Jehovah's Witnesses Child Custody Assistance
Tehachapi News, CA - 1 hour ago
It is estimated that over 130 Jehovah’s Witness children die each year due to the religion’s application of religious doctrine to health care. ...
WT BLOOD GUILT EXPOSED TO THE WORLD
by DannyHaszard 185 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
DannyHaszard
-
DannyHaszard
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/131789/1.ashx companion thread
Gene Smalley and the Watchtower's Blood Transfusion Doctrine
-
DannyHaszard
They're baaccccck Sextuplet parents take blood transfusion case to court
Globe and Mail, Canada - 53 minutes ago
The parents, who have never spoken to the media, are Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion forbids blood transfusions under any circumstance . -
-
DannyHaszard
Sunday » April 15 » 2007 Parents of sextuplets head back to court to fight B.C. government
Sunday, April 15, 2007Camille Bains Canadian Press VANCOUVER (CP) - The parents of Canada's first sextuplets are heading to court on Monday to fight the B.C. government's seizure of their babies for potentially life-saving blood transfusions.
Their lawyer, Shane Brady, said his clients want the court to rule that their constitutional rights were violated.
"The family's very upset with what happened," Brady said. They were never given an opportunity to defend themselves."
The parents, who have never spoken to the media, are Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion forbids blood transfusions under any circumstance.
While they are in court for the two-day hearing, former Jehovah's Witnesses will be outside protesting the stance of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada, which speaks for members of the sect and sets policies for them to follow.
The parents' names, and those of their four surviving children-two boys and two girls-are under a publication ban.
Two of the six premature children died soon after their birth on Jan. 7-almost three months before their due date.
All the babies were believed to have weighed about 1.8 pounds each.
On Feb. 21, the parents were to appear in B.C. Supreme Court to appeal the Liberal government's decision to allow doctors to give transfusions to three of their kids.
But the court battle was postponed after the Ministry of Children and Families asked for an adjournment of proceedings because of the massive amount of information that had been forwarded in the case.
Brady said the parents want to pursue the appeal even though the government gave control of their children's medical future back to them after they started court proceedings.
"If the government took control of your child and they made certain assumptions and statements and maybe even authorized treatment that you objected to I would think for many parents that wouldn't be the end of the story," he said.
"They want some answers and they want the court to say that what happened was unfair and shouldn't have happened."
He said the government authorized the transfusions despite the parents' belief that they were medically unnecessary.
"It wasn't just simply a matter of 'Sorry, we took your kids and it was a mistake and here you go, they're back again.' Unfortunately, things happened."
If the court agrees that the parents' rights were violated it would make a declaration that it shouldn't have happened, giving the family a moral remedy, said Brady, a Jehovah's Witness who often represents members of the sect.
He wouldn't elaborate on what condition the four surviving babies are in, other than to say "they're healthy."
Jehovah's Witnesses say accepting blood transfusions is against God's wishes and would prevent them from having everlasting life.
They cite two verses in the biblical book of Acts, which state that God's followers must "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
In a court affidavit, the children's father said he and his wife "could not bear to be at the hospital while they were violating our little girl."
"We took our immense sadness and grief and tried to console each other in private."
Chris Christensen, a former Jehovah's Witness from Lac du Bonnet, Man., said he will participate in a rally outside B.C. Supreme Court during the two-day hearing on Monday and Tuesday to protest the Georgetown, Ont.-based Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's stance on blood transfusions.
Christensen said the sextuplets' parents should have had the right to decide for themselves if they wanted their babies to have blood transfusions.
Up until the 1950s, that was the society's position, he said, adding what was once a matter of choice then became a sin.
"Their original position was the right one," he said from his home, about an hour northeast of Winnipeg.
Christensen said other former Jehovah's Witnesses, including those from Vancouver, Washingtoni State and Alberta, will join him in the protest to send a strong message about the society to "all Canadians."
Calgary resident Lawrence Hughes, also a former Jehovah's Witness, said people who die after refusing blood transfusions are treated as martyrs by the society.
Hughes has sued the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada over what he considers the wrongful death of his 16-year-old daughter Bethany in 2002.
The lawsuit, and another one against Brady for advising his daughter to take arsenic as a viable treatment, will be heard in the Alberta Court of Appeal on June 28.
Bethany Hughes needed blood transfusions as part of her treatment for leukemia, but Hughes said the society convinced his daughter that there were alternative procedures, although doctors have said they don't work.
"I think what the B.C. government did was the right thing, giving these babies a chance to live," he said.
"What these parents are doing is infringing the rights of the babies by forcing their religious beliefs on them."
© The Canadian Press 2007 -
Gayle
I wish it could be required to have the 9 GBs be at the whole court case. They should have to sit through their own "*****medicine".
-
skeeter1
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALSO BAAAAACK! I WISH I COULD BE IN VANCOUVER. Good luck everyone.
-
Gayle
One commenter in that latest articles stated a JW had said he just hoped they would just take the children and save them, at least the parents would be absolved of sin. It's ironic,, insane, that they have to look for the "wild beast" - the government- which the JW organization condemns, to save their own children.
-
mcsemike
I'm sure this point has been made before, but I cannot fathom why the WT can object to the courts taking the children and giving them blood. Yes, we have freedom of religion in this country. But we don't have the right to "kill" or cause the death of another person, especially in the religious arena. Aren't the terrorist slimeballs claiming that they want the whole world to be Islam and they won't quit until it is? I say nuke them all. But that's another story.
Here we have adults denying what usually IS a life-saving procedure for their children. The State has made it plain in law and practice that children are not "property" and have rights from the second they are born. In fact, in many states, if a man batters a woman, even if she refuses to press charges the state will arrest the husband. Certain things just won't be tolerated by society.
Now, to all JW's: How do you know that the child you let die from lack of blood won't grow up and NOT WANT TO BE A JW WHEN THEY ARE AN ADULT???? If they die as little children, we'll never know, will we? Can you PROVE that they will have preferred to die "serving Jehovah"? I don't think so. So you have NO right to deprive them of life-saving procedures any more than you are allowed to deny them food or water. You would be arrested if you did. Why is medical any different?? And don't tell me that there are always alternatives to blood. Sometimes ONLY BLOOD will save a person. And don't quote the few doctors at Bethel. You are all idiots.
To press this point further, I don't even like it when the PARENTS refuse blood and die. Now the remaining parent might have to be on welfare or unemployment because the breadwinner "killed himself". I don't approve of my taxes being used this way. You JW's will argue that if I feel that way, then we should outlaw skydiving and other dangerous sports because a father (or mother) has no right to risk their lives so casually when they have children. I won't get into that issue, it's too complex.
But the morality is clear with children. Until they are adults and actively and firmly decide to be baptized into this mad cult, all children should be given the best care that the professionals know how to give. And those people are the doctors and social services, not a child-raping, lying cult that only exists for power, glory and to make money. (Per the book "1984").
I rest my case. Sane people= One point WT= Negative one point (for being so damn stupid and arrogant). Don't like the score?? Tough!!!!
-
choosing life
Good article.
Why would they create a situation where blood would very likely be needed by these fragile creatures and then deny them what they need to survive.
I must admit, I was always secretly happy that the authorities would take the decision out of my hands, if it should ever come to that. But that's just not good enough anymore. It is much too hypocritical. As a parent, you cannot abdicate your responsibility for your children's well-being to anyone else.
I am glad their author was willing to go toe to toe with them when they tried to hind behind freedom of religion. They sure don't allow anyone else to have it.
