Judge Forces Hysterectomy on God-Loving Woman

First of all, this single article begs a little more research. Other than some "professionals" medical "opinion" declaring that LK is delusional because, and this is only in the words of these professionals:

the woman was having religious delusions that God had cured her and that those delusions prevented her from making fully informed decisions about her medical care.

~from WSJ

In all I have been seeking, I have yet to find where LK has come right out and declared herself "cured". The truth of the matter seems to be that she wants to face this on her terms. Last autumn, I personally watched my mother die from inoperable esophageal cancer. It was not that it had spread too far. It was just located in a part of esophagus that conflicted with other nearby organs. She was actually given a good chance of beating it. She did fight it with chemo and the treatment turned her cancer into a mass of unstoppable bleeding. I also know that she is not the first person to not be treated successfully.

Just because doctors, who rely on mathematics, which is basically science broken down into the most fundamental components, are betting on Nebraska to beat South Dakota State in football does not mean that SDSU will lose. I hate to break it down into such a simple metaphor but after what I just went through, the reality of cancer is that it does not always lose. Besides, after what my family and I went through and that my mom did like Nebraska football, she would have appreciated the comparison.

That said, lets look at another source:

L.K. then testified on her own behalf that she did understand that she had been diagnosed with cancer and that she did understand the risks of dying if she did not have the hysterectomy procedure. L.K. repeatedly stated that she merely wanted to be able to make the decision for herself and that she may at a later date change her mind and decide to go ahead with the recommended treatment. She testified that she wants to have a child and believes God wants her to as well, that she hoped to be able to do so soon, and that her husband was agreeable to being a father. When questioned by the district court about what treatments she would choose for herself, she first listed two homeopathic treatments and also said that she could change her mind about taking her doctors’ recommendations at a later date....

~from The Volokh Conspiracy

In addition, here is a link for the petition (PDF) for LK's supervisory control. For whatever reason, the link will not paste with the link button so you will have to copy and paste it:

searchcourts.mt.gov...[6CBAA807-BF1B-4C66-A180-C8FC190F7D8C]

The frightening here is the precedent being set. Even on a site with forums dedicated to conspiracy, I am a little surprised that the topic eugenics has not even been addressed. Just because nobody on ATS has directly stated "we don't need to be havin' no religious nut babies" does not mean that some people reading this thread are not thinking it.On a lesser scale, this reminds me also of the case of the couple denied the right to adopt on the grounds that personal beliefs conflict with the indoctrinating will of the state.

If this woman wants to pursue the dream of having kids of her own, she should be able to... regardless of how futile her efforts may be. When a judge is able to trump individual freedom and dignity based on a professional opinion on religious belief... we are all in deep kimchi (regardless of our races, beliefs, gender, etc...)

And on a closing quote note:

"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling." ~ H.L. Mencken

She is delusional, and this is all part of a broader issue. Should we allow mentally ill people to refuse much needed care? If the answer is yes, then the judge did the right thing. I am not sure what to do myself, tough.

Also, notice that she wants to have children. According to judge, she is incompetent even to decide about her own body, but she will be allowed to have children? Twisted logic of procreation anarchists for everyone to see..

I fully believe religious people ARE delusional. However, it is no reason to force a hysterectomy on a woman. This is disgusting. Assuming her beleif isn't hurting anyone, why is it anyone elses business?

I'm a little disturbed by this story

ITS TRUE!!!! and me too.. I am totally delusional. The Neurotics can build the castles in the sky, and I will choose to live in them! (ever heard that saying LOL "neurotics build castles in the sky?")

but Im not religious, i dont fall into ONE religion, but all of them, and i dont follow man mad forms of worship in order to work my way into heaven, but rather wait for God to bring heaven to us. All i can do is be as i am, because i am what i am, and God IS. I could be stuck in this loop for all eternity, or maybe i am moving forward,
God only knows!!
is that delusional? absolutely! and I am proud of it!

Dawkins did not name his book "The God Delusion" just for the heck of it. Religion IS a delusion, by medical standards. A special exception had to be added in delusional disorder definition for cases when it is widespread among more people.

Originally posted by Maslo
Dawkins did not name his book "The God Delusion" just for the heck of it. Religion IS a delusion, by medical standards. A special exception had to be added in delusional disorder definition for cases when it is widespread among more people.

One that clearly has a selection advantage in the population.

So, if people with a delusion have a selection advantage are you really sure it's a disorder? A disorder would be something that is a condition which impacts less than 10% of the population.

How do you reconcile this? Being not religious makes you less capable and able to propagate yourself in the population. Which makes the delusion an advantage. A very profound advantage if the population of the planet is any evidence.

Reconcile this paradox.

Apparently religion is bad for you, but good for your germ line.

reply to post by Aeons


Its actually easy, but its really off topic for the thread.

Religion, particularly the 3 middle eastern ones that have achieved world dominance, are a how to guide to playing the game of natural selection on a group level.

They tell you how to stay physically healthy in the middle east, how to avoid STDs and serious food borne illnesses that could weaken your tribe. They tell you to respect your elders who have the cultural knowledge that gives groups advantages, they tell you to breed quickly and prolifically, and they also tell you how to commit genocide against other tribes.

Thats why they provide such a selective advantage. Because they tell you how to play the game of natural selection (and the rules work best in the region and for their level of medical care) and win. And not surprisingly, those who play it win.

You dont need to have an invisible man to make it work, but thats how the concept was sold to the masses. Someone figured it out, or God actually told them, "this is how I want you to play it" and they did. Science also knows the rules of the game, they have laid them out, but they will not play the game. They try to be "nice."

Thats also why no one actually practices what Jesus taught. Because he sort of moved us away from the brutal survival of the fittest stuff into a more "we are all brothers and sisters and one in God" thing that no one wants any part of.

I dont believe this!
"delusional religious beliefs"
so all Jehovah witnesses are delusional religious beliefs.
as they refuse to take blood and other medical stuff.
I dont like the god freaks.
but they have a right to be stupid!
what next ?
ban all religions.

reply to post by Aeons

One that clearly has a selection advantage in the population. So, if people with a delusion have a selection advantage are you really sure its a disorder? A disorder would be something that is a condition which impacts less than 10% of the population. How do you reconcile this? Being not religious makes you less capable and able to propagate yourself in the population. Which makes the delusion an advantage. A very profound advantage if the population of the planet is any evidence. Reconcile this paradox. Apparently religion is bad for you, but good for your germ line.

Yes, it could be psychiatric disorder, even if it is selected for. Disorder is something that negatively affects the individual, in case of delusional disorders it is the ability to think rationaly.

Prevalence in a population also does not make a disorder not a disorder. If majority of people contracted an epidemic infection, it would no longer be a disease?

The definition is not concerned about evolutionary aspects of disorders or their impact on fertility rate, but their impact on health and quality of life. If it was, then the most healthiest people on Earth under this definition would be poor Africans undergoing population explosion.

When religion is bad for you, but good for your germline, it can be classified as disorder, just one that happens to be selected for. Negative trait being selected for is nothing unusual, the same is true for the poor, or those with low intelligence.

Just to add, atheism rates are generally rising in developed countries, so altough not genetic, the religious meme is actually being "selected" against in these countries.

reply to post by buddha

what next ?
ban all religions.

yuh probably, and once that is done, we will need to ban any form of expanding your mind in anyway!
oh wait.. they are already doing that.

to bad people were not so frightened of what they cannot see or measure and so convince themselves it cannot exist. Maybe that is the real delusion, that we separate everything, making a mess and hacking away at it, and believe we understand it better now that its all chopped up into little bits.

reply to post by JewelFlip

It's her choice. Has nothing to do with whether she's delusional or not.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by JewelFlip

 

It's her choice. Has nothing to do with whether she's delusional or not.

Yes, and if someone seriously thinks they can fly and attempts to jump off a tower, we should let them because its their choice.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander


Thats also why no one actually practices what Jesus taught. Because he sort of moved us away from the brutal survival of the fittest stuff into a more "we are all brothers and sisters and one in God" thing that no one wants any part of.

edit on 8-3-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)

Speak for yourself mate!
Vicky
(Emphasis mine)

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by Aeons

 

My guess is that it must be a reproductive cancer. Hysterectomy is not considered a means of birth control. Nowdays, even if there are problems with the uterus efforts are made to preserve it as it is increasingly recognized that it is more than just a place to hold a baby, but plays a role in hormone regulation.

So unless she is just unfortunate enough to be at the hands of some pretty backwards and barbaric doctors, which is possible, it is likely she has cancer in the general vicinity of her uterus, and they are trying to get it all out.

I've not read the article but assuming it is cervical cancer or cancer arising through endometriosis (such an unfortunate and horrible disease), hysterectomy is fairly standard procedure if the tumours cannot be eliminated by radiology and chaemotherapy alone right?

Does radiotherapy render a woman infertile in the same sense it does a man? i.e. your body and gonads continue producing hormones except for the fact that the gametes are basically 'dead' per se i.e. incapable of producing human life?

reply to post by rusethorcain

"It just makes sense. sometimes religious dogma takes things too far and when it jeopardizes the persons physical body someone has to step in and do the right thing for the sake of the individual so they ARE ABLE TO live a long life praying to the God of their choice."

Oh hell no!!!!

It's my body i am the only one on the face of this planet that has any say in what i do with it. If i had a illness that could and or would kill me and i did not want to take treatment then i wouldn't and no one would be able to make me.
In fact trying to make me do anything to MY body i did not want would only endanger there life.

reply to post by Aeons


So choosing to kill yourself with cigarettes,beer,fast food 90% of what we eat/drink in this day and age is a bad thing right?

So that means being self-harming so someone needs to step in right? Maybe the Government should tell us what to eat/drink and when/how long to work out? BTW a new report says

"Research revealed those who devote more than four hours watching television, surfing the web, or playing computer games are more than twice as likely to have major cardiac problems."

So maybe we need a "kill switch" to "save" people from the internet? After all we need someone to step in and save us from our self's right?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

"It just makes sense. sometimes religious dogma takes things too far and when it jeopardizes the persons physical body someone has to step in and do the right thing for the sake of the individual so they ARE ABLE TO live a long life praying to the God of their choice."

Oh hell no!!!!

It's my body i am the only one on the face of this planet that has any say in what i do with it. If i had a illness that could and or would kill me and i did not want to take treatment then i wouldn't and no one would be able to make me.
In fact trying to make me do anything to MY body i did not want would only endanger there life.

As in gangrene infected limbs or they find something tumorous inside you while operating for another condition....(you are anesthetized so how are they going to ask your permission)?

Any doctor will cut it off or take it out while operating, no matter what you say. They take an oath. You sign papers allowing the doctor to "save your life" using his or her best judgment.
You can go home or maybe check yourself out of the hospital [UNLESS you are legally deemed incompetent and someone takes over "the entity legally known as you"]
but patients cannot direct doctors, not ETHICALLY anyway.

That doctor would be known as a quack.
Michael Jackson's doctor is being charged with the felony of allowing Michael Jackson (superstar or not) to dictate his course of treatment against his own and all best medical knowledge at the time.

Your body and being allowed what you want done to it goes as far as what YOU do to it.
You cannot command a doctor to do or not do anything. Allowing people to be removed from life support is a major medical issue requiring extenuating legal documents and contracts signed by the patient while they are 'deemed mentally competent" by all signatures, and sometimes a physician as well.

Doctors ultimately decide for the patient AS DOCTORS, and they are protected by law in that capacity the same way attorneys have unique & extra privileges concerning their clients, rights-wise.

I don't have a problem with this.
Only psychotics think everything is a conspiracy to sterilize all God fearing women.
Luckily, there are effective medicines and prescribed treatments for psychosis and these types of paranoid delusions too.