So they’re ok with getting operated on but cannot receive blood transfusions?
Reminds me of the woman who wanted an organ transplant but not the Covid vaccine (she was ok with every other required vaccine for the transplant because propaganda)
24
slothrop @lemmy.ca - 1day
Nowhere in the Bible does a hero just let themselves go, and put their survival soley into the Creator's hands: you gotta do your part too, Grasshopper!
14
tomiant - 1day
A man sits on the roof during a rising flood.
A rowboat comes by, and yells, "get in the boat!"
"No, God will save me."
Then the coast guard comes by, "get in the boat!"
"No, God will save me."
Then a helicopter comes by, "climb in the helicopter!"
"No, God will save me."
Then a pack of wild hyenas swim by, and tear the man from limb to limb, laughing while he dies in agonizing horror.
21
Skanky @lemmy.world - 1day
This isn't the ending that I remember.
This one is much better.
8
TheOakTree @lemmy.zip - 1day
What's wrong? God saved him in the end.
7
DragonTypeWyvern @midwest.social - 12hr
Actually he was an unrepentant sinner who believed in the prosperity gospel so he went straight to non-existence because what he believes means nothing
1
Triumph - 1day
I am confused about why this would need to go to a court for permission.
5
GrabtharsHammer @lemmy.world - 1day
The court overruled the person's right to refuse the transfusion. There's a bit of legal burden on a party that wants to do things to your body that you told them not to do.
12
Triumph - 1day
Ah there it is. The article wasn't super clear on that, and I'm not paying close enough attention. "Can" vs. "will, if necessary".
4
TWeaK - 3hr
Yeah, to be clearer it covers them either way. Their initial position was to refuse a transfusion, but if she'd died there'd be every possibility that her parents would change their tune and sue the hospital for not providing the transfusion. And, of course, if they overrode her decision by themselves they'd also be open to a lawsuit. By going to court, then whichever way the court decides it becomes the court's legal decision, and by following that the hospital avoids any potential legal problems and costs.
1
scratchee @feddit.uk - 9min
Whilst I certainly agree with the court that the blood transfusion is in their best interest, I do worry that they might just decide to refuse the entire operation now, seems like they’re now playing chicken with the kid and hoping their sense of self preservation overrides their faith. Not sure I’d play that game, religion is a powerful drug
fne8w2ah in unitedkingdom @feddit.uk
Teenage Jehovah's Witness can receive blood transfusion, judge rules
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp89x606dnnoSo they’re ok with getting operated on but cannot receive blood transfusions?
Reminds me of the woman who wanted an organ transplant but not the Covid vaccine (she was ok with every other required vaccine for the transplant because propaganda)
Nowhere in the Bible does a hero just let themselves go, and put their survival soley into the Creator's hands: you gotta do your part too, Grasshopper!
A man sits on the roof during a rising flood.
A rowboat comes by, and yells, "get in the boat!"
"No, God will save me."
Then the coast guard comes by, "get in the boat!"
"No, God will save me."
Then a helicopter comes by, "climb in the helicopter!"
"No, God will save me."
Then a pack of wild hyenas swim by, and tear the man from limb to limb, laughing while he dies in agonizing horror.
This isn't the ending that I remember.
This one is much better.
What's wrong? God saved him in the end.
Actually he was an unrepentant sinner who believed in the prosperity gospel so he went straight to non-existence because what he believes means nothing
I am confused about why this would need to go to a court for permission.
The court overruled the person's right to refuse the transfusion. There's a bit of legal burden on a party that wants to do things to your body that you told them not to do.
Ah there it is. The article wasn't super clear on that, and I'm not paying close enough attention. "Can" vs. "will, if necessary".
Yeah, to be clearer it covers them either way. Their initial position was to refuse a transfusion, but if she'd died there'd be every possibility that her parents would change their tune and sue the hospital for not providing the transfusion. And, of course, if they overrode her decision by themselves they'd also be open to a lawsuit. By going to court, then whichever way the court decides it becomes the court's legal decision, and by following that the hospital avoids any potential legal problems and costs.
Whilst I certainly agree with the court that the blood transfusion is in their best interest, I do worry that they might just decide to refuse the entire operation now, seems like they’re now playing chicken with the kid and hoping their sense of self preservation overrides their faith. Not sure I’d play that game, religion is a powerful drug