Rare case sheds light on religion, medicine: Man opposes his wife receiving blood

[cleanhippie]

Rare case sheds light on religion, medicine: Man opposes his wife receiving blood

JEFFERSONVILLE — Fifty-eight-year-old Charlestown resident Bruce Huff believes it is a sin to receive any blood or blood products. When his wife, 58-year-old Candy Huff, became unconscious several weeks ago and was rushed to Clark Memorial Hospital, he wrote a letter to the staff telling them not to give her blood transfusions.

The hospital filed a petition in Clark County Circuit Court asking that someone be appointed to make medical decisions for Candy Huff, alleging Bruce Huff was unable to make decisions in her best interest. Bruce Huff believes the decision to not allow him to make medical decisions for his wife is because of his religious beliefs.

http://newsandtribune.com/local/x1113183123/Rare-case-sheds-light-on-religion-medicine-Man-opposes-his-wife-receiving-blood

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So, is this a good example of where we should show respect for another persons beliefs?

[ret5hd]

1. The remaining question is...

at least from the snip you gave, is "what are her religious beliefs?"

[Warpy]

4. Candy Huff never considered herself a Jehovah’s Witness but shared his beliefs, Bruce Huff said.

I call bullshit, Bruce. Chances are she smiled and nodded just to get you to shut the hell up about it.

This is a good call. Were she a member of that church, he might have a point, but she is not by his own admission.

[The Magistrate]

2. He is Right, Sir: He is being Stripped Of Responsibility Here Because Of His Religious Beliefs

And he damned well should be....

[cleanhippie]

3. While I agree, it is being argued that beliefs such as these deserve equal respect

and consideration that one would give to a qualified medical opinion.

[The Magistrate]

14. They Do Not Deserve Such Respect, Sir

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

[Ninjaneer]

25. Even that ounce of respect goes out the window if the fellow

keeps trying to get you to have sex with his wife and adopt his kid.

[1monster]

20. Not when she doesn't share his religion.

[Mariana]

5. "Although he admits they have had marital problems,

he said he wants what is best for his wife."

Uh huh. Sure he does.

[krispos42]

6. That's part of the reason my uncle died a year and a half ago

Jehovah's Witness. Not evangelical... never said a word about it to me.

When he got an inoperable growth in his lungs his refusal to take a blood transfusion was an added complication. Finally they found a hospital in Texas that specialized in such surgeries, but it was too late for him.

He was on 100% oxygen from two nose breather thingies, and it still barely kept him going towards the end. :-(

[Manifestor_of_Light]

51. Darwin Awards for the JWs.

Same goes for the snake handlers that get bit.
Some of these fringe Christians are earning Darwin awards.
And I guess you could throw in Christian Scientists.

[krispos42]

53. Well, he had upbringing working against him, too.

The guy weighed like 400+ pounds at one point. His entire family eats large and dies young. He died at I think 54... he outlived his father by 5 or 6 years.

But the lung thing was very similar to the cancer caused by asbestos. In fact, since he worked at Caterpillar for a few decades as a plumber he had to deal with asbestos on a regular basis. Initially they thought it was in fact that mesothelioma (spelling?) that got him, but it wasn't.


But yeah, some types of people have "Darwin Award" stamped all over their foreheads.

[Sal Minella]

7. When religious beliefs slop over into sheer insanity, I think they

need to be overridden.

I mean, if a religion dictates that wives should be beaten once a week with a crowbar, do we have to honor that too?

Common sense should determine medical treatment.

Jehovah's Witnesses will not allow blood or blood products to be transfused. I asked a JW once if they could do autotransfusion -- a patient donating his/her own blood periodically prior to surgery, and then receiving only his/her own blood during the operation.

No. Once the blood has left the body, I was told, it's forbidden (she used a specific word which I've forgotten). I have NO idea how these people arrived at that conclusion.

JW publications periodically contain a glowing account of a person who heroically refused transfusion and managed to survive his/her surgery anyway. I don't know if this is supposed to be due to God's intervention or just to the Power of Faith.

The "no-transfusion" rule is one of the weirder religious beliefs I've encountered.

Edited after reading all of the article.
This man is only a part-time JW, and his wife is not a JW at all, and he is insisting on this?
:shrug:

[laconicsax]

8. Where do you draw the line? n/t

[Sal Minella]

12. Well, shucks.

Seems like "fatality" is a good place to start.

[laconicsax]

13. I meant before you get there.

There's a broad spectrum of insanity.

[cleanhippie]

49. So thats the line in the sand: fatality?

Everything else is ok?

[hlthe2b]

9. Tolerance/respect does NOT equate to letting those views supercede

current legal, ethical, and moral societal norms. Your last sentence was so flippant. Do you really think those who wish to be respectful of others religious (or conversely, atheist) views are promoting those views that could be harmful to another? Really? :eyes:

[xchrom]

10. +1

[darkstar3]

11. When we grant them unwarranted respect and freedom from criticism, we legitimize them,

so in a way, the answer to your question is yes.

[hlthe2b]

23. No one said they are free from criticism.. nor that there are not limits

to tolerance, which I very clearly laid out in my previous post.

[darkstar3]

39. I disagree with your statement of "no one".

I also think that tolerance and respect are different things.

I think it's important that we do not shy away from calling kooky religious beliefs kooky, because if we do shy away from it, those kooky beliefs become legitimate and socially acceptable in the eyes of the holders.

[hlthe2b]

40. Some equate BELITTLING with criticism...

therein lies the difference.

[darkstar3]

41. Yes, "some", the group REALLY responsible for every generalization made on DU.

"Some" is quite a powerful group. They have myriad actions attributed to them daily, even though no one is able to tell us more about what the group is, who is a part of it, or where we can find more information about them...

[hlthe2b]

43. Fine then...

YOU have been frequently guilty of belittling, rather than merely respectful criticism. Is THAT specific enough for you?

I am agnostic but the level of incivility I often see here for all types of spiritual or philosophical belief--and yes sometimes for atheists, is really sad.

[laconicsax]

46. Why do a person's religious beliefs deserve more respect than political or any other beliefs?

Put another way, give me a reason why "I believe in a personal, intercessory god that created the universe in six days" should be treated any differently than "I believe that Obama is a secret Muslim."

Both are complete bullshit, so why treat them any differently?

[darkstar3]

47. Specific enough.

Would you have me be dishonest? I express my views in all honesty, and I do not couch my words simply because the topic is something that many people would rather see left alone. I think the term "respectful criticism" is nothing but bullshit.

'If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to "ask nicely"'

[immoderate]

15. All irrational behavior deserves the same amount of respect.

I don't think atheists want respect for their views. You can agree or not. Atheists do not want to be disrespected as people because they have those views.

I would not treat a religious person disrespectfully. If he suggested I should be religious I would tell him I don't believe. If he pressed his point I would say I'm not superstitious, and I don't confuse fantasy with reality. But I wouldn't be disrespectful. :)


--imm

[hlthe2b]

22. Religious respect should be .the same as respect for atheists...

One respect the person. One tolerates the views that are different from ones own--to the limit where those opposing views might be detrimental to others.

[TZ]

29. I agree.

However when one is an atheist on a supposedly liberal website and is repeatedly told to sit down shut up why should anyone care about your beliefs and you shouldn't be posting here, you don't belong, it kinda makes it hard to respect anyone's beliefs. If you give respect, you get respect. Honestly in real life I know and get along with far more religious people than I know atheists and they do know my beliefs and tolerate and respect me..as I do theirs.
In this forum it seems you cannot be at all critical of religion without being labeled a fundamental atheist or militant atheist. I'm about as easy going on tolerating personal beliefs (my mothers best friend and I always got along well and she's a right wing fundie who speaks in tounges) but to hear some people speak I'm an anti-Christian bigot.

[immoderate]

35. I'm for that.

I treat all people the same. I also treat all fantasies the same.

Last week a heard someone tell a group it was a scientific fact that the human soul weighs 21 grams. Is it respecting his belief to ask for the evidence? He couldn't say where he heard it.

Should I tell him it's based on the discredited research of a nursing home doctor named Duncan MacDougall in 1907, who weighed seven dying patients, and their beds, on a livestock scale, with statistically invalid results. Nevertheless it was published in a journal. It was never replicated. It's totally discredited.

As it is, I won't press the issue with him because when I asked him where Adam's son found a wife, he said, "That's where evolution comes in." I see no point in discussing anything rational with this person.

Would you call that respecting his belief? :shrug:

--imm

[hlthe2b]

37. Yes....

Avoidance of certain discussion can certainly be respect and tolerance. That is likewise how I have learned to deal with certain people whose political beliefs I find incomprehensible or even downright repugnant. I don't know what some feel is to be gained by belittling those whose religious beliefs they find worthy of such... Sometimes saying nothing is the most respectful thing one can do.

(Assuming the same qualifiers from my OP, wherein I make very clear that does not extend to illegal acts or those that place others lives at risk, or which are totally incompatible with the laws and core principles of the society in which they live)....

[immoderate]

42. So I look it up...

I'm guessing that we would act similarly in most situations. I have no desire for pointless arguments. (This is a corollary to my personal motto: "Don't complain to anybody who can't do you any good.") And given most circumstances both you and I would do what I'd call the smart thing and avoid needless conflict. In fact, I would not engage in any of those topics except where people deliberately go to debate. Like here.

When I look up respect, one definition is consideration, another is esteem. So it comes down to what words mean and which meaning we ah, mean. I have no problem extending tolerance, consideration, even kindness to people and their views. Esteem implies merit to me.

(All disclaimers remain in effect.):)

--imm

[cleanhippie]

52. And there lies the rub. WHERE isthe limit where those opposing views might be detrimental to others.

And who gets to decide?

For me, beliefs and ideas stand on their own merit. When one espouses a belief or idea that is not grounded in reality and has no evidence to support it, then I consider it detrimental. Why is that so bad?

[trotsky]

26. So are burqas OK then?

Circumcision? What about female circumcision?

Just seems like you believe there is a very clear line here at "current legal, ethical, and moral societal norms." So I'm curious what the definitive answer is to the practices above. Thanks.

[hlthe2b]

27. You apparently can not read...

When you can and can leave the totally unwarranted snark that intentionally misconstrues and bastardizes everything I said out of your message perhaps we can talk. Until then... I won't enable your rude and belligerent behavior.

[trotsky]

28. My goodness.

Accusing me of not being able to read? No unwarranted snark or rudeness or belligerence there, huh? You said, and I quote:

"Tolerance/respect does NOT equate to letting those views supercede current legal, ethical, and moral societal norms."

I just wanted to know WHAT those "legal, ethical, and moral societal norms" are since you seem to think they are pretty clear. Will you answer me now, or was I still not respectful enough?

[cleanhippie]

50. So tell me then, what ARE "current legal, ethical, and moral societal norms."?

Especially the ethical and moral ones.

Please, be specific so that there is no misunderstanding.

[trotsky]

54. Doesn't look like you're going to get an answer either.

You foul, snarky atheist, you.

[AlecBGreen]

16. dang,

meant to hit reply and hit 'rec' instead. You got a freebie....THIS time :P

A question for you. Lets say they are both devout JW's and they have signed papers saying they do not wish blood transfusions under any circumstances. If they were in a hospital and they came to you, unconscious and in desperate need of blood, what should be done? Should you respect their wishes (but perhaps violate your own moral code) and let them die? Or should you follow you own conscience and give them a transfusion against their wishes, thus saving their life?

[darkstar3]

17. It's not necessarily about conscience.

A doctor takes an oath to do no harm. Letting a patient die as they lay unconscious on a table because the patient has a strange fear of blood transfusions seems to me to violate that oath.

Fear, religious-based or otherwise, is not a reason to prevent people from receiving life-saving medical care.

Let's put the "respect the wishes" shoe on the other foot: What if this doctor was refusing to perform an abortion because of his religious beliefs?

[AlecBGreen]

18. ah, I had forgotten about that oath

good point.

Fear, religious-based or otherwise, is not a reason to prevent people from receiving life-saving medical care. I disagree. If someone says unequivocally DO NOT GIVE ME BLOOD, I will of course disagree w/ their decision but it IS their decision. If they refused it for their child... that is another matter. We as a society have agreed that parents do not have the right to neglect their children. This, to me, would fall into that category. It would not supercede the freedom to practice your religion.

[darkstar3]

19. Hmmm

Put yourself in the shoes of an oath-bound medical professional with the skills and the materials to easily save a life and provide what is most likely a path to full recovery. A patient tells you that they want to live, but if it means going against their belief in X they would rather die. We now have the immovable object met by the irresistable force. Doctor's often have the same courage of their convictions as the people who say they would die for their beliefs. What happens now?

[cleanhippie]

34. So by your rationale, you agree with voluntary and assisted suicide?

Because that is what the result is.

[AlecBGreen]

38. yes, I do

In this way: I disagree with suicide personally (I dont think it should be done) but I will not stop a person from making that decision.

[cleanhippie]

33. If I were a doctor at a hospital

the moment someone comes through the doors, they are asking for modern, professional, science based medical care, in all its forms, and that is what they would get. Period.

[rug]

21. No. If this is purely about religious beliefs, he'll win. That's settled law.

'“This situation was very, very unique,”' Thompson said. '“(Religion) was not the substance or basis of the petition.”'

"In her five years representing the hospital, Thompson said this is the first time she filed a petition to appoint a representative or ask for a judge to intervene in a medical case like this. She said it would have been preferable for Candy Huff, and for anyone, to designate a health care representative. A living will is used for end-of-life decisions, but a health care representative will oversee medical decisions if the patient is unable to do so."

-----

The case is about Huff's suitability under Indiana law to make medical decicisions for his wife.

[WolverineDG]

31. they don't have medical powers of attorney in Indiana?

strange.

Moral of this story folks: contact a probate lawyer in your state & execute your "living will" & medical power of attorney, or someone will be making decisions for you that you might not like.

dg

[rug]

36. As far as I know they do.

Even if there is one, it can still be challenged. From what I gather from the story, the hospital has concerns about his suitability, with or without it.

[WolverineDG]

45. yes, they can be challenged

but it's not easy to overcome the burden of showing that the person giving the POA was incompetent to do so or was forced/coerced into signing it.

dg

[laconicsax]

24. Part of being married is knowing that your spouse may have to make these kinds of decisions.

Hate to be blunt, but they're married. If Candy wasn't comfortable with the prospect of Bruce making these kinds of decisions for her, then Bruce wouldn't be in a position to make the decisions.

The article does say that she agreed with the JW position on blood transfusions, and being and adult, she is free to make those decisions for herself.

We don't have to respect the decision, but we should respect their right to make it.

[AlecBGreen]

32. +1

I feel the need to celebrate that we agree on something laconicsax. 3 cheers! :toast:

[WolverineDG]

30. They let Selena's family refuse the transfusions that would have saved her life

but unlike this woman, she was a practicing Jehovah's Witness.

on edit: if there is other credible evidence that the wife shared her husband's belief about blood transfusions, then her wishes should be followed. This is similar to those who execute directives to physicians & state they want to keep the machines hooked up & running. Very very few choose this option (for me, one client out of hundreds), even incredibly devout Catholics.

dg

[LeftishBrit]

44. Medical decisions for a person should never be based on someone else's religious beliefs

If a Jehovah's Witness dies because they themselves refuse a blood transfusion, that is very sad but it is their right. Adult, mentally competent patients should be allowed to make their own medical decisions, based on the information available, even if it appears to be on a tragically unreasonable basis. Otherwise, we are on a slippery slope where patients may not be allowed the right to make their own decisions where, for example, they cannot tolerate the side-effects of a medication, or where they have simply 'had enough' of a long-drawn-out terminal illness and wish to be allowed to die peacefully.

But this does not extend to imposing religious beliefs on *others*.One person's religious beliefs should not be seen as acceptable grounds for risking death or severe physical suffering to another person: whether as a spouse as here, a parent, a pharmacist or other medical professional, or a lawmaker.

[laconicsax]

48. Spouses are entitled to make those decisions.

We can't pick and choose when we accept this fact based on whether we agree with the outcome.