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)
They don’t take issue with medicine or surgery, just blood that originates from another. This stance is based on their interpretation of scripture. They’ve also really began to pick and choose, as science has advanced. Typical Christian nonsense.
Let them die if that’s what they want.
Let’s not punish children for having morons as parents
She’s a child grown and conditioned entirely in the restrictive cult, knowing only what the Elders and her conditioned family taught her - the beliefs are hardly her own, let alone her medical choices. Poor kid is just one of thousands of victims of the Witnesses’ doctrines.
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.
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”.
