WATCHTOWER WRONGFULL DEATH LAWSUIT - UPDATE

by Lawrence Hughes 59 Replies latest jw friends

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    And, who Lawrence Hughes is suing:

    Shane Heath Brady, David Miles Gnam, Merrill Morrell,

    Thomm Bokor, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada

    - and -

    Dr. A. Robert Turner, Dr. Andrew Belch, Cross Cancer Institute,

    and Alberta Cancer Board

  • Lawrence Hughes
    Lawrence Hughes

    Hi jgnat,

    Thanks for finding the Court of Appeal decision. Although I have read this many times, I still find it difficult to understand. Of particular significance, is probably paragraph 15, last sentence, all of paragraph 16 and the first two sentences of paragraph 17.

    The issue of consent was restored by the Court of Appeal. The doctors, Cross Cancer Institute, Gnam and Brady are still Defendants. The Watchtower Society has been dropped as a Defendant but it is still tied to the lawsuit by way of vicarious liability. The HLC members Morrell and Bokor have been dropped. The Statement of Claim has been amended to reflect this.

    I guess it is not uncommon in a lawsuit, for the legal issues to be narrowed and for some defendants to be dropped.

    I do not agree with the issue of conflict of interest being dismissed. I felt there was plenty of evidence to proof a conflict of interest with the Watchtower lawyers representing Bethany, her mother, and the Watchtower Society at the same time in the same action in regards to a life and death situation. I was not alone on that opinion and was represented by Osler LLP, one of the largest law firms in Canada, at the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, the SCC only chooses a small percentage of cases to hear.

    Lawrence

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I skimmed the decision. Basically, they aren't discussing the substantive aspects of the case but a lot of procedural rules for finding if there is any basis to go further.

    I had not realized that your daughter was only one year from 18. It is heart wrencing but she prob. had the right to make up her mind and not be coerced by the Witnesses. An outsider, however, can never appreciate what it is like for a Witness regarding WT control.

    Why can't the Witnesses teach their blood doctrine and give a person some privacy and space to make up their own mind since it is life and death. They go after it with some glee.

    Has it proven that absent the arsenic and with transfusions that your daughter would have lived? So sad.

  • lingno2
    lingno2

    Hi to all. good job Lawrence. its true our children's welfare is in your hands go on. i will seek also any resource that i can contribute for victory

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    So Lawrence, I take it you have a new statement of claim based on this judgement.

  • Lawrence Hughes
    Lawrence Hughes

    I filed an Amended Statement of Claim in response to the Alberta Court of Appeal decision. Then there was a court hearing before Justice Alan McLeod for him to review the changes and make any revisions. The Justice then issued a Court Order for any revisions. I have since filed an appeal to that Order.

    Lawrence

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    So the new statement of claim would include:

    Shane Heath Brady, David Miles Gnam, Merrill Morrell,

    Thomm Bokor, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada

    - and -

    Dr. A. Robert Turner, Dr. Andrew Belch, Cross Cancer Institute,

    and Alberta Cancer Board

  • steve2
    steve2
    Has it proven that absent the arsenic and with transfusions that your daughter would have lived?

    In my opinion, there would be considerable legal difficulty in proving this. In the case of emergency transfusions (e.g., massive blood loss due to physical trauma) it can be reliably proven that blood transfusions uniquely save lives (e.g., even the Watchtower would not dare argue that blood-less substitutes can be used for sudden, massive blood loss).

    However, in either palliative care or so-called "curative" care, it is harder to argue - let alone prove - that the absence or presence of arsenic and/or blood would have led to a different outcome - I suspect this might be why lawyers who normally circle the water like money-hungry sharks have backed of doing pro bono work. It is highly likely a court decision could go either way.

    Similarly, as uncomfortable as it is to say this, the Court is left considering whether someone who is almost age 18 can make her own decisions; whether she was "guided" or "pressured" is a matter of legal argument that, again, could go either way.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    You got it steve. The element that is left to consider is "informed consent".

    There are videotapes and a poem by Bethany Hughes that make it clear that she did not want blood and she was aware of the consequences. Her goal was the better place.

    Frankly, I think all Jehovah's Witnesses are "misinformed", adult or not. It comes from the Watchtower meddling in pseudo-science, which first of all, over-emphasize the dangers of blood, and glories in bloodless alternatives. If the WTBTS had stayed within the limits of religious prohibition, with full knowledge that such a belief can lead to death, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure if this could come out in Lawrence's suit.

  • jgnat
    jgnat

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit