Chalk up another premature death due to superstitious causes. Margaret Rose Cornelius, 72 year-old grandmother of seven and mother-in-law of Motörhead guitarist Phil Campbell, died after refusing a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah’s Witness.
Her daughter, Gaynor Campbell, claims that elders from the church visited her in hospital to ensure she would stick to her religion’s strict ban on blood transfusions. Gaynor believes she could have talked her into accepting a transfusion had the Jehovah’s Witlesses not got to her first.
I think I should have been able to make the decision for her. The doctors wouldn’t listen to me. I was saying, ‘I’ll take the blame, just give her blood.’ Mum was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness and it was in her brain. It’s like she had been brainwashed.
Paul Gillies, a spokesman for the Bible-fixated cult, denied that the elders would have tried to stop Margaret from having a transfusion if she had changed her mind. They did, however, “provide support” to help church members stick to their decisions if they faced pressure from doctors or family.
So that’s okay then.
We refuse blood because the Bible says: abstain from blood. We believe the creator of life knows much more about human bodies than ourselves and when He gives us instructions they are of benefit.
Isn’t it odd that a group so averse to blood doesn’t seem to mind having it on their hands?
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
August 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
If this happened more often, they’d be doing the decent Darwinian thing and removing themselves from the gene pool.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“Human dignity is enhanced by permitting the individual to determine for himself what beliefs are worth dying for. Through the ages, a multitude of noble causes, religious and secular, have been regarded as worthy of self-sacrifice. Certainly, most governments and societies, our own included, do not consider the sanctity of life to be the supreme value.â€
Rutgers Law Review, Vol. XXVI, 1973, p. 244