| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"Noon Cat Nick" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2007 07:36:02 AM |
| Object: |
JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Dennis Lindberg died Wednesday night at Children’s Hospital and Regional
Medical Center, his father, Dennis Lindberg Sr., told the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer.
Hospital spokeswoman Teri Thomas said she could not confirm or deny
anything about the case at the request of the boy's legal guardian, his
aunt Dianna Mincin.
Earlier Wednesday, Skagit County Superior Court Judge John Meyer had
denied a motion by the state to force the boy to have a blood
transfusion. The judge said the eighth-grader knew "he's basically
giving himself a death sentence."
"I don't believe Dennis' decision is the result of any coercion. He is
mature and understands the consequences of his decision," the judge said
during the hearing. "I don't think Dennis is trying to commit suicide.
This isn't something Dennis just came upon, and he believes with the
transfusion he would be unclean and unworthy."
Doctors had given Dennis a 70 percent chance of surviving the next five
years with the transfusions and other treatment, the judge added.
Doctors diagnosed the boy's leukemia in early November. They began
chemotherapy at Children's Hospital, but stopped a week ago because his
blood count was too low, the Skagit Valley Herald reported. The boy
refused the transfusion on religious grounds.
However, his birth parents, Lindberg and Rachel Wherry, who do not have
custody and flew from Boise, Idaho, to be at the hearing, believed their
son should have had the transfusion and suggested he had been unduly
influenced by his aunt, who is also a Jehovah's Witness.
The aunt has declined to talk about the case.
The boy's father told the Post-Intelligencer the ruling shocked him but
after visiting his son later Wednesday, he decided not to appeal. He
said doctors told him Wednesday evening that the boy, unconscious since
Tuesday, had likely suffered brain damage.
.
|
|
| User: "Contrarian" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 06:42:35 AM |
|
|
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 10:16:33 AM |
|
|
"Contrarian" <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Av7j.232$lU5.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
I saw that report and as far as I can tell it was legitimate. Do you have
any thoughts on this? If you'd rather not say I understand. The question
of should the law respect religious choices came up in a conversation last
night. Seems to me most people want a separation of church and state (I
agree btw) yet the courts conveniently step into these situations when it
suits them. I feel to see how both can apply. I'm still on fence or the
fence is one of "it might depend on the circumstances" but I'm leaning more
towards "yes they have the right to refuse based on beliefs and the law does
not have the right to enforce otherwise". Curious about what others might
think.
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Harding" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 06:30:29 PM |
|
|
In message <fjmd52$n34$1@news.datemas.de>, Rhiannon
<rhianon@sympatico.ca> writes
"Contrarian" <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Av7j.232$lU5.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
I saw that report and as far as I can tell it was legitimate. Do you have
any thoughts on this? If you'd rather not say I understand. The question
of should the law respect religious choices came up in a conversation last
night. Seems to me most people want a separation of church and state (I
agree btw) yet the courts conveniently step into these situations when it
suits them. I feel to see how both can apply. I'm still on fence or the
fence is one of "it might depend on the circumstances" but I'm leaning more
towards "yes they have the right to refuse based on beliefs and the law does
not have the right to enforce otherwise". Curious about what others might
think.
Over here the law would rule in favour of treatment. It has, as far as I
can remember, so ruled every time it has been asked for a decision. This
is for adults as well as children, I think.
The hospitals have always wanted to provide what they're there for, and
the State is, IMO, there to promote secular values, not religious
insanity. If the person whose life is saved feels unclean for it, they
can always kill themselves when they feel better.
Yes, I am a secularist, does it show?
--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Noon Cat Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 07:58:21 PM |
|
|
Alan Harding wrote:
In message <fjmd52$n34$1@news.datemas.de>, Rhiannon
<rhianon@sympatico.ca> writes
"Contrarian" <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Av7j.232$lU5.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEGONE@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
I saw that report and as far as I can tell it was legitimate. Do you
have
any thoughts on this? If you'd rather not say I understand. The
question
of should the law respect religious choices came up in a conversation
last
night. Seems to me most people want a separation of church and state (I
agree btw) yet the courts conveniently step into these situations when it
suits them. I feel to see how both can apply. I'm still on fence or the
fence is one of "it might depend on the circumstances" but I'm leaning
more
towards "yes they have the right to refuse based on beliefs and the
law does
not have the right to enforce otherwise". Curious about what others
might
think.
Over here the law would rule in favour of treatment. It has, as far as I
can remember, so ruled every time it has been asked for a decision. This
is for adults as well as children, I think.
The hospitals have always wanted to provide what they're there for, and
the State is, IMO, there to promote secular values, not religious
insanity. If the person whose life is saved feels unclean for it, they
can always kill themselves when they feel better.
Yes, I am a secularist, does it show?
Quite so, I happily note.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BoredToTears" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 11:28:16 AM |
|
|
On 11 Dec, 16:16, "Rhiannon" <rhia...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
"Contrarian" <adrb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Av7j.232$lU5.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
I saw that report and as far as I can tell it was legitimate. Do you have
any thoughts on this? If you'd rather not say I understand. The question
of should the law respect religious choices came up in a conversation last
night. Seems to me most people want a separation of church and state (I
agree btw) yet the courts conveniently step into these situations when it
suits them. I feel to see how both can apply. I'm still on fence or the
fence is one of "it might depend on the circumstances" but I'm leaning more
towards "yes they have the right to refuse based on beliefs and the law does
not have the right to enforce otherwise". Curious about what others might
think.
--
Rhi
I'm guessing you know what I think. ;o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rhiannon" |
|
| Title: Re: JW teen dies after refusing a blood transfusion |
11 Dec 2007 11:54:44 AM |
|
|
"BoredToTears" <beejayceee1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe9b1f3d-67d6-4aa0-b9f6-f714e4a01462@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 11 Dec, 16:16, "Rhiannon" <rhia...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
"Contrarian" <adrb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Av7j.232$lU5.13@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
Noon Cat Nick <chatdemidiSPAMBEG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22032266/wid/11915773?gt1=10613
updated 7:31 p.m. CT, Thurs., Nov. 29, 2007
SEATTLE--A few hours after a judge ruled that a 14-year-old Jehovah's
Witness sick with leukemia had the right to refuse a blood transfusion
that might have helped him, the boy died, a newspaper reported.
Missed this when you posted this. Hard to tell if a "news"
post is a parody or not, nowadays.
I saw that report and as far as I can tell it was legitimate. Do you
have
any thoughts on this? If you'd rather not say I understand. The
question
of should the law respect religious choices came up in a conversation
last
night. Seems to me most people want a separation of church and state (I
agree btw) yet the courts conveniently step into these situations when it
suits them. I feel to see how both can apply. I'm still on fence or the
fence is one of "it might depend on the circumstances" but I'm leaning
more
towards "yes they have the right to refuse based on beliefs and the law
does
not have the right to enforce otherwise". Curious about what others
might
think.
--
Rhi
I'm guessing you know what I think. ;o)
Laugh! Oh yeah. ;-)
--
Rhi
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
DAVID KEEPS REFUSING TO
{HRI 20060702-V2.1} REFUSING to Invade Iraq, Constitutes Severe Crimes against Humanity, by Putin, Schroeder, Chirac, Jiang Zemin, etc.
High blood pressure with meds - Question?
Chris head get servered an blood gushes out
eleusis jane, blood donor
Blood pressure
Okay, so I started on high blood pressure medicine today
So I'm Glad (sp: dying, no, i'm not dying and men. of blood)
| Blood, Sugar, and Depression
High blood pressure
MY BLOOD SUGAR AND MY CAR
Please give blood.
SIMPLE BLOOD TEST WILL ACCURATELY DIAGNOSE ANXIETY
Blood On The Tracks
CAT BLOOD TEST RESULTS
|
|
|
