Belief, Society, and Blood Transfusions
On November’s bloggers gathering, a fellow blogger suggested campaigning for a blood donation rally. Obviously, we would all think that it would one of the most humane things to do; saving lives. Right?
Not very much so, well, not by everyone at least. This story reports a healthy young Jehovah’s witness, 22 years of age, gave birth to twins (a healthy boy and a healthy girl), however, she did not make it outside the operating room. It is said that she died as a result of refusing a blood transfusion. This is believed to be due to her faith (read possible explanation).
I heard a debate on the BBC (radio) world service a couple of days ago, and I was left with many ethical dilemmas.
The Jehovah’s witness reason the refusal of blood transfusion on the basis of biblical texts which mainly portray the sacredness of blood to the creator and therefore one should abstain from blood.
Such cases lead to prolonged discussions - heated, emotionally grounded, discussion - about grand theological questions of life and death, about sin and atonement, about freewill and freedom of being. I will leave such discussions to be initiated by those who are further interested (you can comment, or you can buy me coffee).
However, I will leave you with one to tickle your magnificent matter (that is your brain, by the way).
The woman, in the reported story, decided to practically take her own life. This brings the issue of one’s ownership over his or her own life. Suicide is religiously considered a sin and socially frowned upon. Also, giving informed consent (in general) is a preserved right.
If we have ownership over our lives, then suicide should not be problematic at all, and we are fully rightful to give consent (to anything). Here we are shunned by societal beliefs.
If we do not have ownership over our lives, then we are not fully rightful to give consent. However, suicide and euthanasia can be dealt with.Here we are shunned by theological beliefs.