1. Comment #85192 by Stephen Maxwell on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 am

Simply flabbergasting.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

2. Comment #85196 by AntonAAK on November 5, 2007 at 9:20 am

I don't understand how the bible could have forbidden a medical practice that hadn't been invented or possibly even imagined at the time.

"And lo God saith to his shepherds, partake ye not of the Cardiopulmonary resuscitation for I know not what it is"

Sounds flippant but I have a serious point. Even those who take the bible literally surely cannot believe that it can forbid something no-one had heard of.

I think the kids are better off without her personally. Let's hope the cycle of ignorance ends there.

A

Other Comments by AntonAAK

3. Comment #85199 by tieInterceptor on November 5, 2007 at 9:28 am

this would make it to the darwin awards, if it wasn't so damned common.

Sad.

http://darwinawards.com/

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

4. Comment #85200 by Quetzalcoatl on November 5, 2007 at 9:29 am

I was one of the many who sent this in. Anton, the father's a Witness too. You have to ask- what would happen if one of the twins needed a transfusion? If he allowed it, why could he not let the doctors help his wife? If he refused, then the child would die for his beliefs. According to the newspaper article I read, the doctors asked the husband and family to overrule her wishes. They refused.

An article in the Sun states the Biblical verses the Witnesses use to justify this. You really have to distort them.

She died pointlessly.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

5. Comment #85206 by AntonAAK on November 5, 2007 at 9:38 am

Thankfully if it were a child the doctors can ask for it to be made a ward of the court and perform the transfusion against the parents wishes. Not so with adults though so there is nothing the family could have done even if they wanted to.

Thanks Quetzlcoatl, I'll try to find the relevant passages.

Other Comments by AntonAAK

6. Comment #85207 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2007 at 9:38 am

And so, the twins now have to grow up without a mother to look after them and with a father who holds the same ridiculous beliefs.

At what stage does this kind of barbaric behaviour become child abuse? Oh yes, I forgot, religion gets a free pass from psychotic behaviour like this!!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

7. Comment #85209 by AntonAAK on November 5, 2007 at 9:41 am

Good point Tyler D. This is a very good argument against those who dismiss the child abuse analogy as extreme.

Other Comments by AntonAAK

8. Comment #85210 by ordeneus on November 5, 2007 at 9:45 am

Re: 85200 - We had a case here in BC where some JW's were refusing a transfusion for their children. The courts temporarily took charge of the children, gave them the blood, then, gave the kids back again (??#$?).

Of course, before the 50's JW's had no problem with blood transfusions, only vaccinations...

Other Comments by ordeneus

9. Comment #85211 by Davybuoy on November 5, 2007 at 9:46 am

As someone raised as a witness (against my will, when I had developed one) this is something I am familiar with. Parents have refused treatment for their children but the courts always override the refusal. I can't comment on the treatment of the children afterwards as it never happened in my congregation.

Other Comments by Davybuoy

10. Comment #85215 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2007 at 9:55 am

Quetzalcoatl, according to an interview given on BBC News, had the twins needed a transfusion, the hospital could have overridden the parents' wishes in order to save the children.

However, the mother had signed a consent form before the twins were born giving power of decision to her husband, so the hospital had no means to save her.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

11. Comment #85216 by VanYoungman on November 5, 2007 at 9:55 am

Could someone please post the biblical references which forbid blood transfusions?

Other Comments by VanYoungman

12. Comment #85217 by Comets on November 5, 2007 at 9:57 am

2. Comment #85196 by AntonAAK – "I think the kids are better off without her personally."

Comments like this disgust me.

To say that children growing up without a mother is a good thing because she held beliefs we don't agree with is heartless in the extreme.

Other Comments by Comets

13. Comment #85219 by Homo economicus on November 5, 2007 at 10:04 am

Acts 15:28, 29

Deuteronomy 12:23

Leviticus 17:11

I have written about this and started a pledge about giving blood in protest at JW dogma. Thankfully most people believe the above scriptures are dietary in nature.

For those interested in the pledge please feel free to follow the link and read my blogs on what it was like for me as a child in the organisation.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17354

Other Comments by Homo economicus

14. Comment #85220 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2007 at 10:08 am

"And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." Leviticus 17:10

Which begs the question about Transubstantiation: is it blood or still only wine? (or are they all just a bunch of hypocrites?)

This from June, 2000:
Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/790967.stm

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

15. Comment #85225 by frikkenkids on November 5, 2007 at 10:16 am

Seems to me that getting a blood transfusion is a sin that one can ask a loving god to forgive. Then everything would be right in their lives.

Children growing up without a mother for such a futile reason can never be made right.

Other Comments by frikkenkids

16. Comment #85227 by AntonAAK on November 5, 2007 at 10:18 am

12. Comment #85217 by Comets on November 5, 2007 at 9:57 am

To say that children growing up without a mother is a good thing because she held beliefs we don't agree with is heartless in the extreme.

Even a mother who has deliberately abandoned them.

My comment is not at all based on whether I agree or disagree with her beliefs but on her actions.

She had a choice to fulfil her responsibility of care to her offspring or not and she made that choice.

I certainly do not think that the children growing up without a mother is a good thing and if you care to re-read my post you will see that I never said that. I think it is a tragedy that they have no mother and her action to deprive them of one is abuse. However perhaps it is better to have no mother at all than one who would do such a thing.

A

Other Comments by AntonAAK

17. Comment #85231 by steveroot on November 5, 2007 at 10:23 am

What a god-damned shame.
@tieInterceptor: it's not eligible for those awards because she has already passed aong her genetic material- in duplicate.

Another "faith" is "christian science". A good friend of my wife took 8 years to die of a squamous cell carcinoma on her eyelid because she was a "good" c. scientist. At her funeral, one of her cultish friends expressed her happiness that the dead one was in a "better place". I nearly vomited on the spot. The woman was a walking skeleton for the last few months before she went to "glory" and, though she never complained, I suspect she was in pain. There is a good book about this cult:
God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church, by Caroline Fraser.
What amazes me is a) how many prominent people are/were CS and b) how they would be willing to let their children die for lack of medical attention (generally and fortunately prevented by legal intervention). Also interesting: CS are allowed to receive dental treatment (it's not *medicine*, after all!) and women are allowed obstetric services. This is the definition of "FUBAR".
Addendum: see
http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

18. Comment #85240 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 10:51 am

Can't not think of survival of the fittest.

Are there gonna be precautions so that the kids won't follow the circle of idiocy?

Other Comments by notsobad

19. Comment #85243 by joekoz451 on November 5, 2007 at 10:54 am

Another demonstration that the power of prayer = 0.

Other Comments by joekoz451

20. Comment #85247 by konquererz on November 5, 2007 at 11:00 am

Just more evidence that religion is dangerous.

Other Comments by konquererz

21. Comment #85262 by eno on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 am

What is sadder? That this poor misguided woman was blinded by religion that killed her or that her poor children are likely to be indoctrinated into this absurd sect against their will?

Religion poisons everything.

Other Comments by eno

22. Comment #85264 by LordSummerisle on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 am

Come on, everyone, why so cruel? We must respect her right to believe...

oh forget it, there's no way to even say it in a way that sounds even remotely sensible.

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

23. Comment #85273 by kevinmurphy on November 5, 2007 at 11:48 am

If only she hadn't given birth to twins, she could have qualified for a Darwin award, surely.

Other Comments by kevinmurphy

24. Comment #85274 by MonkeyTree2 on November 5, 2007 at 11:50 am

I can't stop thinking that the doctors aren't completely blameless here

shouldn't they have given her the blood transplant against this womans wishes, even if it was unlawful and they may end up in prison, in order to save a life and a mother to two newly born children as part of their duty as doctors

Other Comments by MonkeyTree2

25. Comment #85283 by PeterK on November 5, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Anyone who subscribes to the Jehovah's Witness faith is just plain stupid. Period.

Other Comments by PeterK

26. Comment #85286 by PeterK on November 5, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Other Comments by PeterK

27. Comment #85290 by Corylus on November 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Children whose mothers die bearing them; or from complications following childbirth; often have a dreadful time emotionally.

There is a sense of guilt at having 'caused' the death of their mother, a feeling (sometimes real, sometimes imagined) that they father blames them. Sometimes their idea of their mother can become 'perfect'. A saint that (if they are male) no other woman can ever match. Throw in a well of repressed anger and resentment at being 'left' and you have a recipe for a lot of baggage and problems with relationships.

I cannot imagine how knowing that their mother (and their father) could have prevented this situation will impact on this.

Poor scraps.

Other Comments by Corylus

28. Comment #85297 by SilentMike on November 5, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Well, this isn't news to anyone here is it? Believing in ridiculous nonesense can have repercussions. It's very sad that these kinds of things happen but it's to be expected. The woman is free to make her own decisions, and if she's basing them on false ideas horrible results are to be expected. This kinds of sensless deaths are going to continue happenning as long as people are uninformed about the way the world works.

Other Comments by SilentMike

29. Comment #85300 by Goldy on November 5, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I would take the children away. Harsh, but the parents already showed that they will value them less than they value their deity. The mother has already abandoned them and the father was in on this act of abandonement. Sorry, but that is, pardon the expression, a sin. If the father was cruel enough to allow the mother to die for want of a minor procedure due to some doctrinal edict, then how can he be seen to be fit for father duties?
Take the children away from him - give them a chance.

Other Comments by Goldy

30. Comment #85307 by minstrel on November 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm

The mother isn't the only victim in this case. Religion has uselessly made victims of the poor husband, the children and the close family. They will suffer the consequences of their own self-imposed idiocy. Even as athiests, we must respect a person's right to live, think and die as they please; as long as they don't take anyone else with them.

Other Comments by minstrel

31. Comment #85340 by GoatBoy36 on November 5, 2007 at 2:10 pm

I was just reading about the Christian author Philip Yancey, and lo and behold look what happened to his father:

http://www3.zondervan.com/features/authors/yanceyp/bio.htm

(His publisher's bio on him. )

Another example of faith v. medicine arriving at the predictable conclusion ..

Anyone remember Christopher Hitchens recently debating a pastor fellow who said that his daughter was seriously ill and after medical treatment didn't work oh lord prayer did save her from death. Apparently. Hitchens gave him a real roasting, & said he ought not to spread such drivel about to a gullible audience (his "flock "). I remember thinking aye right - he might say that to Hitchens just now, but I bet you if he's in an RTA he'll be glad to see the paramedics arrive!

Other Comments by GoatBoy36

32. Comment #85346 by Ivan The Not So Bad on November 5, 2007 at 2:21 pm

This is so sad and I feel so sorry for all those involved.

However, at the risk of offending upon such grief, there is a point that might be worth considering.

If I did not wish to live anymore, the law would intervene to prevent me from taking my own life.

If I attempted suicide, I would be unable to stop doctors from administering life-saving treatment on the grounds that I was not rational and therefore incapable of making my own decisions.

However, if someone believes in a non-existent space bloke who they think created the universe six thousand years ago, then they can refuse life-saving treatment (in the full knowledge that they will certainly die as a result) and their "faith" has to be respected provided the doctors deem the patient to be "rational".

Eh?

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

33. Comment #85357 by justdust on November 5, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Rather than just read I had to join these boards to comment on this.

I'm an atheist. I've been happily married to a (not over strict) JW for over 20 years. It is possible to hold complete opposing beliefs and get along - just avoid religion!

We have twins - teenagers now. When they were born I remember quite clearly that if there was a need for blood it was going to happen (there wasn't).

The father here is a fool. He has lost his wife for nothing and deprived his kids of their mother. He could have chosen to save her life - but he didn't - what do you call that?

What is he going to tell those kids when they grow up?

All religions need totems to differentiate the brands - the JWs choose to have a deadly one.

Oh and be careful with the Bible quotes the JWs have their own version.

Other Comments by justdust

34. Comment #85358 by Tyler Durden on November 5, 2007 at 2:44 pm

The twins, a boy and a girl, are healthy and being cared for by their father, Anthony Gough, 24.

Cared for? That's a matter of opinion!! One can only wonder what his pitiful explanation will be to his kids for the unnesessary and pointless death of their mother...

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

35. Comment #85385 by MGBOY on November 5, 2007 at 4:55 pm

If it transpires that a blood transfusion would have saved this womans life. Any Coronial finding should in my opinion, conclude suicide.

Other Comments by MGBOY

36. Comment #85417 by cp21yos on November 5, 2007 at 7:26 pm

My wife and I read this sad sad case and could only cry for those poor children - too live your life without a parent is bad enough - but one who died bringing you into this world - its too sad for words.

The most offensive thing is that we can't do anything for them to free them of the idiocy that cost them a mother - as has been pointed out religion has a free pass...

If their mother had died through some other non-religious complication I imagine that it wouldn't make more than the local news. If it had been our local community they would have rallied around and supported the family... This has made international news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/05/2082417.htm) surely in the name of all that is humanity we can do something?

Other Comments by cp21yos

37. Comment #85444 by Inferno on November 5, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Very sad.

It's quite amazing that theists can take certain sections of the bible and take them unbelievably seriously (eg hate gays), but yet happily ignore others (eg stoning adulterers). How do they keep the logic of this going in their head?

Other Comments by Inferno

38. Comment #85456 by Davybuoy on November 6, 2007 at 12:42 am

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7078673.stm/]The right to die for Jehovah[/url]

Very interesting point of law here in Ireland mantioned at the end of this article

"the right of the newborn baby to have a family life overruled the mother's right to refuse treatment"

Ireland suffers from a lack of separation between church and state, most schools are faith schools and you will see iconic catholic pictures in all the hospitals. But the slavish submission to the European Union seems to have done some good as this can only be a result of the human rights act.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if this was tested against a mainstream religion, as opposed to a relatively small sect.

Other Comments by Davybuoy

39. Comment #85463 by Philip1978 on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 am

I am disgusted by this behaviour and cannot describe my horror at how someone could be so stupid with their lives.

22 years old for crying out loud what is wrong with people? I am so sad for those poor kids, this breaks my heart it really does. What kind of parent wants to die needlessly when the kids need them? What kind of family literally forbids doctors to save lives?

Why do hospitals put up with it? Why can't they simply forbid the family from interfering, offer proper medical advice to the patient and then save them, this dying is so needless. Who cares what their beliefs are, people should not be allowed to die in these circumstances.

Sorry for the rant,

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

40. Comment #85470 by scottishgeologist on November 6, 2007 at 1:32 am

This story reminds me of another one involving another form of religious lunacy which can leave kids without parents. The story of Punkin Brown and his family. They were into "snake handling"

http://www.freeminds.org/legal/divide.htm

Heres part of it:

Evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown picked up the three‑foot yellow timber rattlesnake while delivering one of his raucous sermons in Alabama in 1998.



"They say it won't bite," Brown bellowed as the rattler twisted itself into the shape of a V. "If it won't bite, there ain't no sense in being scared." But he had been bitten 22 times during his 18‑year career as a "snake‑handling" pastor of Southern Pentecostal churches.



"The Lord told me it was all right," Brown continued. "The Lord said it would be all right." But he knew things didn't always turn out "all right." His wife, Melinda, had been fatally bitten by a rattlesnake at a revival three years earlier.



Then, as the preacher hopped across the stage, history repeated itself. The rattler struck, biting Brown on his left middle finger. The ‑preacher paid little attention to the bite, and it took a while for the congregation to grasp the sad situation unfolding before them.



"God's still God, no matter what comes," said Brown, his voice fading. A woman in the congregation screamed, and other members anxiously mopped the dying preacher's forehead. "No matter what else, God's still God." Ten minutes later Brown was dead, and his five young children had become orphans.

Absolute f*cking lunacy in the name of "pentecostal" religion. But note carefully an important point in this instance: the bible "proof" for this behaviour comes from the gospel of mark, the New Testament, not the old. ie post-Jesus , not pre-Jesus.

Religion poisons everything . Hitchins is right. And in this case the word poison is hideously accurate.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

41. Comment #85477 by Comets on November 6, 2007 at 1:47 am

Thanks AntonAAK for clarifying your original post.

I still think you are over simplifying a tragic situation.

As has already been pointed out, the father is also a Jehovah's Witness. The mothers pointless death is not going to change the fact that the children will still be brought up in the faith.

Her actions followed on from her beliefs, so I'm not sure how you can separate the two. Her choice to not have a blood transfusion may have seemed to her to be the responsible and rational act. It's beyond me how, but then I'm not a Jehovah's Witness.

The question is how do we stop this kind of thing happening?

I can't see that removing children from people, as suggested in Goldys post (Comment 29) is practical or sensible. After all where would you stop?

I think the answer has got to be education. If those kids are given a good rounded education that includes critical thinking we have to trust them too see the faith of their parents for the load of old codswallop it is.

As atheists we are always going on about how it's up to the theist to prove that God exists. Well I think that swings both ways. By that I don't mean that we need to prove God doesn't exist (a pointless task on both sides IMHO). It's up to us to educate people, to show them the wonder of the universe and life. How much brighter, bigger and better it is than their little dull books of dogma. The wonder of not knowing the answers to everything... and so on.

Seems to me it's probably too late for the adult believers, but if we can give their children the gift of education and critical thinking we may start to see less tragic stories like the one above.

Other Comments by Comets

42. Comment #85485 by Quetzalcoatl on November 6, 2007 at 2:17 am

Philip- don't apologise for the rant. There are plenty of others who agree with you. Unfortunately, if the hospital had overruled her wishes, they would have wound up being sued for assault, or worse. And they would have lost. As an adult, she has the right to be really, really stupid. And she exercised that right.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

43. Comment #85489 by cerbera on November 6, 2007 at 2:27 am

Maybe the unhappy incident will have some positive effect by making the bereaved question the validity of what they believe...

Other Comments by cerbera

44. Comment #85500 by Apemanblues on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 am

What makes it even more tragic is that she was only 22 and, as some on this website will surely know, what you believe at 22 might be very different to what what you believe at 32.

She may well have grown up and away from this nonsense, but now nobody will ever know.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

45. Comment #85502 by Ajuydog on November 6, 2007 at 3:09 am

I echo the feelings of horror and sadness expessed in this thread at a pointless waste of life and also concurr with Quetz that to treat someone aginst their wishes when they are of sound mind is assault. What I would like to add however is that it is hard enough for the faithful to give up belief and the years of emotional investment it entails, but to come to terms with your faith costing your wife and childrens mother must be almost insurmountable. I cant even begin to imagine how the husband would cope with the anger and loss should he lose his faith. It is perverse to think he may draw comfort in the religion that cost him so dearly.

Other Comments by Ajuydog

46. Comment #85507 by Quetzalcoatl on November 6, 2007 at 3:23 am

Apemanblues-

what you believe at 22 might be very different to what what you believe at 32

It doesn't even take that long. I'm 24, and I'm very different to how I was two years ago, which was different again to two years before that. It's a shame she won't have the chance to change.

Ajuydog-

I agree. At the risk of sounding jaded, I suspect that the husband will cling ever more tightly to his faith, for the "justification" it provides. I don't know how he could live with himself otherwise. But I'd imagine that it will be very cold comfort.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

47. Comment #85514 by Ajuydog on November 6, 2007 at 3:40 am

Cold comfort indeed!

I wonder whether in these sorts of situations, a sort of "stockholm syndrome" arises (the parallels are not of course exact). Perhaps a resident psychologist could comment.

As to ideas changing with age, when I was at university and seriously questioning my faith, a church leader who dealt with students tellingly observed that many people change at this age (22ish)and "fall away from the Lord".

Other Comments by Ajuydog

48. Comment #85516 by windweaver on November 6, 2007 at 3:46 am

To get an insight into just how crazy JWs are when it comes to the issue of blood check this out:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm

Other Comments by windweaver

49. Comment #85525 by scottishgeologist on November 6, 2007 at 4:10 am

Quetz said:

I suspect that the husband will cling ever more tightly to his faith

This is the crazy thing about it - it'll just be "god's will" or "his ways above our ways" and all that BS

I remember a shocking thing that I saw during my faith head years - in a small church north of Fort William in a very scenic part of Scotland, there is a plaque on the wall, which is a memorial to 7 children who died in infancy (I *think* they may have been a clan chiefs children) There was the quote:

"My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord" (from Hebrews) written underneath.

So thats it. God is screwing you up big time. And dont complain. Just stick to your "faith" Its for your own good.

What a crock of s***

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

50. Comment #85526 by steveroot on November 6, 2007 at 4:11 am

48. Comment #85516 by windweaver on November 6, 2007 at 3:46 am
To get an insight into just how crazy JWs are when it comes to the issue of blood check this out:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm

From The Watchtower:

"Have the dangers since been eliminated so that transfusions are now safe? Frankly, each year hundreds of thousands have adverse reactions to blood, and many die."

Bat-Shit Crazy.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot