HLC Question

by sammielee24 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sammielee24

  I assume that the HLC is always on top of the changes or lack of changes in the blood issue...would that be correct? I assume this because of the position they take of giving advice and being the go between for the patient and the medical staff. Having said that, it appears from what various people say, that despite the fractions being changed and the issue no longer apparently being a disfellowshipping offence, people are still not understanding that they can take blood fractions, what it means and that they will no longer be punished.

  Question - Why is that? Would the HLC not be obligated to inform the patient and their family of their rights according to these changes, so that the patient could make a sound and reasonable decision on a procedure that might save their life or their child/spouse/parent/siblings life?

  Question - What is the purpose of the HLC if not to assist the patient in understanding?

  Question - If I know that you need insulin in order to stay alive, but I disagree with giving you the needle - you subsequently go into a diabetic coma and die - I would be guilty of manslaughter or murder I would think.

  If the HLC does not inform and discuss with the patient all of their options and fully discuss the changes to the patient, in a way the patient can comprehend, and the patient because of the lack of information or information being withheld from them dies as a direct result of not understanding or having that information, then is the HLC not in some way responsible for the death of that person? Why have a go between or a liason if one of the reasons for that position is to help a person understand all of their choices? sammieswife.
• 

  looking_glass

  Question - Why is that? Would the HLC not be obligated to inform the patient and their family of their rights according to these changes, so that the patient could make a sound and reasonable decision on a procedure that might save their life or their child/spouse/parent/siblings life?

  Question - What is the purpose of the HLC if not to assist the patient in understanding?

  Question - If I know that you need insulin in order to stay alive, but I disagree with giving you the needle - you subsequently go into a diabetic coma and die - I would be guilty of manslaughter or murder I would think.

  1. Is it like the law, when it changes it is the duty of the citizen to know the law because "ignorance of the law is not an excuse and/or defense". In otherwords, it is the duty of Joe/Jane Publisher to know the change and act upon it? The HLC is just made up of a group of guys who have agreed to help out, they are not there to inform someone of their medical options.

  2. I thought (but could be wrong) that the HLC was to help treaters to understand the blood issue. The HLC is not set up to help the JW because they should already know if it is a "blood issue" they should plan on having a good will in place.

  3. Not the same. HLC is not making a decision for you. You have in written form (blood card) as well as any medical directives that you have signed stating your intent. The HLC is just there to assist in the process, not decide the process. There is a difference. However, if the treater went to the HLC and asked them if something could be done for the patient and they made the decision for them and it back fired, I suppose one could have ground for some type of civil action (I am not familiar w/ criminal law, so I have no clue as to proof as to "manslaughter or murder"). But as someone who deals w/ treaters and hospitals on a regular basis, no doctor is going to go to a HLC to ask what should be done for the patient, they would have already made the patient spell it out and if they patient was incapacitated they would go to the family members and the family members would be made to sign more forms then they have ever seen in their life. If you question this, call any hospital and ask to speak with Risk Management, they can tell you all their fail safe plans in these types of cases.
• 

  5go

  Seeing as the HLC is going bye bye soon in my opinion do to a lack of volunteers and the fact that no one uses them. I don't think it matters they don't have any power to do anything legally. The fact is that it is made up of elders* that can emotionaly blackmail them into following this f**ked up doctrine put in place by some numb nuts in new york is whats the problem. Thats where the courts will have to come in, or the press the bad numbers they are seeing is in part due to the press angle.

  *Under WBTS control not the HLC which is under WBTS control to but is there to make sure the wishes of the patient are carried out and to help that end. Not displine them for not following the doctrine. Which is where the elder part comes in the elder doesn't have to be on the HLC to disispline them for not obeying when he finds out.
• 

  sammielee24

  Good point 5go...twisted set up. HLC = Elder=WTS=HLC=Elder which, given the individualistic jugements passed along, any elder could for whatever reason, do a lot of damage to the patient regardless. The HLC as far as I understand is voluntary, but there are some real a...hole Elders that are on the HLC's because its another feather in their cap. Company men who want you to toe the company line.

  2. I thought (but could be wrong) that the HLC was to help treaters to understand the blood issue. The HLC is not set up to help the JW because they should already know if it is a "blood issue" they should plan on having a good will in place.

  But we all know it's a draw. What if the committee member happens to believe that disfellowshipping is the outcome for those taking blood regardless of the concsience matter so he uses his own guidelines to determine the bottom line. Helping the 'treaters' to understand the blood issue would be based on his own perception and if he is one that has chosen to ignore the conscience determination, then he's not about to tell the doctors and nurses that the person can have blood if they want - else there would never be the ongoing issues there are. This is admitting that taking blood is not a disfellowshipping matter for one and would reduce the fear in the patient substantially. Then there are the fractions issue - if taking fractions is also a conscience matter and included in new light doctrine as being okay for use - and any HLC member gave this information to the doctors, they would probably determine medically that it is fine for a blood transfusion.

  I have to wonder about a few things then. In a summary and reasonable way, what does the medical community make of the fraction guidelines if they were to determine whether treatment was ethical based on those fractions? Would they consider the fractions to be equal to the whole? What information does the HLC give to the doctors and nurses? If their job is to explain the approved guidelines, does this include the fact that it is up to the patient, does it include new light on fractions and does it include a reasonable understanding by the patient as to the treatments available by the Society or the HLC who acts on behalf of the society? Does the HLC try to keep family members away from the patient or is it their job to discuss and explain the issue with the family as they would with the 'treater'.

  sammieswife.
• 

  crazyblondeb

  The HLC perps that I have been forced to deal with have all been about what THEY wanted, and what THEY saw fit. They all vary, according to different personalities. Like, some KH's find things acceptable, that others don't.

  shell