LOL - I'm just surprised I found the thread - it was boyish exuberance wot made me post it....
Awesome blog re blood issue
by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Mrs. Fiorini
Louderback-Wood writes, "Since writing my paper, I have seen situations where the Watchtower Society recommends medical treatment that is not routine and even outright deadly. It goes beyond tomatoes and Coke that the African woman demanded at childbirth. In the Canadian case of Bethany Hughes, the Watchtower Society demanded the doctors administer arsenic to a leukemia child (arsenic not a treatment for this type of leukemia). I’ve also heard multiple stories that the Watchtower Society suggests Factor VII be given to non-hemophiliac patients, causing strokes and heart attacks."
If this is accurate, can't they be charged with practicing medicine without a license?
-
Rabbit
I should point out that the HLC is there to make sure JWs take blood. It seems few people realise this.
Hmmm...My JW Mom died -- after the HLC showed up to do their 'loving duty'...(to make Jah smile)
She was literally scared to death about taking blood -- by the GB's HLC.
Human sacrifice makes their tribal god Jehovah -- Smile.
-
passwordprotected
Sorry to hear about that, Rabbit. Was that before the WTS allowed JWs to take blood fractions? It seems before that point the HLC were hardcore. Now their role is to 'advise' JWs that they can actually take blood via fractions, thereby preventing unnecessary deaths like that of your mom.
-
steve2
And while this discussion strays from the original topic, one of the main points is conveniently lost; namely, the questionable basis of the authored paper that speculated about potential legal consequences of the Watchtower's wilful misuse of the medical literature. None of what was written in that paper would ever stand a chance in a court of law - and to suggest that it could is risible. Two years following the dissemination of this paper, the fact is that the watchtower's misuse of medical opinion has not been successfully tested in court.
This surely demonstrates that, in many developed countries at least, the law doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the reasons people give for refusing medical interventions. In law, the right to refuse is given greater weight than the right to litigate against a religious group's evident misuse of the clinical literautre to support its life-endangering doctrines.
-
bobld
My take on Blood "ask an elder if it is ok to get a blood transfusion?" His reply,not for a J.W. you would
be breaking God's commandment to "abstain from blood".Next question,is it ok to take blood fractions?
His reply,it's up to your conscience.You ask,where do I get blood fractions? His reply,from blood.You ask
the elder for a yes or no the the question does the bible teach " to abstain from blood" If yes, than it is
not up to your conscience to take blood fractions,since he said they come from blood.If no than he is breaking
God's commandment .The way I see it,they(wbts/gb) are spin doctors when it come to health/blood.
Just to add...whether blood/blood fractions will save a life is besides the point. It's the wishy washy
mentality of the wbts/gb.
Bob
-
wobble
The point surely is that individual JW's are taking life and death decisions for themselves, and worse, their children based on FAULTY THEOLOGY as well as twisted medical information.
Would it be so wrong to insist that all patients, of whatever belief system, are informed of these issues if at all possible, and if it cannot be proved that they have, then their view is not taken as informed consent? and more freedom to the medical profession be given in law to practice their informed medical techniques.
This would still leave people the freedom to be very silly,but at least they would be doing this on the basis of rejecting the information available,not coming to the decision in a state of ignorance.
I know that if I had read the excellent articles on the net about the scriptural view of the medical use of blood, I would have rejected the WT view years ago.
Love
Wobble
-
rebel8
Slim:
Because the whole purpose of her argument was to encourage/enable such action.
I don't think so, but if you're able to provide proof of that, I will stand corrected. I corresponded with Kerry at the time and there was no hint (from her to me) that a lawsuit would be forthcoming.
Mrs. Fiorni:
§6521. Definition of practice of medicine. The practice of the profession of medicine is defined as diagnosing, treating, operating or prescribing for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition. http://www.op.nysed.gov/article131.htm
Giving medical advice opens a person up to liability but may not be considered practicing medicine without a license (depending upon circumstances).
-
rebel8
Haemophiliacs in the 1970s who were not informed that the official stance on factor VIII had changed (as far as I understand what went on from what Ray Franz wrote about it) surely have a strong moral case and possibly a legal case against the Society.
I find myself still confused about your views on this, Slim, when I compare it to your views on non-Hemophiliac jws. :?
Do you mean to say that because wts hid their own rules from their members, which had dire consequences for about 1% of their members, that is a violation of US law?
And the wts hiding and lying about medical facts to their members, which had dire consequences for many (and potentially could have affected any one of them), that is not a violation of US law?
It sounds like you believe US law can regulate how a church chooses to share doctrine with its members, but cannot regulate a church's lies?
All my comments are with respect.
-
TD
If the JW organization had had the wisdom to teach the transfusion medicine taboo as a purely religious position, that would be one thing. But they have not. They have presented it not only as a superior religious course, but a superior medical choice as well.
If the JW organization had had the wisdom to be scrupulously honest in their presentation of medical opinion, that would be one thing. But they have not. They have misrepresented the true position of Aryeh Shander and others sympathetic to their position in official church videos. They have publicly claimed through church spokesmen like J.R. Brown and others that situations where blood component therapy is the only viable option do not exist and they have misquoted and misreprented medical textbooks and journals.
If the JW organization had had the wisdom not to institute individual one-on-one relationships with church members faced with medical decisions, that would be one thing. But they have not. Via the HLC they have given individualized medical advice and even made rulings specific to individual situations.
If the JW organization had had the wisdom to advise church members working in medical fields to obey the law and respect patient confidentiality, that would be one thing. But they have not. They have publicly urged church members working in medical fields to break the law and breach medical confidentiality.
I frankly don't see how the the JW position in it's totality is comparable to the Catholic church's position on condoms. It is only the broad protection afforded to religious organizations that protects the JW leadership from prosecution. Certainly none of us as individuals could get away with this sort of chicanery