I am glad to see this, here in North Carolina the State has adopted the same policy toward religious based rejection of life saving treatment. I don't know about other states but its a good law and the WTS or parents can't sue and have any success if a JW kid is given blood. All countries like Canada need to take up the same position and stop the death of kids by ignorant parents.
Kids Trump Religious Beliefs-Canada Wins Against The WTB&TS!
by jamiebowers 40 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
cognizant dissident
Even so, would you rather be raped, or killed?
Well if you are a good JW girl/woman, of course you would prefer to be killed rather than raped. Apparently the violation of the sexual organs of the body is worse than the violation of the total body that ends in death. It speaks to JWs' and the patriarchal fathers' of the old testament views of women and obsession with their sexual purity.
Since men "owned" women and used them mainly for sexual purposes, then once her vagina was violated through rape, she was now useless goods whom no one would want and better off discarded/dead.
Since true Christians are likened a pure virgin bride to God, and one of the sacrifices necessary to maintain "purity" involve remaining free from the stain of blood, a Christian who has been contaminated by foreign blood is as about as useless to God as a raped virgin contaminated with foreign sperm was to the patriarchs of yesteryear (not to mention the ones currently residing in the WTBTS!).
-
Nathan Natas
I knew that JWs have likened forced transfusion to rape before - in the recent case of "Ms. K" in Ireland the analogy was used, but I was intrigued by NoMoreGuilt's mention that the analogy goes back many years. Indeed it does!
16 One young man had studied the Bible off and on for years but was not baptized. Despite his being just seven weeks from the age when he would gain the “right to refuse medical treatment for himself,” a hospital treating him for cancer sought court backing to transfuse him against his wishes and those of his parents. The conscientious judge quizzed him about his beliefs on blood and asked basic questions, such as the names of the first five books of the Bible. The young man could not name them nor give convincing testimony that he understood why he refused blood. Sadly, the judge authorized transfusions, commenting: “(H)is refusal to consent to blood transfusions is not based upon a mature understanding of his own religious beliefs.”
17 Matters may turn out differently for a minor well instructed in God’s ways and actively walking in His truth. A younger Christian had the same rare type of cancer. The girl and her parents understood and accepted modified chemotherapy from a specialist at a noted hospital. Still, the case was taken to court. The judge wrote: “D.P. testified she would resist having a blood transfusion in any way that she could. She considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape. She asked the Court to respect her choice and permit her to continue at [the hospital] without Court ordered blood transfusions.” The Christian instruction she had received came to her aid at this difficult time.
- The WATCHTOWER, June 15, 1991, page 16, "Walk as Instructed by Jehovah"
Strong resistance where violation of God’s laws may be involved shows that one has taken the apostolic stand: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” Especially is this true since the Bible links abstinence from blood with such things as abstinence from fornication. Hence, since Christians would resist rape—a defiling sexual assault—so they would resist court-ordered blood transfusions—also a form of assault on the body.—Acts 5:29; 15:20, 29.
- The WATCHTOWER, June 15, 1980, page 23, "Insight on The News: Whose Decision Is It?"
At the hearing, which was hurriedly convened at the hospital that morning, one of the physicians testified that Crystal needed two units of blood immediately and might need at least an additional ten units. He further stated that if Crystal tried to resist the transfusions, he would tie her to the bed with wrist and leg restraints to accomplish the procedure. Crystal told the doctors that she would “scream and holler” if they attempted to transfuse her and that as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, she viewed any forcible administration of blood to be as repulsive as rape.
- AWAKE!, May 22, 1994, page 9, "Youths Who Have “Power Beyond What Is Normal”"
23 When judges are called upon to issue court orders hastily, often they have not considered or been reminded of the many dangers of blood, including AIDS, hepatitis, and a host of other hazards. You can point these out to the judge, and you can also make known to him that you, as a Christian parent, would view the use of another person’s blood in an effort to sustain life as a serious violation of God’s law and that forcing blood upon your child would be viewed as tantamount to rape. You and your child (if old enough to have his own convictions) can explain your abhorrence for such bodily invasion and can appeal to the judge not to grant an order but to permit you to pursue alternative medical management for your child.
- Kingdom Ministry, September 1992, page 6, "Safeguarding Your Children From Misuse of Blood"
6 You must understand that in asking these questions, some are usually looking for a way around your refusal to accept blood. Do not inadvertently give it to them! So how would we avoid that misunderstanding? You could reply:
· “If blood is forced on me in any way, it would be the same to me as being raped. I would suffer the emotional and spiritual consequences of that unwanted attack on me for the rest of my life. I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent. I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape.”
37 The strong, graphic impression must be made that a forced transfusion is to us a repugnant violation of our bodies. It is no casual matter. So hold your ground. Make it clear you want alternative nonblood medical management.
- Kingdom Ministry, November 1990, page 6, "Are You Ready to Face a Faith-Challenging Medical Situation?"
Many people agree that a court is no place for personal medical issues. How would you feel if you chose antibiotic therapy but someone went to court to force a tonsillectomy on you? A doctor may want to provide what he thinks is the best care, but he has no duty to seek legal justification to trample on your basic rights. And since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex—rape.—Acts 15:28, 29.
- How Can Blood Save Your Life? (brochure, 1990), page 20.
Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT "of one mind." They are simply parroting the "company line."
-
cognizant dissident
The fact is that patients are put in restraints all the time to have medical procedures carried out against their will and no one considers it rape including JW's.
For instance baby boys are put in restraints to have circumcisions done. How many JW parents have had that done to their child?
Children who are too young to be reasoned with are put in restraints when they need necessary medical procedures and they are throwing tantrums and refusing to let medical people touch them. How many JW's have restrained or held down their own children to receive vaccinations or other non-blood medical procedures. I personally know quite a few.
Delirious people are routinely restrained so they don't harm themselves and to have medical procedures carried out against their will
Senile patients are often restrained to have medical procedures carried out. It is upsetting to staff and families but considered necessary to prevent greater harm
While medical personnel do not like to use restraints and only usually do as a last resort to prevent harm to the patient, it is very common and nobody considers it tantamount to rape or a violation of the patients body.
The benefit to the patient outweighs the harm and sometimes we have to choose the lesser of two evils.
So JW's present a false dilemma with their rape argument. They have demonstrated that they have no problem having their children restrained for other medical procedures against their will. The true issue here is this: who get's to decide when it is medically necessary to force a procedure on a child? The medical staff who have full understanding of the medical crisis and have no other agenda than to save your child's life or the parent's who are often uneducated and misinformed and have a strong religious agenda that encourages martyrdom?
I'll take my chances with the doctors. I would give them power of attorney to make my medical decisions over my own family if I was incapacitated.
-
M.J.
Good points brought up re: the stigma/images evoked simply by use of the term "rape" in connection w/ blood transfusions. Manipulative and disgusting.
-
bluesapphire
The judge needs to read some of these comments.
-
LovesDubs
Perhaps because this child was "forced" to take blood...maybe she didnt "scream" about it enough at the time, and the WTS is saying if she doesnt sue and make some effort to look like she is sorry about it, they will disfellowship her.
And they would too the heartless bastards.
-
besty
At risk of hijacking the topic but thought I would post an alternative view to complete trust in the medical profession in all eventualities.
"A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.
Sel-empowerment through knowledge and getting a 2nd and maybe 3rd opinion are the keys to making the right decisions, IMHO.
-
belbab
According to Google Alerts there is an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail today on this court case. However they want five plus dollars for 525 words. I don't want to encourage them, so I don't want to pay.
If any one has access to this paper, maybe they can look it up.
The reporter's name is Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter.
belbab
-
The Oracle
This is a great Victory.
Not just for the nation of Canada over the stumble bums of the WTS, this is a VICTORY for humanity.
This ridiculous policy on blood transfusions must stop, and must stop now.
Momentum is building but the fight is far from over.
Anyone in a position of influence within the WT society who is reading this now - PLEASE do whatever you can in your power to get the message out to ciricuit, district, branch overseers and GB members... the fraction loophole was good, but its not enough....people are still dying...why hang on to this "whole blood" abstinance policy? They have already abdonded the principle to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, by allowing blood fractions that can only be derived from donated blood.
Don't they realize how ridiculous it is to hang on to this dangerous and harmful teaching?
How many more must die?
The Oracle