by Marvin Shilmer 16 Replies latest jw friends
Watchtower Lawyer Says No Probing
I’ve added a new article to my blog showing a statement one of Watchtower’s lawyers made to medical researchers about Jehovah’s Witnesses deciding privately to accept transfusion of blood.
I think readers will find his assertion rather surprising; but maybe not.
My article is titled Watchtower Lawyer Says No Probing and it is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/06/watchtower-lawyer-says-no-probing.html
Marvin Shilmer
(bookmarking)
One thing that occured in a Congregation I was in was that several Sisters worked at the local Hospital in town and had access to all medical records. Embarrassing stuff got circulated about JW patients.
Thanks for posting this, I might give my identity away, but I'm feeling wreckless today, so what the heck. A brother on the HLC requested that I assist him on an investigative matter regarding a sister recieving a blood transfusion. This was a couple years back when I first got appointed, and the body thought this would be great experience for me as I'm younger than the average, and the youngest on this body and wet behind the ears. So we questioned not only the sister who recieved the infusion, who I might add is older and single, but also we questioned her brother, and both of them denied making the decision or giving the hospital the ok. She expressed remorse for what happened, but was also adament that she never consented to the administration. Prior to questioning them, the brother who's experienced in these matters advised to me that there's really nothing we can do other than ascertain whether they willfully accept a transfusion, and whether there's remorse involved. I noticed you quoted from the old Flock Book, maybe someone can give you the latest info in the new Shephard book. I'm at work, so I don't have it on hand.
Prior to questioning them, the brother who's experienced in these matters advised to me that there's really nothing we can do other than ascertain whether they willfully accept a transfusion, and whether there's remorse involved.
So George if they don't know for sure they can't do anything to her right?..
Can't they be told the same thing they tell others when something negative is said about the JW's..No man is perfect and God will judge them, it isn't our job?. Isn't that what they say about the child abusers in their congregations?
That's what a witness told me when I related their (JW's) current policy on child abuse and how the abusers were handled..
Snoozy
So George if they don't know for sure they can't do anything to her right?..
Can't they be told the same thing they tell others when something negative is said about the JW's..No man is perfect and God will judge them, it isn't our job?. Isn't that what they say about the child abusers in their congregations?
That's what a witness told me when I related their (JW's) current policy on child abuse and how the abusers were handled..
Snoozy
No judicial action can be taken unless the JW in question shows a lack of remorse over it. I can't remember all that brother and I discussed as that was a couple years ago, but I do remember certain phrases he used, in particular, "keeping the congregation clean." That stood out to me, in that he equated the blood transfusion on the same playing field as fornication, adultery, or other typical actions that we consider gross sin. If the person shows no remorse over the blood transfusion, then they've disassociated themselves by their actions and are to be treated just like someone disfellowshipped over unrepentent and repetative sexual immoraility despite the elder's admonitions. An announcement would be made o the congregation. I've never actually seen this happen, and I don't recall ever hearing it happen, even on this message board I don't recall ever reading it happen, but I'm sure it has happened often enough.
It surprises me somewhat that the WT lawyer would say this, because its plain as day in the Flock book, and the Shephard book. Heck, it might even be in the OD book, or even some obscure WT magazine article. Not to mention the one article that insinuates that its appropriate for a JW to follow Jehovah's law as opposed to Caeser when it comes to skirting privacy laws such as HIPPA in a health care employment setting in which the JW comes across the theocratically incriminating information of another JW.
Perhaps not in writing with a flashing neon sign. Has the Watchtower affirmatively sent out written instructions and bolstered them through training of elders to NOT probe. It reminds me of 1975. I sat in Yankee Staidum and heard Fred Franz speak of 1975 with great confidence. Witnesses are not highly trained lawyers so an occasionaly disclaimer did not stand out. The 1975 as a certain date did stand out.
The Witnesses know how explosive the blood doctrine is. Merely saying we never instructed a proble does not mean they did anythiing to stop others from rationally assuming this was the correct Witness position. He sounds so much like a Pharisee. Well, I'm a member of the NY Bar and he does not convinceme that the Witnesses have no informa policy. A policy need not be engranved in a formal binder to be a rule that believers follow.
As an aside, I was doing Establishment Clause research a few years ago and stumbled upon a law review article written by a female (yes, female) lawyer. I was stunned. Writing law review articles is not field service. It was about Witnesses before and during WWII in Japan. I thought this was fascinating. Japan was never mentioned post WWII by the Witnesses. The Nazis received considerable attention in the literature, at the KH, and in private discussion. So I decided to read it. She failed to describe the plight of a single individual Japanese Witness who boldly died or was tortured for their faith. Rather, it was discussion of how noble the org. was, sitting in safe Brooklyn Heights, and edchanging letters with the regime. Tellingly, the Establishment Clause was never mentioned. NO First Amednment rights were discussed. It was singularly nonscholarly and did not describe a legal dilemma. It was along the lines of Rutherford picking up his precious pen or performing dictation.
I wept for all the Japanese Witnesses who faced the militaristic, right wing frenzy present in Japan. The moments when Shintoism was most heralded. Evidently, they were too minial to Brooklyn to be even mentioned in reference. They did not merit a single footnote. I don't usually correspond with law review authors. Larry Tribe, the const'l expert, has never heard from me. When a Sup. Ct. justice writes a book, I do not fawn and send a note. I wrote to her how my father was trying to pull me out of high school against my will when he died. Why was she so special that she could receive an education and I could not? Yet my paper record was much better than hers. I told her that individuals suffered greatly and that her article highlighted the cult nature of the Witnesses. Of course, no reply was made. The very idea of a female lawyers after what happened to me in KH annoyed me greatly.
It is essential to represent a client zealously. A lawyer too enamored of their client so that they wear rose colored glasses is not an asset to anyone. They cannot view a broad picture. I know I was driven from the Witnesses by the manifest lack of agape love and their education stance. Also, what does anyone expect a Witness lawyer to say? That Witnesses have greatly erred, using undue influence in a private matter reserved for autonomy. Would a lawyer admit that Witness pressure negated meaningful informed consent? I would pass out if I read one of those statements.
Blondie's quote of Donald Ridley " The fact is, neither elders nor committee members have ever been instructed or encouraged to probe into the health care decisions of Witness patients. "
Good . Then there is no need or reason for the WT society to send out Hospital Liason Committee elders to hover like vultures over JW's while they are in hospitals then , is there ? A$$holes
