bubble_blunder was posting on the same sugbject earlier, and mentioning something her mother had pointed out, as a nurse. I paraphrase or possibly extrapolate -
In the case of a Jehovah's Witness patient the patient's religious objection to receiving blood outweighs the clinician's religious belief that all life is sacrosant; the precedent is set that the patient's belief is the final decider. Therefore if the patient's belief is that family planning is right and proper this should, by legal precedent, overide the beliefs of the practitioner.
If the beliefs of the practitioner are more important in cases of contraception, then it follows that the laws on treatment for other things, such as the JW refusal to accept blood products, should be legally over-riden by the clinician's religious belief that it is wrong to allow any death that you can prevent.
no subject
In the case of a Jehovah's Witness patient the patient's religious objection to receiving blood outweighs the clinician's religious belief that all life is sacrosant; the precedent is set that the patient's belief is the final decider. Therefore if the patient's belief is that family planning is right and proper this should, by legal precedent, overide the beliefs of the practitioner.
If the beliefs of the practitioner are more important in cases of contraception, then it follows that the laws on treatment for other things, such as the JW refusal to accept blood products, should be legally over-riden by the clinician's religious belief that it is wrong to allow any death that you can prevent.
If you see what I mean.