Has the "custody" brochure already been discussed, re: the "Big News"?

by AlmostAtheist 10 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  AlmostAtheist

  For the first time today, I saw the brochure the Society publishes to prepare JW parents in dealing with custody issues. They have sample questions that a lawyer might ask and sample answers you might give that take the bite out of the question.

  One such question is, "Do you teach that it is better to die than to take a blood transfusion?"

  The suggested answer is interesting, since the Big News recently highlighted how the Watchtower has dishonestly suggested that blood transfusions carry more risks than benefits. They suggest saying, "I do not want myself or my children to die. I want the best medical treatment I can get for my child. Blood transfusions carry many death-dealing side effects such as AIDS. We prefer to accept safer medical alternatives."

  Usually the Watchtower is more hedgy about stuff, not coming right out and saying much. Stay vague, keep things in the realm of figuring it out for yourself. The kind of stuff where a brother feels the need to say, "What the Society is telling us, is..." -- that sort of thing.

  But here they know they're in a court, where vagueness carries more trouble that being direct. So they directly refer to "safer medical alternatives". What would an attorney's next most logical question be? The brochure says:

  "How do you know there are alternatives?"

  And the answer: "Our church regularly reproduces medical information that points out alternatives."

  So the Watchtower misrepresents the safety of blood alternatives and the dangers of blood transfusions, then warns their members to say this in court to try to keep their kids in "the fold". I like it. Very nice.

  Dave
• 

  stevenyc

  Dave,

  I agree with you. My mantra on this whole issue is: mystics is in the realm of the philosophers, real life we'll leave to the courts.

  steve
• 

  Lady Lee

  Custody brochure next to be examined? by alamb
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  two weeks late and twenty dollars short... story of my life...

  Thanks LadyLee! :-)

  Dave
• 

  belbab

  They suggest saying, "I do not want myself or my children to die. I want the best medical treatment I can get for my child. Blood transfusions carry many death-dealing side effects such as AIDS. We prefer to accept safer medical alternatives."

  AA.

  You have pointed out a very powerful argument here.

  The Watchtower proclaims they do not take blood because of their religious belief, that it is forbiddon in the Bible. They use freedom of religion as authorizatin of their belief.

  In the answer they suggest, given above, they definitely state that it is because of secular medical reasons they do not take blood. They say: I want the best medical treatment I can get for my child. If a child has been in an accident and has lost blood to such an extent that no alternative to blood will save her life, they are lying saying they want the best medical treatment. The best medical treatment is a transfusion of blood or essential derivitives that will save her life.

  Blood transfusions carry many death-dealing side effects such as AIDS. We prefer to accept safer medical alternatives."

  The above quote, is secular medical advice, not religious belief, and what it says is a very serious Tort of Misrepresentation of Medical facts.

  You have nailed in a nutshell, with your above discovery from the custody manual, the whole gist of the Church and State essay Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions' and the Tort of Misrepresentation, by Kerry Louderback-Wood.

  Your discovery is a keeper, let us make it known.

  belbab
• 

  belbab

  AA,

  You are not two weeks late, you are right on target and right on the money.

  Two weeks ago, it was mentionned briefly that the Custody booklet should be next on the list.

  But I don't believe it was pointed out how deadly the Custody Booklet damages the WT position on blood transfusion and gives specific concise evidence that their actions is Tort Of Misrepresentation, that leads to death of children and adults.

  OK, where on line can we find a copy of the Custody Booklet?

  Let's keep this rolling.

  belbab
• 

  belbab

  I don't get it.

  This thread has been view 131 times.

  Does no one get the significance of this thread?

  If it has little significance, can't you, the reader, at least post why?

  Are you circling the pastry& sweets table and turning up noses at the meat and potatoes?

  belbab
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  I think there was a link to the custody brochure on the previous thread, at the bottom of the first page.

  It DOES seem damning.

  1) We misrepresent the facts

  2) We support a religious issue on the basis of the above misrepresentation

  3) We encourage people to say under oath that they personally support our religious position on the basis of our misrepresentation

  There are days I wish I was a lawyer.

  Dave
• 

  Will Power

  I was just looking thru the mounds of stuff I've collected over the years and came across a letter dated dec 10 1999 from the WT in Britian which says in part....
  
  We are in the process of contacting all solicitors/firms who are members of a nationwide panel of solicitors who accept instructions from individual members of Jehovah's Witnesses who may be involved in litigation over the residence or contact of children.
  According to our records you have been the recipient of the "Litigation Pack" that was released in 1992. We have recently revised this document and t is with pleasure that we enclose your personal copy of "Jehovah's Witnesses Child Care Pack. This document has been prepared to provide assistant to lawyers who are handling cases affecting children of JWs.............
  
  on pg 6 of the Pack....
  
  Although we acknowledge that we are not medical experts, we understand that there are inherent dangers in blood transfusion. In particular the risk of transmission oif desease, imnumosuppression and haemolytic reaction. Because of this risk, treatment without recourse to blood transfusion is now routinely available in many NHS hospitals. (see app. 6)
  
  Many Witness parents have no objection to autologous blood transfusions where the child's own blood is recycled during to the operation.
  
  Medicine is not an exact science and doctors differ significant......as stated in ReO (A Minor) (Medical Treatment).
  "In many of these cases the outcome may seem inevitable but that is never truly so, particularly as medical science now develops with such remarkable speed."
  a few other quotes
  
  then Summary
  The blood transfusion aargument is therefore without real foundation as it is wrongly assuming that:
  The witness parent is simply going to stand and watch the child die.
  The doctors are simply going to stand there and watch the child die.
  A blood transfusion guarantees life.
  
  sorry I can't upload the files, so I just typed some
• 

  Will Power

  hahaha
  just read in the conclusion....
  
  You will no doubt have GLEANED that Jehovah's Witness parents have......