tresdecu,
Rosam’s article was in response to an earlier article authored by Anita Catlin, then Professor of Nursing at Napa Valley College.
Catlin’s article presented the dilemma faced by clinicians of a 6-year-old in sickle cell crisis whose parents refused to allow transfusion. Eventually the child’s life was saved by doctors overriding the parents’ wishes and transfusing the child against their will. It was an ugly scene. The father had to be taken away in handcuffs and was detained in the local jail to keep him from interfering. The mother was allowed to remain on the floor, but not in the company of her child. As you can imagine, the child was terribly frightened through the whole ordeal.
Of Rosam’s reply, my blog shows the particular statement by him that is highlighted for the short article. Here is the whole paragraph:
“We, too, like the author, would never recommend that the child be allowed to die. What we would ask is that the doctor do everything he can to save the life of the child without using a blood transfusion. The situation with Jehovah's Witnesses is not one of parents refusing all medical treatment, but simply differing with the doctor as to what kind of treatment is preferred. We often see both child and adult cases described in such a way as to indicate that when blood transfusion was administered the life was saved. One has to ask what the eventual outcome of these "saved" lives will be? What will be the quality of life in the years ahead? Could this child suffer from the potential adverse effects of blood transfusion, such as iron overload, hepatitis or other viral transmission? Thus, we cannot agree with the author that giving blood "meets every goal of medicine." Is blood the only thing that saves lives? In the majority of our cases there are new medical modalities that "save lives," such as erythropoietin, desmopressin, hemodilution, or the use of a blood salvage device. If one is going honestly to say that withholding blood constitutes doing harm, then one would have also to honestly admit that giving blood can also do harm. If there is a risk both ways, who should decide for the child which risk is to be taken?”—(Rosam, E., Reply to Anita Catlin, HEC Forum, 1996, Vol. 8 No. 4, p. 208)
Unfortunately for Rosam, when transfusion of some Watchtower forbidden blood product is the only viable means of preventing death and is available, then to apply some other treatment is no more than palliative. Such an alternative might make a patient feel better, and it might placate the Witness relatives, but it will not prevent premature mortality. In such an instance to insist on the palliative rather than the prevention is to “recommend that the child be allowed to die”.
Sometimes the only viable means of preventing the death of a child is to administer some product rendered from blood that is forbidden under Watchtower’s blood taboo.
Marvin Shilmer
marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
