Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
You may be a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater. (Austin Powers)
I'm sure nobody will ever want it. No point in even bothering with such research!;-p
Why would you want to save your life if it offends god according to your preacher or governor?
...NOT NAY to stem cell research ...NOT NAY to genetic engineering.I wanted to include the limitation: "if applied properly".But the remark would be of no use, anyway, given that all inventions are also being used for bad intentions. **sigh!So I'm leaving it: just NOT NAY statements.
There are a goodly number of religious people who do, indeed, refuse treatment on the basis of religious belief. Off the top of my head there are the Jehovah's Witnesses people, who will (for some anyway) refuse a blood transfusion, possibly forfeiting their life as a result.
The only religious people who are opposed to it are those who couldn't (or don't know anyone who could) benefit from it. If they had something that we might be able to cure via stem cell research they 'd change their mind. THe beauty about religion - or at least Christianity - is that they can just repent afterward. ...Although that's kind of unnecessary anyway. As I understood it, Jesus dying on the cross (a sacrifice to himself, oddly) took away all the sins of everyone past and present. Hell should be empty and no one should have to bother repenting for anyting.
It's probably like parental love: it's unconditional, but somehow you have to work for it anyway.
What I can't stomach, is a Chihuahua's Witless that takes such decisions in the name of a child.The topic was mentioned in our Ethics course, here in Lebanon. (And to think that it was our only OPTIONAL course!) The professor summed it up very simply: if a person is unconscious, and the family insists that they wouldn't want a life-saving transfusion for those allegedly biblical reasons, "Go right ahead, the law covers you!"The law in Lebanon has that nice thing about it, that apart from mainstream official religions (like giving porcine insulin injections to a muslim), it insists on a Doctor's duty to save lives. I truly doubt that you should worry about a lawsuit for transfusing an endangered JW's child. Not here.Mainstream religions don't like new competition. It has its upsides. :-)And you'd be amazed at how secundary ethics may become when one's own life or well-being is in danger! Have you any idea how many people travel to India to BUY themselves a kidney?And if only it profited to the "donor". But the middle men pocket most of the money, leaving the poor saps in their misery with a handful of peanuts.Which explains why, when I was in Nephrology internship, we regularly saw a lot of folks returning from India, with a transplant, which was often in bad shape. They go there to buy what they couldn't get ethically, then hurry back to get treated from the cheap care received in a country with cheap morals.And anyway, if one of Jumanji's Wanderers [sounds like a whisky brand] truly prefers dying than getting a certain sort of care, well, that's one less damn idiot on the planet. Not Darwin Award worthy, but still works...I don't mind doing all I can, EXCEPT for what they refuse, and failing.To quote my dear country granny : "People have the right to be stupid, we're in a Republic. Sorry morons have the right to eat just like the intelligent people."Do you know WHY exactly they refuse transfusions? Because of that Bible-transmitted superstition that consuming blood is impure, and they consider transfusions as equivalent to eating the blood. I wonder how many of them follow ALL of Leviticus to the letter. Like the permitted haircuts and beards, not wearing mixed fibers, or not consuming pork, rabbit and seafood...However, you may eat locusts and grasshoppers, they're perfectly kosher. Really, you can trust me on that. Bon appétit!BTW, Paul, that's a good thing to get off the top of your head. Don't let the vermin settle in. ;-)
Post a Comment