"This talk about JW parents sacrificing children to save their own skin is offensive nonsense. It either misunderstands or willfully misrepresents the rational process by which JWs arrive at their conscientious decision to refuse blood for themselves or for their children." > The predicted apologist garbage from SBF. "Rational process"? What "rational" process allows a human being to wilfully place their child on a sacrificial alter for a publishing corporation, in violation of the most basic, biological imperative to preserve and protect one's offspring? BRAINWASHING does not lead to RATIONAL thought SBF, in case you were unaware of this fact. It is completely immaterial whether they are sacrificing their children to "save their own skin" or doing so in order to appease their brooklyn dictators, either mode of thinking is intrinsically IRRATIONAL and in violation of every natural parental instinct. The only "offensive nonsense" arising on this thread, not unexpectedly, is coming from you, in your thinly veiled apologist attempts to whitewash the murder of innocent children.
Watchtower getting very Defensive over blood issue publicity....
by kid-A 142 Replies latest social current
-
-
Gill
This could also be the Society's little Jonestown!!
Normally, Jws die singly from lack of blood transfusion. Heaven forbid anything happen to these chlildren, and hopefully if the parents don't say 'yes' the state will intervene and allow blood if needed, but to see six people's lives at risk because of the No Blood Transfusion Policy might get people thinking and wondering just how many JWs really do die for the Watchtower's screwed up policy.
-
skeeter1
I agree that we need a media blitz. I wrote the following without my cup of jo. Please edit and send to a newspaper in Canada. 6 lives hang in the balance.
-
skeeter1
Dear (Newspaper):
I write in the hopes of helping to save 6 little lives. It is clear that these sextuplets will likely need a blood transfusion, but are born to Jehovah's Witness parents.
The Jehovah's Witness church purports to not accept blood or blood products. They base this belief that mankind should abstain from blood, and that blood, once removed from the body, should be covered in dust (i.e. not reused). Yet, you might be surprised to learn that the Church's "no-blood" policy allows its followers to accept "blood fractions" (all derived from donated blood), that if added together would equal a whole unit of blood from which they were derived (see www.ajwrb.org for a chart on the allowed blood fractions). Most followers, medical community, and media are unaware of this sly change.
Not all Jehovah's Witnesses and many ex-followers do not follow the Church's official "no blood" position. They see it as nonsense. The Church purports to "abstain from blood", and that blood should be covered in dust and not reused. Yet, all of the allowed fractions were derived from multiple, if not thousands, of units of donated blood, and has the nerve to call this treatment part of its "bloodless" program. A rose by another name smells sweeter.
Last year, the Associated Press and BBC reported on a peer-reviewed legal article, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation" which appeared in the Journal of Church & State. I invite you to read it, available through www.ajwrb.org. The article looks at the Jehovah's Witness Church's misquoting of medical writers, and the various "flip flops" in the Church's official policy. I noticed that the Vancouver Sun reported that church officials suggested the use of erythropoietin injections to help build up the baby's blood. In fact, the Church tells its followers that this drug works "very quickly". The legal article explains that this shot takes 3 weeks to work. Is that "very quickly" in your mind? The legal article also looks at the various "flip flops" in the Church's official policy. In the 1950's, fractions were not allowed whatsoever. This changed through the years. However, in the October 15, 1992 Watchtower, the Church officially banned the fraction "hemoglobin". Hemoglobin is, basically, the insides of the red blood cell and is responsible for transporting oxygen to the cells. The Church unofficially began allowing its followers to take hemoglobin in 2000, and last year officially announced this change to its followers.
These 6 little ones should be allowed to have needed blood transfusions, and not enslaved to the Jehovah's Witness church's ever-changing, nonsensical view that it "abstains" from blood. Let these sextuplets have a fighting chance at life. We can not allow this Church to make martyrs of precious little babies.
ne
-
Beep,Beep
After reading this thread I'm left with the feeling that a majority here are HOPING something goes wrong for these children so that the blood issue can be pushed. Talk about ghoulish.
-
james_woods
I for one continue to be intrigued over the "anonymity of the parents" thing - especially the many ridiculous inconsistencies involved here:
a) - the parents "insist on remaining anonymous" but they request the medical facility announce they are witnesses. Why? This just blows their cover in the worst way possible.
b) - Ruge claims to "not know who the parents are". How? For crying out loud! In a close knit community like the JWs, I assure you that everybody in that congregation - and by now probably the circuit knows full well who had a baby. Also, what is he out there front and center for with a public statement if he did not even know who they were? And again, if they truly wanted to be anonymous, why make any statement at all?
c) - Ruge claims that "no blood is good medicine". "Good Witnesses reject all forms of blood". "We want to help the family financially". These are three bald faced lies, caught on public record. Again, why stir up the press and then lie to them?
These are deep waters. It sort of looks like the elders got caught out on this one, as if nobody knew until after the births that this was going to be sextuplets. Could Ruge be trying to send the family a signal, as in "we will pay you off if you don't take blood"? Most of the public statements hardly stand a reality check, when you really think about them.
-
Gill
Beep, beep, - though understanding what you're trying to say, I don't agree that people 'here' are wanting things to go wrong for these infants.
Things WILL go wrong for these infants. They are of 25 week maturity, three of them are boys (hence the odds are already stacked against them), and they are sextuplets. Things have already gone VERY wrong.
Children of this maturity often need blood, and they will receive blood transfusions if needed, that is a certainty, because the State will not allow them not to receive anything that they might need.
Blood will not in the end be an issue because whatever they need they will receive.
Blood is an issue for a lot of other JWs though, especially adults. Hence, because JWs are still dying EVERY day over this issue, the sad case of these little babies is important because it puts the blood ban in the public eye.
I am certain that everyone here wishes these children and their parents only the best.
Afterall, isn't that what we all were once, vulnerable to the bizarre policies of the WTBTS?
-
skeeter1
Barf Alert.... apply directly to forehead.
Witnesses play down transfusions for premature sextupletsRandy Shore, with files from Pamela Fayerman, CanWest News Service; Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, January 11, 2007
VANCOUVER - The Jehovah's Witnesses national organization issued a statement Wednesday in an attempt to quell widespread media speculation about the medical treatment of sextuplets born prematurely to a woman at B.C. Women's Hospital.
''Discussions about treatment are private matters between the parents and their treating medical team,'' it reads.
The brief text states that church members are allowed to receive any modern medical intervention, except blood transfusions. Several alternative treatments have been employed successfully in the treatment of premature infants, it says, including minimizing blood sampling, and using the hormone erythropoietin and iron to stimulate production of red blood cells.
Neonatologists say blood transfusions are routine for infants of 25-week gestational age. Transfusions are used to treat anemia and jaundice and may also be needed because premature babies have very low blood volume and hospital staff need to draw blood regularly to monitor the infants' health.
The Jehovah's Witnesses statement was released after front-page stories in national and Vancouver newspapers Wednesday indicating the issue of the babies' treatment may end up in court because of the blood-transfusion ban.
Church spokesman Mark Ruge said the statement was issued as a response to the stories, and that it's premature to speculate about the need for medical and legal intervention.
''It is important for the media and others to avoid making stereotypical assumptions regarding Jehovah's Witnesses,'' the statement said.
It also quotes from a 2004 ruling by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that it says directs governments and the courts to avoid the assumption that ''the doctor has always recommended the only acceptable treatment'' and that patients are ''always wrong'' to refuse transfusions.
Matt Gordon, spokesman for the Ministry of Children and Family Development, would not say whether the ministry has had any contact with staff or administrators at B.C. Women's Hospital about the sextuplets. But he said that if health care workers believe a child's health is at risk because a parent has refused to consent to treatment recommended by a doctor, they have a legal duty tell a child protection worker.
At that point, he said, the ministry would take steps to ensure a child's safety, which might include seeking a court order to allow treatment or, in cases where quick action is needed to preserve life or prevent permanent harm, taking immediate temporary custody of the child.
The B.C. government has previously used the courts to attempt to force minors to undergo potentially life-saving procedures.
A Jehovah's Witness teenager was ordered by the B.C. Supreme Court to undergo blood transfusions as part of her cancer treatment in 2005. The court said that because the girl, then 14, was a minor, she could not refuse transfusions if doctors deemed them medically necessary.
She fled to Ontario and eventually received bloodless treatment in New York after the B.C. government negotiated a deal with her family for her transfer to Schneider Children's Hospital, which specializes in ''blood avoidance'' treatment.
Vancouver Sun
-
skeeter1
"Private Matter" my rats ass!
Erythropoietin takes WEEKS to work and is DANGEROUS.
-
zack
My heart goes out to this family.
As a JW I was taught to beleive that the last command one would ever violate would be that of blood. Other sins,
like sexual immorality, etc.. were born of weakness and one could chalk it up to yeilding to temptation. A BJ from
your girlfriend was weakness, wanting to LIVE and taking blood was a sure ticket to Gehenna. ALthough I accepted it
I was never easy with it. Now I know why. It's a lie.
Zack----