eating, etc, even if it’s lifesaving.
The controversy happens when the patient is a child.
K
karoleck
Guest
This video Link takes you to a person being interviewed by a medical practictioner;both hold strong views on a medical preventative procedure that can and does at times,(name removed by moderator)act the health of children.The reason I put this link in ,on this thread is that it deals with religious conscience and the lady quoted Catholic Church teachings to strengthen her case.They do not bring up the arguement about “the common good” of society ;as against a persons’ conscientuous right to refuse a medical procedure.This video is good because it deals with the rights of a Government and the individual’s right of following their conscience, based on a religious belief system and also a conscience based on natural morality.
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gU9AGQF-4r8
(for further information link on the subject raised )
articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/28/swine-flu-vaccine-worthless.aspx?e_cid=20120228_DNL_art_1
S
seekerz
Guest
Where do you draw the line indeed? I find these questions most pressing when pharmacists refuse to dispense a drug which is used for purposes that conflict with their beliefs. Since there are very few drugs which do not have multiple uses, I find this an unfair infringement on others’ right to medical care. In my mind, if someone objects to dispensing certain drugs, they should not work in a place that sells them, period. How can a pharmacist benefit from the sale of ‘morally offensive’ drugs (the pharmacy’s profits are used to pay them) but withhold the same drugs from a person seeking to use them? In the case where the pharmacist owns the establishment, then he should simply not stock the drugs he objects to.
I simply fail to see the basis for conscientious objection (religious or otherwise) in this case.
I simply fail to see the basis for conscientious objection (religious or otherwise) in this case.
S
seekerz
Guest
How much “overboard” is the question. Rights of conscience and rights to engage in a particular career, have to be balanced against someone else’s right to health and in some case, to life. Should one really be allowed to let a person die than to administer life-saving care which is against one’s conscience? The answer might seem obvious, but what if the nature of the care is morally reprehensible from the provider’s perspective? Tough questions which should be addressed at the time of choosing a career and not at the point when lives hang in the balance.That’s going a bit overboard
G
Gorgias
Guest
Apple, meet orange. Orange, this is apple.
Citizens are required to pay taxes. Taxes are used in a variety of ways. If it might be considered that one’s taxes are used to fund things contrary to their beliefs, then it is at best an indirect or imputed usage of their money that can be considered to be used.
On the other hand, religious entities are now going to be compelled to spend their money directly to pay for contraception used by their employees.
Big difference.
- Status