by skeeter1 168 Replies latest watchtower medical
Well the fact is Spike and it is very evidentially based on bible fact and understanding,
that the GB of JWS went beyond what is written in the bible and therefore promoted the illicit suicide
of some of its members by virtue of their established doctrine.
How more accurate can you get unless your totally untruthful to yourself but will be dishonestly corrupt for the organization
for the sake of spiritual warfare.
For this doctrine as it is, the Corporation of the JWS wins and will not budge for they know well of the consequences that would occur
legal and otherwise. ......$$$
Here is another interesting spin: http://www2.canada.com/montrealgazette/features/viewpoints/story.html?id=de7b5dca-6b93-46d9-8363-2b7af69576b3
 | Wednesday » July 8 » 2009 | |
Age alone is not the measure of maturity
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted adolescents a say in serious medical decisions that affect them - provided they demonstrate the necessary level of maturity. The judgment, in a decision announced last week, is part of a trend in Canada: The state is agreeing to allow adolescents greater personal responsibility, under carefully-circumscribed conditions.The 2003 Youth Criminal Justice Act signalled Parliament's desire to treat teens as individuals in criminal matters, assessing ability to assume responsibility on a case-by-case basis. This new ruling extends the principle to medical treatment. Until this Supreme Court decision, the level of maturity required for medical treatment decisions had been determined by age alone - an admittedly arbitrary measure made worse because it varied from province to province. Quebec's age of consent was 14; Saskatchewan's was 18. The Supreme Court decision means that age alone can no longer be used as a cutoff. Instead, judges must now weigh age and maturity "on a sliding scale," setting them against the seriousness of the threat to the youngster's health and well-being. Making these assessments will not be simple, but the principle is sound. In 2006, a 14-year-old Manitoba girl, a Jehovah's Witness, argued that she was competent to refuse a court-ordered blood transfusion that doctors had determined was necessary to treat bleeding associated with Crohn's disease. (Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible bans the "ingestion" of blood.) Three psychiatrists found she was not mentally ill, nor in thrall to her parents. Yet because 16 was the age of consent to medical treatment in Manitoba, the government was able to order her to accept transfusions. The Supreme Court held that when an adolescent is found capable of making a "truly mature and independent decision," the young person can be allowed to make even a decision with potentially very serious consequences. At the same time, the court said the state has an undeniable duty of care toward youngsters and must recognize that there are limits to their developing maturity. The ruling properly takes a nuanced approach to the rights and responsibilities of young Canadians. It is wrong, on the basis of age alone, to deny a young person any say in what happens to him or her. Maturity can develop early - or late - in adolescence. This Supreme Court decision is a new step along the way to conferring on mature teenagers the right to exercise informed choice. It is a step in the right direction. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2009 | ||
 | ||
 |
 |
| Copyright © 2009 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc. . All rights reserved. |
Terms such as "doubt" and "suicide" are not part of my "active faith". Rather, my faith is based on the principles of "demonstrated trust" and "my God is the God of those who work to let Him be found true, despite the pressure of others to dissuade me".
Maturity is a very interesting issue, and the Supreme Court of Canada appears to be maturing, themselves, in this. The article here pasted by truthsetsonefree (Post 1608) makes an interesting statement:— "the court said the state has an undeniable duty of care toward youngsters and must recognize that there are limits to their developing maturity.". I suggest that if the duty is as real as is suggested here, then that state must apply to itself the instruction from the Bible which directs all parents, such as the words found at Deuteronomy 6:4-9. If the state does not come to trust the superiority of Jehovah God's instruction over all others, then it forfeits the "right" to be obeyed, having stepped out of line with respect to its own required application of the headship principle. The state has demonstrated some understanding of some of Jehovah's regulations. So, let them continue to advance in their own maturity, so that others may be properly inspired by the state's guidance under Jehovah.
Spike
you are a very stupid man. You are making fluffy comments on a premise proven wrong- the Bible does not address blood transfusion.
Oh good grief!
The Supreme Court's opinion does not differ materially from that expressed in the Hughes case. This child was older, but when it came down to it, it was found that she was unable to make a mature decision because she truly did not understand the likely consequence of refusing blood.
Spike, you are continuing to treat the JW teaching on blood as a matter of obedience to explicit Divine Law. But you have been unable to show even an implict Biblical condemnation of transfusion without resorting to logical fallacy.
Your latest post is simply a circular prior assumption of the correctness of the teaching you have been unable to defend.
Isaac and I differ as to whether the Bible comments on blood transfusions. On that, we're clear.
TD and I differ as to what we each accept as sound reason and logic. On that, we're clear.
agrreed spike
I agree that Biblical interpretation can be argued endlessly, but I would point out that critical thinking is an established discipline.
I don't think that what does and does not constitute a valid logical argument is open to debate.
An argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows inarguably from the premise(s) In other words, as long as the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily be true as well.
Here is a valid argument:
Tom is over 50 years old. Therefore Tom is over 20 years old.
Since it's mathematically impossible to be over 50 and not be over 20 as well, the premise guarantees the truthfulness of the conclusion. If the premise is true, the conclusion is just as true.
Here is an invalid argument:
Tom is over 20 years old. Therefore Tom is over 50 years old.
Since it is certainly possible to be over 20 and still be under 50, the premise does not guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion.
This is not something that is open to debate. No amount of arguing will change the fact that the second example is a flawed argument.
The more premises there are, the more complicated this can become, but the litmus test of an argument's validity does not change.
An easy and fun test is available here: http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm
At first blush, this might not seem particularly relevant to the JW teaching on blood, but here is the connection:
The JW teaching on blood originated with a very simple argument:
A. The Bible forbids the eating of blood
B. Transfusion is a modern way to eat blood
QED: The Bible forbids transfusion.
This was the Society's position from the mid 1940's clear up into the late 1960's. It was very clearly set out in the 1944, 1945, 1950 and 1961 Watchtowers. There was actually nothing wrong with the logic here. --It was a valid deductive argument. If the premises were true, then the conclusion would have been true as well.
The problem is that premise 'B' is completely wrong and the conclusion is therefore wrong. The Society abandoned that argument many years ago.
Every single argument that has been offered since then has contained one or more very obvious logical fallacies:
A list of common logical fallacies with explanations is available here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Here are three common examples:
Equivocation: (Attempting to establish equivalency by generalizing)
A. The Bible forbids eating blood.
B. Eating blood is 'taking in' blood.
C. Transfusion is 'taking in' blood.
--The Bible forbids transfusion
Argument from Silence (Basing an argument on what we don't know instead of what we do know)
A. The only God-authorized uses of blood were ceremonial.
B. God never gave permission to use blood for any other purpose
--Therefore the Bible forbids transfusion
Generalization (Assuming what is true of the sample is true of the whole)
A. Sacrifices made under the Law prefigured the blood of Christ
B. The blood of Christ is sacred
--Therefore all blood is sacred and cannot be used.
Worldly wisdom may rule out what TD defines as Equivocation, Argument from Silence, and Generalization. I suggest that Divine/ WT wisdom does not. Galatians 5:19-21 is an example that comes to my mind.
