Prince v. Supreme Court

    By PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 11:51am |

    Prince died recently, apparently in a lot of pain due to decades of hard dance moves on-stage that left his joints in shambles (but still in better shape than mine could ever dream of).

    Prince's demise came not from the joints, but from painkillers. But ironically for the fervently anti-drugs star is that his Jehovah's Witness religion prevented him from choosing the more common surgeries that would have likely lessened his pain. Why? The church's objection to "blood transfusions."

    Should Jehovah's Witnesses object to their health plans paying for their employees' blood transfusions, it's hard to see this being more objectionable than not paying for contraception - it's a core tenet of their religious belief, and with 1.2 million "publishers" and 2.5 memorial attendees in the US, roughly half the US Jewish population, they're large enough to be taken seriously.

    What happens when those floodgates open? We've a large segment that believes vaccinations are more dangerous than helpful, though so far most of this is for non-religious reasons - expect perhaps the objections to cervical cancer vaccinations (if anyone can follow the exact logic of the objections).

    But Jehovah's Witnesses also have strong religious objections to war. Why would a contraception religious exemption be more important than one for military draft? and at what point does the Supreme Court start laying out a matrix of which concerns gain precedence over which treatments, and other complications, such as which religions in a mixed marriage or jointly held corporation have precedence over the other? 

    The Supreme Court has backed a rather hobbled horse in this case - taking the odd view that paying for an employee's optional medical service is equivalent to making the owner consciously paying for same service in defiance of his or her religious beliefs. But that's what happens every day with tax money that goes for weapons systems and armed deployments around the world. It's hard to see how the Court can logically vote against deeply held religious beliefs in forcing JW's to pay those taxes supporting war (and possibly much of policing), and depending on the religious framework, a group like the Bundys can claim that federal maintenance of public lands violates their religious sensibilities, whether those sensibilities are idiotic or not. Rulings like Hobby Lobby and Zubik back a more activist competitive style of diversity, rather than the "live and let live" form we'd gotten used to (at least in theory).

    Perversely, this type of obstructionist house-of-cards opt-out decision is in stark contrast to the Court's attempt to allow more group religious activity in public school settings, taking a looser "but everybody does it, it's just the social thing to do" attitude. And so a non- or differently-religious person has trouble opting out of unconstitutional religious events, and opting in on a federally orchestrated public health system. Presumably any blood donor activity should also be separated from objecting Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Red Cross should be treated as a pariah in much the way Planned Parenthood is.

    But it should be noted that Prince was a very private person, and while ministering to others, not in a pushy, intrusive way. It's odd that the Supreme Court is pushier than the devotee himself. Maybe the Justices can return to original intent, where the right to privacy and belief wasn't an excuse to intrude on others' right to choose, be it abortion, contraception or transfusion. Once again we get to a decision between a person, his or her faith, and his or her physician, not an employer or politician or PAC. Why can't the court accept that easy prescription? Is the handwriting on the Rx too tough to read?

    Comments

    logical article. it might be good to update your research on Jehovah's Witnesses, and spellcheck and republish it. I worked for a few large medical companies and hospitals. This group accepts any surgery that anyone else does, and they use viable blood substitutes frequently. At dozens of our facilities covering the entire US. They just don't accept blood transfusions. Neither do I. They cannot be screened for Lyme, and a host of other infectious microbiologies. There are a few other communities that refuse transfusions as well. There is a reason why blood coagulates and "goes bad" when it leaves the body. It's genetically part of the original host. It has to be carefully manipulated in order to transfuse it into a new patient. Even then, with the same blood type, it's technically rejected by the recipient. More effective therapies are "volume expanders" and drugs that make the patient produce their own blood cells, such as EPO. 

    Blood transfusions will soon be viewed as obsolete. And, go the way of "old medicine"

     

    i appreciate your logic and think the article is well written


    by Anon (not verified) on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 1:47pm

    Thanks, I'm largely ignorant of anything related to JW, just came to me this morn the interesting parallel except transfusions don't lead to slut shaming or lifestyle debates, so conservatives are unlikely to wage culture war over it.

    Do you have a decent link to Jehovah's Witnesses medical practices in reference to surgeries, blood substitutes, et al, beyond Wikipedia for a little dagucation?


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 3:01pm

    I don't know what the JW practice is towards children being denied current state of the art medical treatment---which is where I draw the line, that is, adults can do as they please with their own lives.

    I seem to remember instances where blood transfusions saved life by virtue of the antibodies which were introduced---the health workers in Africa who had contracted the ebola virus trying to minister to others dying horrible deaths from the disease. Or was that a story planted by the government?

     

     


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 12:31pm

    Here is a link to the medical information provided by Jehovah's Witnesses.

    https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/        You will find it quite complete.

    The discussion about the proper treatment of children within the medical community deserves a response.  

    The world has moved away from the proper raising of children in general.  The secular approach is to distance parental discipline, or anything else that would direct a child's developing environment, so that the child will be able to explore all possibilities for himself.  The Christian fundamentalist view is that children should be guided and nurtured by an environment most likely to result in a kinship with the views of the parent.  

    These two approaches are polar opposites.  When considering the proper medical care of children as viewed through the lens of the secularist one will of course conclude that any decision made that weighs non-physical criteria as equal or heavier than the physical would be wrong.  The Christian fundamentalist believes that the spiritual concerns are as important, indeed more important in some instances, than physical.  The latter also views the wonderful progress the world has made with its "no barriers" approach, asking "how's that working for you?".   From the condition of the world many would say not very well.  

    Medical professionals have long valued the importance of treating the "whole" person.  Yet the non-medical secularist will say, that's good for the adult, but not for the child who is the responsibility of the adult.  The rightness of the view that parents gave birth, and therefore are responsible for their children and decisions affecting them, is apparently a position challenged by many in the world, selectively to be sure.  Those that believe that a parent's right to choose not to accept a transfusion for their children is the "line not to be crossed", and where others should step in, are the very same that would raise arms if someone insisted on a certain procedure for their children that they object to.  

    Life is full of slippery slopes.  The concept of removing parental responsibility in favor of community parenting is one fraught with dilemma.  It is based upon the irrational and illogical conclusions of those who react but do not consider.  There are many abuses affecting children and these are often used as the premise for denying parental rights and responsibility.  But a reasoning person can distinguish between the non-loving parent who abuses their child and the loving parent who cares for the whole child.  

    Loving parenting is a God given responsibility.  A principal.  Biblical principals always work.      

     


    by Aislin Matthews (not verified) on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 3:31pm

    In the wake of Prince's death many have "made hay" with his religion bearing responsibility for his death due to the Witnesses' belief that abstaining from blood is a command.  This view is born from an ignorance of both the spiritual and the medical facts surrounding abstention from blood (no offense intended).

    The idea of abstention may seem foreign to many among a society that ascribes to not denying ourselves any pleasure, especially when it may mean the difference between life and death.  And yet people all over the world have given, and still give, their lives for ideals either by way of some action or some inaction.  So, the concept is not really odd to any of us, only the reasons why some choice may rise to the level of that importance.    

    The strongly held belief among Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is sacred comes from the Bible, which they believe to be God's word. The Bible is clear in its command to abstain from blood.  The reason is that God has made blood sacred. Since blood is accepted by all as that most most fundamental thing that represents life, it should not be such a stretch for anyone to at least understand, if not agree, why God might make it sacred and why it is accepted a sacred, and thus rises to the top of the "reasons I am willing to die" among those who believe in God.  That is the spiritual reason for a Witnesses' abstention. Any other reason is ancillary.

    At the same time it should not be ignored by fair minded people that "life" is also sacred to Jehovah's Witnesses.  Thus, proper care and safeguarding of one's own life is considered to be of major importance. Clean living is encouraged including proper nutrition, hygiene and morality.  Rarely will one find STDs among Witnesses.  They do not smoke, take drugs (street drugs), or abuse food or alcohol.  They are discouraged from engaging in extreme sports. They do not go to war or take the lives of others intentionally.  And, they do not reject any reasonable medical treatment.  They want to live so they can serve.  The belief that life is sacred is as important to them as that of blood, it is simply that you cannot die from taking good care of yourself so there are not headlines.  

    The ancillary reasons.  The secular medical issues surrounding the use of blood have been hotly contested for many years. Any honest person, knowledgeable about medical advances, will tell you that the use of blood in surgery is all but "non-essential".  Rather, it is most often an ill-considered expedient used necessarily and it can be very dangerous. Often more dangerous than the procedure itself. The idea that Prince died because he took too much pain medicine because he could not get help due to his personal conviction belies two important facts, current medicine and his sizeable fortune.  Prince could afford the very best of care and there are centers all over the world that have and do perform virtually any type of surgery, include hip replacement. Below are just a few links to major medical facilities specializing in this practice. In fact, these bloodless forms of treatment largely enjoy much faster recovery with fewer complications.   

    It is a sad thing that Prince passed away but it would be wrong and naive to suggest it was due to his faith or his refusal to accept blood.  That being said, if there were a line to cross, his conviction would apparently have prevented him from crossing it.  In a world of so many who do not stand for anything it would seem that Prince was not just an accomplished musician but a man of principal as well. 

    http://www.wehealny.org/services/bi_orthosportsmed/bloodlessOrthopedicSurgery.html

    http://drharwin.com/orthopaedic-surgery-information/bloodless-surgery.php

    https://www.center4ortho.com/Specialties/Joint_Replacement/Bloodless_Surgery/

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqt6ypyuHMAhVR6WMKHUeZCtsQtwIIYDAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZuLP-YShOUM&usg=AFQjCNF3Is9_9A2lvkkS4cVNdo8PzpjQWA&sig2=Mu-jzTt5m5yCdhnaXcc9WA

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqt6ypyuHMAhVR6WMKHUeZCtsQtwIIYzAJ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D8PXqcByeA8U&usg=AFQjCNFHFJYjfs1bv2FW04BhNiR8C3gxNw&sig2=rSNS024B_fKeTet2AtwdUg

     


    by Aislin Matthews (not verified) on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 1:55pm

    "Bloodless" surgery is well known. The question that sometimes arises is if the patient will accept having their own blood washed and returned to their own bodies by Cell-Saver systems.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 5:59pm

    This issue began decades ago as Witnesses refused blood based upon their religious convictions. Today the notion of blood as a tool in medicine is facing the "was that a good idea in the first place" question so many of man's inventions face.  The answer, in hind sight, is that is was probably not such a  good idea "good idea".  But that discussion is a medical one and not a religious one.  

    There are many aspects to bloodless medicine.  Washing and reintroducing ones own blood is only one of very many alternatives.  For the conscientious objector choosing the form of treatment that agrees with ones belief is the key.  

    Most forms of bloodless medicine approach the treatment as a "whole package".  Get the patient healthier, make them stable, get their own blood count up, proceed. This in itself brings better results.  But, even in critical situations there are many bloodless alternatives.  The choices and research options are quite available for anyone who wishes to explore them.  

    Witnesses view the blood as sacred.  There are elements carried in and with blood that are not "essentially blood".  Whether to consider these is a choice for the individual.  The paramount consideration for a Witness is not to violate how one individually views God's command to abstain from blood.  This is not based upon guesswork but upon research, reason, thought (meditation) and prayer.   Witnesses are provided much assistance in the form of the latest science on the subject which is regularly updated.  

     


    by Aislin Matthews (not verified) on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 4:10pm

    Personally, I'm against transfusions, or injections, of collagen. For one thing, in the design of God's creation of earths creatures, collagen is much more fundamental than blood---and the fact that the Bible somehow omits it doesn't negate its higher importance in the existence of life forms. Also, I'm against people trying to change their God given bodies for purely superficial reasons.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 1:30pm

    I like ritual mutilation and bloodletting, but probly cuz that's how I swing rather than any medical benefit. Still, if you want to do autotrepanation, it should be covered by Obamacare.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 5:17pm

    Should we cover a medical procedure which led to the extinction of the Neanderthals? 


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 7:53pm

    Different strokes for different folks. Are you against self-determinism


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 8:11pm

    I'm not against it but as you know, except in the rare case, it never stops there. Vampires, for example.


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 05/18/2016 - 9:04pm

    In for a drop, in for a pint they say...


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/19/2016 - 3:48am

    Nice job, pp.  Seems you've also reached a wider audience. Welcome, new commenters!

    We've developed a nice, strange system where your personal beliefs exempt you from much governance so long as those beliefs are about your religion or about your gun ownership.  If you feel strongly about much else, from your pet ferret to the upkeep of your front lawn, you're out of luck.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 05/17/2016 - 5:49pm

    According to Prince’s biographer, he embraced his faith.

    I can’t imagine, Prince wouldn’t have bequeathed a portion of his estate, to promote the Kingdom work.

    Loving his God so much; he made a decision to dedicate his life and become a baptized publisher,to follow Jesus’ command;, to give all he had to be a footstep follower.

    I find it odd, that no will was found. 


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 7:27pm

    Latest Comments