Maybe a few well placed lawsuits like this will prompt the necessary 'new light.'
Russia: JW convicted over refusing blood transfusion for her 5 year old son
by behemot 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
garyneal
The ruling may set a precedent for other cases against Jehovah’s Witnesses’ members on similar charges.
We can only hope so.
-
tec
Maybe the fine is a warning: 'We're going to charge and convict you as individuals, not the head of your religion, so start acting accordingly."
Doctrine change would probably come a lot faster if the head guys were on the line. Its unfortunate because if people are willing to lose the life of their child over the GB ruling on blood, then they're more than likely willing to pay a fine, or be charged with manslaughter too. It'll be persecution then.
Tammy
-
garyneal
It may be 'persecution' but it is a step in the right direction. If ENOUGH witnesses get in tangles with the law over this then it should attract more attention that the GB does not want. Change will start coming more swifter if it gets to that level.
-
PSacramento
This is not a case of religious freedom, this is a case where a child was prevented from getting a life saving medical procedure and a ssuch, should be treated as a criminal offence, like everyother case like this.
If adults want to do things ofr themselves like the DNR's and "No blood" cards, that is their perogative but a child is a minor and as such what is in THE CHILD'S best interest is paramount.
It would have been far better to intervene and SAVE the child AND then put her in Jail for trying to prevent him being saved.
-
mamalove
I am with you PS, Why did they not take the child and save his life?!
-
PSacramento
Here in Canada the courts have and will intervene on behalf of a minor, if so asked by the hospital.
-
TD
Their antics in Bulgaria only hurt them in Eastern Europe and made the courts much more willing to get involved.
-
Mary
As much as we condemn the mother, the real cultprits are the Governing Body members, inparticular, Gene Smalley, who should be charged with Assisted Suicide, every single time a Witness dies because of the ban on blood transfusions. We all know full well that no Witness would have ever refused a blood transfusion had those two asswipes, Franz and Knorr, come up with this 'new light' in the late 1950s, making it a disfellowshipping offense in 1961.
If the GB were in fact, facing criminal charges whenever a Witness died due to the blood doctrine, I guaratee they'd be getting "new light" to make taking transfusions a "conscience matter" pretty damn quick.
Since Assisted Suicide is described as:
"........the common term for controversial actions by which an individual helps another person voluntarily bring about their own death.....Assistance" may mean providing one with the means (drugs or equipment) to end their own lives, but may extend to other actions...", I'm amazed that no criminal charges have been brought against the WTS.
-
PSacramento
It's the whole religious freedom thing, once it becomes about religion people get all concerned about the rights of others and forget the the crucial part is protecting those that can't protect themselves.
Stop making it about religion and make it about saving the child and make it so that any interference in saving a life is viewed as crimimnal and liable for prosecution and then you will see some action.