Thursday, February 01, 2007

Brace yourself -- the tidal wave of hypocrisy should be hitting any minute now.

It's appalling, you know, how those Muslims wilfully and deliberately put their own childrens' lives at risk:

Just when you thought things couldn't get more ridiculous...

... A MUSLIM doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.

I can't wait for the subsequent awkward reaction to this:

Sextuplets' parents want apology for transfusions

A B.C. Jehovah's Witness couple will demand an apology from the province over its decision to allow three of their four surviving sextuplets to have blood transfusions -- a practice that goes against their religion...

Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said Wednesday the family is upset that the transfusions were done against their wishes.

See, when Muslims discourage giving their children vaccinations, why, they're just a bunch of barbaric savages who don't care if their own children live or die. When Jehovah's Witnesses deny their children potentially life-saving blood transfusions, well ... I don't really need to finish this, do I?


sooey said...

i always do what i'm told by my government. but i have friends who don't. should i inform on them? they aren't muslim. OR jw's.

catnip said...

If I was a betting gal, I'd put money on the fact that Mr Outraged has never written a post about people from a variety of religions, including Christians (gasp!) who've also decided not to vaccinate their kids.

catnip said...


Pharmaceutical giants Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are gearing up for a bruising showdown with America's religious right after the US medicines regulator approved a new blockbuster cervical cancer vaccine last week.

Conservative groups, including the influential Family Research Council (FRC), have voiced concerns that immunising young girls against the virus that most regularly causes cervical cancer, Human Papilloma- virus, may lead to sexual promiscuity. "We would oppose any measures to legally require vaccination or to coerce parents into authorising it," wrote the FRC in a recent letter to the US government. "Our primary concern is with the message that would be delivered to nine- to 12-year-olds with the administration of the vaccines. Care must be taken not to communicate that such an intervention makes all sex 'safe'."

Jose said...

I'll do you one better. The next time you have the misfortune of interacting in the company of the far right going on about their little ra ra sessions about muslims being quiet on terrorism ask them wether or not they ever denounced the IRA back in the day (and it wasn't really that long ago that bombs were going off in London on a regular basis).

This is the dirty little piece of laundry they really don't want to talk about. The thing is plenty of people in North America were rooting for as well as actively aiding the IRA. It wasn't until that support was cut off that the troubles in Northern Ireland could be brought to a peaceful conclusion.

It's not really a secret over here in the UK. Everyone knows that the IRA was essentialy a terrorist group sponsored by Irish American patriots. You know those guys who've never been to Ireland but with an Irish or Scottish grandfather who happen to be the biggest patriots of all.

I've brought this up on SDA and it shuts them right up.

M@ said...


While I agree with your point absolutely, I reject your assertion that any point showing logic or reason would have any effect on the Katelets at all. They are, as far as I've ever been able to deduce, completely immune.

I'm sorry, but I just can't believe you on this.

Anonymous said...

There is a fundamental flaw in this argument. Your assumption is that a blood trasfusion will save life; whereas, abstaining from one means death. That is quite a jump; furthermore, I would like you to find even a single doctor, anywhere in the world, who will guarantee that if I take a blood transfusion I will live. You can not find one because a blood transfusion is not guarantee of anything. If it were a given that the transfusion would automatically mean the saving of the life then you possibly would have some stable ground to stand on. As it is, it is shakey at best.

Not any argument but a thought to ponder. Of course, the norm will be to side step the question. Again, find one doctor anywhere that will guarantee that I will live if I take a transfusion and die if I don't.

Adam C said...

Anonymous: I think it's your reasoning that is flawed. Certainly if you find a doctor who guarantees that any treatment will save your life, you'd better be skeptical. However, there are common emergency situations where not getting a transfusion will lead to your death.

The human body only has so much blood. If you lose too much too fast, you will die. Guaranteed.

Anonymous said...


I dont like to get into arguments over this but do like to reason on the points at hand.

You say "the human body has so much blood. If you lose too much too fast, you will die. Guaranteed."

You are making my point. If it is, as you say guaranteed, then you should be able to find a doctor who will guarantee that I will live if I take the blood. It goes back to the basic point that blood does not guarantee the saving of the life.

Your point is lose of too much blood and you will die which is obviously true; however, that is not the point. The point is whether taking blood will guarantee that you will live. That is the issue - Blood is no guarantee that you will live.
To reiterate - Lose of enough blood guarantees death but taking blood does not guarantee life.

Taking blood is a medical procedure. People reject medical procedures that dont agree with all the time. Someone with cancer may be told unless he takes chemo he will die. He says I dont want chemo. Why is it the courts will not rush in and force chemo on him?

In all honesty, much of this debate is not logical. If it were the chemo scenario that I outlined would follow the same theory. This debate is fueled by a bias against Jehovah's Witnesses which is a seperate issue altogether.

Its almost as if "blood" has become some magic cure-all procedure whereby death is guaranteed if you dont take it. That simply is not the case.

Thanks for your non-confrontational points and I do completely understand where you are coming from.

Adam C said...

There is a difference - which I tried to make plain - between guaranteeing that a patient will live with treatment and guaranteeing that they will die without it. A timely blood transfusion may prevent you from dying due to loss of blood, but it won't guarantee your survival (something, after all, caused all that blood loss).

People do refuse medical procedures all the time. Where it becomes an issue is when it is children denied treatment due to the religious beliefs of their parents. This is where courts have stepped in - and it happens with chemo patients as well as blood transfusions. I'm very skeptical that it has anything to do with bias against JWs.

Its almost as if "blood" has become some magic cure-all procedure whereby death is guaranteed if you don't take it. That simply is not the case.

In some cases, yes it is. Many people are simply willing to choose death. That's their right. The issue is when they choose it for their children.

Adam C said...

Added: it seems that you are really concerned that blood transfusions are often performed when they are not essential. I don't want to argue with that, because I suspect it's true. However, I also believe that there are times when it's the only treatment that can save a life, even if there is no guarantee.

Cat said...

So tell me truthfully, would YOU willingly choose to put MERCURY and FORMALDYHYDE into YOUR body or those of your children? Cuz that's what is put in vaccines today!

Anonymous said...

I am interested in finding a documented instance where the courts stepped in an ordered someone to take chemo.

Adam states "however, I also believe that there are times when it's the only treatment that can save a life, even if there is no guarantee."

1) You state that this is what "you" beleive. The question would then be what are your credentials that I would bestow validity on what you beleive as opposed to what I beleive. In essence that is just your opionion vs. my own.

2) You state its the only treatment that can save life, even though there is no guarantee. If there is no guarantee how can you state that it is the only treatment that can save a life. If it can in fact save a life then you should be able to guarantee it.

Adam C said...

Anonymous, just use Google. It won't take long.

And no, I'm not a medical doctor. If you're convinced that there exists some treatment besides a blood transfusion that will save a person who is bleeding to death I'm not going to research the topic in order to try to change your mind. With all due respect, this issue doesn't mean enough to me.

If it can in fact save a life then you should be able to guarantee it.

Absolutely not, unless we're using different definitions of the word 'guarantee'. Look (to borrow from our other example) chemotherapy can save you from dying of cancer; however, many people do go through chemo and still die.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Guarantee - Defintion according to Webster. "Something that assures a particular outcome or condition."

A guarantee "assures" a particular outcome. Again, can a blood transfusion "assure" that I will live?

The major problem with lost of blood is lost of volume. There are many things that can be used in those cases other than blood. Are any of them a guarantee that you will live? Absolutely not, but neither is taking blood.

By the way, you are correct in that there do seem to be some instances whereby the courts have ordered chemo so I stand corrected?

In the end, I think we are on a slippery slope when the govenment begins to have too much influence in our personal lives.

M@ said...

Too much influence on our personal lives? Yeah, they should really be letting more children of stupid parents die, shouldn't they.

Look, Anonymous Phil 101 student. No one can foresee the future, no one can guarantee anything. But try to follow the logic here: two of the six babies have died already, and they died of causes that are typically treated successfully with blood transfusions. It makes sense to do blood transfusion, then, doesn't it?

The problem is your demand for a guarantee. (Well, that's the main problem. Another one is that you think quoting a dictionary definition is a way of contributing to a debate. Are you in grade six, perhaps?) You are putting an unreasonable demand on the actor, here, and you give no rationale for it. Do you demand that everyone guarantee the outcome of everything they do? Do you operate on that basis?

I have no idea why you've decided to hold the doctors in this case to this standard. However, if I were in a similar situation, I would be demanding that doctors perfom the appropriate procedures on my kids. Then again, I'm not a deranged religious wingnut.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your kind words M@.

Well, lets see. I have a MBA from Johns Hopkins. So sixth grade - I think not.

But that is beside the point. Here we were having a logical debate without the sarcasm and venom. Of course, it was wishful thinking that that could continue.

A FINAL WORD OF SAGE ADVICE - Sarcasm and insults rarely serve to place the stamp of veracity on your statements.

As mentioned in a earlier post; here lies the "true" issue - a bias against Jehovah's Witnesses or as you coin it, "religious wingnuts."

No need to respond in my behalf. I don't deal with those who can not discuss a subject without slinging insults. There maybe others who revel in it but I am not one of them.

Good day all.