Scandal of December 2005 km (page 4)

jwfacts

This certainly sounds like it could tie in very nicely with Andersons thread on lies and scandal.

Haelcer

The article appears in the polish edition Our Kingdom Ministry December 2005, page 6, however became modified a bit.

Czy twoje dziecko potrafi podjac dojrzala decyzje?
1 Przed jaka wazna kwestia moze stanac kazdy chrzescijanin? Czy wyrazi zgode na transfuzje krwi. Jak podano w artykule "Postepujmy zgodnie z pouczeniami Jehowy", zamieszczonym w Straznicy z 15 czerwca 1991 roku, dzieci Swiadków Jehowy czasem musza osobiscie wykazac, ze równie zdecydowanie jak ich rodzice pragna przestrzegac prawa Bozego co do krwi. Czy twoje dziecko umialoby sie znalezc w podobnej sytuacji?

2 Prawny punkt widzenia. Pacjenta niepelnoletniego, który potrafi podejmowac samodzielne decyzje i rozumie istote oraz skutki proponowanego leczenia, mozna nazwac "dojrzalym maloletnim". Znany autorytet w dziedzinie polskiego prawa napisal w swej ksiazce: "O mocy wiazacej zgody lub jej braku nie powinny decydowac momenty scisle formalne, jak np. ukonczenie 18 lat, lecz to, czy dana osoba jest wstanie w pelni swiadomie podjac decyzje". Totez w jednym z numerów Polskiego Przegladu Chirurgicznego czytamy: "Nie powinno wiec budzic watpliwosci, ze brak zgody na leczenie krwia zarówno ze strony przedstawiciela ustawowego [najczesciej rodziców] jak i co wazniejsze samego dojrzalego do swiadomej decyzji maloletniego, winien sklonic lekarza do jej uszanowania i podjecia próby ratowania go winny sposób". Aby ocenic, czy dziecko jest wystarczajaco dojrzale, by podejmowac samodzielne decyzje, lekarze lub urzednicy moga starac sie ustalic w rozmowie, co ono osobiscie mysli o transfuzji. Mloda osoba w takiej sytuacji musi zdawac sobie sprawe ze swojego stanu zdrowia, znac nastepstwa proponowanych metod leczenia oraz wyraznie i stanowczo przedstawiac swoje poglady w sprawie Bozego nakazu powstrzymywania sie od krwi.

3 Co powiedzialyby twoje dzieci? Czy potrafilyby przedstawic swoje stanowisko w tej sprawie? Czy z calego serca wierza, ze to Bóg nakazuje nam ‘powstrzymywac sie od krwi’? (Dzieje 15:29; 21:25). Czy umieja biblijnie uzasadnic swoje poglady? Czy zdolalyby pod nieobecnosc rodziców odwaznie bronic swej decyzji w kwestii krwi, nawet gdyby lekarze uznali, ze zagrozone jest ich zycie? Kazdego z nas dosiega „czas i nieprzewidziane zdarzenie”, jak zatem mozemy przygotowac dzieci na niespodziewane próby wiary? (Kazn. 9:11; Efez. 6:4).

4 Rodzice, co mozecie zrobic? Spoczywa na was odpowiedzialnosc za przekazanie dzieciom Bozego pogladu na krew (2 Tym. 3:14,15). Przejrzyscie wyjasniono te sprawe na przyklad w ksiazce Prowadzenie rozmów, strony 139 do 142. Uwaznie przeanalizujcie te mysli w gronie rodziny. przecwiczcie z dziecmi kilka rozmów na podstawie materialu pod naglówkiem „Gdy ktos mówi” ze stron 142 do 144, by nabraly wprawy w wyjasnianiu i uzasadnianiu swoich wierzen (1 Piotra 3:15). Pomocne moga sie przy tym okazac równiez materialy z broszury Jak krew moze ocalic twoje zycie? oraz ze Straznicy z 15 czerwca 2004, strony 14 do 24. Cenne informacje o skutecznosci i oplacalnosci bezkrwawej medycyny mozna znalezc w poswieconym tej tematyce filmie wideo wydanym przez Swiadków Jehowy, zatytulowanym Zadnej krwi - medycyna podejmuje wyzwanie. Czy udalo sie wam go obejrzec i omówic w gronie rodziny?
5 Pomóz swym dzieciom „rozróznic, co jest wola Boza, co jest dobre, mile i doskonale” w kwestii krwi. To umozliwi im podejmowanie dojrzalych decyzji, które beda sie cieszyc blogoslawienstwem Jehowy (Rzym. 12:2, Biblia warszawska).
______

1. Jakie stanowisko zajmuja nieletni Swiadkowie Jehowy w sprawie transfuzji krwi? Podaj przyklad.
2. (a) Jakie stanowisko wobec decyzji nieletnich w sprawie transfuzji krwi zajmuja niektóre autorytety w dziedzinie prawa? ( B ) Czego moga sie z tego nauczyc chrzescijanscy rodzice oraz ich nieletnie dzieci?
3. Jakie pytania koniecznie powinni rozwazyc rodzice i dlaczego?
4,5. (a) Jaka odpowiedzialnosc spoczywa na rodzicach i jak moga jej sprostac? (b) Z jakich pomocy rodzice moga przy tym skorzystac?

IT Support

Hi Haelcer ,

Thanks for posting this. Would you mind translating par. 2 into English?

From all the other editions, it appears the other paragraphs are all identical.

Haelcer

I don't know that in suitable way I translated this text. My knowledge of English language is... :-))

Legal viewpoint. Under age patient who be able to undertake independent decisions and reason essence as well as results proposed treatment it was it been possible was to name "mature minor". Well-known authority in field Polish right he wrote in his book: "Closely formal moments about binding agreements or lack power should not decide, as on example completion 18 years, but this or given person is able fully consciously to undertake decision". Therefore in one of numbers of "Polski Przeglad Chirurgiczny" we read: "It should not so wake the doubt, with lack of agreement on treatment the blood both from the legal representative's side [the most often the parents] how and more important what mature himself to sensible decision juvenile, owing induce the doctor to her respect and undertaking of test of saving him in different way". Thus, in assessing whether a child is mature enough to make his own decision, doctors or officials may interview the patient to hear him express his personal objection to taking blood. The youth would need to understand reasonably the gravity of his medical condition and the consequences of his options for treatment and clearly and firmly express his own religious belief about God's law on abstain from blood.

IT Support

Thanks Haelcer.

reaper

But as children growing up in the Cult, we were taught that we must obey Jehovah or else. When it is put over that way, it makes it very difficult to break 'Gods' law in this issue. Just over 3 years ago, my wife was rushed into Hospital with acute apendicitis and even though we had left the organisation she still refused to have blood. She had a complication and it could have been serious. The strange thing about all of this, was that I had just gone to a Church service for the very first time the Sunday before she was rushed in.

The entire Church was praying for Christine even though they had not even met her. When I picked her up to take her home, firstly though I took her to the Christian book shop to meet a lady I had met at the Church and who runs the book shop. This Woman cuddled my wife, gave her a cup of tea and presented her with a FREE Bible.

Christine had been praying ever since we left the UNLOVING Cult, that we she meet some REAL Christian people who would cuddle her and love her for who she is, and not for what she does. God answered the prayer by leading us to loving Christians who are FREE in Christ.

Soon after we both gave our lives to Jesus Christ and now look at the scriptures in a totally different way. We NO LONGER judge people over the blood issue and realise that these things are CONCIENCE matters, and not legalistic requirements of God.

God holds LIFE as sacred, and that is what the WT fail to understand over this issue. The use of blood in ancient times ALWAYS involved the taking of a life, not saving it. God himself took a rib from Adam and created Eve, so he used the BONE MARROW which has a major involvement in blood manufacture to create another LIVING CREATURE.

The only hesitation about using blood transfusions should be the transmission of virus, bacteria or parasites of any description, and if it is screened that should not be a problem.

Gill

'How to Prepare your Child to Die for the WTBTS.' Would be a better title for this particular passage from the KM

It's the 1992 version that I remember reading. It reminds me of how a lawyer might 'coach' a vulnerable client so that they say the 'right' things to any judge put in a position of deciding if a child is mature enough to decide to die.

It made me anxious when I first read it in 1992, that this is all it was, coaching a child to say the right things.

Now it just makes me sick.

Surely, if the child has been 'coached' then they are NOT mature enough to decide for themselves, simply trained by their parents and the WTBTS to say what will 'work' legally on a judge.

Legalised murder. Don't the legal authorities need to know that this is how JW children are trained to answer and brainwashed into submission to the WTBTS laws....(which they claim are not their rules) but shows it is.

diamondblue1974

Surely, if the child has been 'coached' then they are NOT mature enough to decide for themselves, simply trained by their parents and the WTBTS to say what will 'work' legally on a judge.

This is precisely the way the courts are often prepared to look at the situation; as clarified in my post above.

DB74

Gill

Hi DB!

I wasn't dismissing what you said earlier, it's interesting to read what the courts think, however, are they aware that children are trained what to say, in the same way that someone is trained to do anything, without really thinking about it.

I remember saying to my children (shame on me forever) that they shouldn't say they didn't want blood because they might get infections, because the doctors or courts would go against that, but that they should say, they refused blood because Jehovah God said so. I taught them what to say should they ever be in that situation. They would probably have said the right words but they would not really have been mature enough to die for a belief that I had, in effect forced on them.

Skeptik

By the way its sooo funny ...an elder told us last week that he missed our kids in KH. He heard of our friends daughter, who is 14 y/o now. Her parents let het make her own decision to visit KH or not. What did the elder tell us:

"Of course it can't be possible that children of 13 or 14 years old decide for themselves wether they visit the meetings or not..."

So let me summarise :

8 years old, a child can make decision to be baptized into an organisation for life.

12 years old, a child can make a decision about health items, and say NO to blood. (or yes...but they don't want to hear that one, of course)

14 years old and a child is NOT supposed to have a personal opinion about meetings in the KH. ???!!! Where's the sense in that?

Scandal of December 2005 km

Share this