Heads up, the Local Needs part this week is a special talk on blood transfusions. (page 5)

Slidin Fast

I smell a "don't let your child get a blood transfusion" WINK WINK from the legal department, allowing wiggle room for them to actually get the transfusion under protest, so no one dies and bad legal consequences go bye bye. (Sorry I can't highlight)

Our speaker said that parents must put in writing "I do not authorize the use of blood for my child”. That is like saying “I don’t forbid blood, its up to you”. “What you decide is nothing to do with me”. It is a total cop-out, they know that no doctor or judge is going to refuse blood to a young child. I agree, its Wink Wink, well said Kurtbethel.

My other point- How the hell can they use the word PROTECT when talking about blood and JW children

orbison11

About 25 yrs ago, my then 11 yr old daughter had bone tumours (similar to terry fox and at the very same time)

took 9 doctors to diagnoise, very rare,,,,we were lucky, doc from mayo clinic happened to be in vancouver emergency ward when we took her in, again

day after diagnosis, she was in vancouver children's hospital, surgery with top docs

they were looking at amputating her leg, we did the blood talk,

and amazingly, just that year, the wt came out with how transplants were a conscience matter, as she might have needed a bone transplant ,, etc

found out later, doc said there is no way in xxxx he would have let us deny her blood

(i was secretly happy over it)

sabastious

If a doctor says that he cannot guarantee he will not give blood, but will do his very best to avoid the use of blood, then it is okay for the parents to accept the treatment and they should not be judged on this. However, they should still continue strongly object against blood transfusions.

I agree with palmtree this really does look like a designed loophole. Doesn't mean it is though, there are a lot of crazy people in Brookyln so there is always that.

-Sab

just n from bethel

The sad part is - most of the R&F - will never read into it that way. They still see doctors giving blood transfusions against their wishes as equivalent to rape .

So even though - there are more and more secret doors opening the way for JWs to be ok with blood transfusions, they're very well disguised.

Also, you still have to take in account that some doctors don't want to be sued by some religious fanatic. So while, a good doctor might understand the 'wink wink nudge nudge' another one might be like - 'ok - no blood - you're a JW - what I know about you is that you sue doctors that give blood to your children. With my workload and medicare paycuts, I don't have time to fight you on this. If you sign the liability release form, I'll let your kid die - no problem.'

So - unless the JWs sent out this new unofficial secret opening to doctors worldwide - there are still a lot of doctors who still think JWs will sue them if they give them or their family blood. Really, how irresponsible is it to have this ever-changing doctrine that if the R&F can't keep up with, how can doctors even know what kind of treatment they can legally give without getting court orders? I'm sure the medical community is very happy for the clear unambiguous direction JWs give them /sarcasm.

pirata

The problem is that this "loophole" only works for children (which is a good thing indeed). But, Doctors don't pursue court orders for adults.

clarity

A GP told me a few days ago, that if an adult refused blood, he would gladly let him just bleed out ... but with children, he just couldn't do it!!! (No guarantees!)

Imagine, with all the REAL life and death things going on ... people are put under pressure with this kind of idiotic nonsense and actually "stiff upper lip" dying on purpose!!!!

c

agonus

The no-blood charade is one of WT Legal's worst nightmares. There have to be some folks there that are so sick and tired of the madness and just wish the issue would go away that they may eventually win over by a prolonged series of nudges and winks...

compound complex

Pretty astonishing when you consider that blood transfusions were completely unknown in bible times.

The witnesses made this up all on their own.

james_woods

As you may already know from Freeminds and past threads here, Fred Franz and Clayton Woodworth came up with this. I believe it was Hayden Covington who stated that the ban on blood was a means to get publicity and give JWs the sense that they were being persecuted for righteousness' sake. Ironic that Joseph Rutherford would not allow publication and implementation of Franz's and Woodworth's nonsense.

Knorr did.

CC

oompa

amen amen amen undercover!!!!..........i hate them...........oompa...i really need to lose the hate guys...it is eating me up

clarity

The watchtower society is taking advantage of the medical doctor's good conscience and responsibility. They are hedging their bets and counting on the doctor's good sense.

Good thing .... because wtbs have none of these things!!

clarity

Heads up, the Local Needs part this week is a special talk on blood transfusions.

Share this