by hubert 12 Replies latest jw friends
From 1963 to 1980, the Watchtower Society "forbade" their flock from having organ transplants, saying it was cannibalism.
It looks to me like the W.T. Society is "practicing medicine", giving advice about medical issues without having a medical license for this.
Wouldn't and shouldn't this be called "malpractice", and put the W.T. in a position for a malpractice lawsuit? Even a class action suit? Any lawyers out there, or any other comments?
Hubert
Not a lawyer, dear Hubert (peace to you!), but most probably:
1. The statute of limitations has run. I don't think it's the same for malpractice as it is for, say, murder or child molestation (which never runs);
2. The courts most probably won't take the case (assuming a class action) due to:
a. The division among those who would say they were made to/restricted from... and those who will say they made their own choice...
b. Religion is a choice as is following religious beliefs (for oneself and one's minor children, even where that choice is/was/may be detrimental to a minor child)
c. And most importantly, there are laws NOW that protect children (for example, when a parent refuses blood/treatment, the physician can get a court order); however, the U.S. Constitution does not allow going BACK and prosecuting/suing someone for somethat that WASN'T illegal at the time it occurred. So, the only people who COULD possibly sue are those children who suffered damages SINCE the laws protecting them came into effect. The problem HERE, though... is that they'd have to sue their parents, who made the decision, as well.
Now, if anyone who was a "victim" of what occurred during the time you've mentioned died... and their legal counsel can prove MURDER on the part of the WTBTS (which, could possibly be done under the theory of reckless endangerment... but they would have had to KNOW they were endangering others, which they will claim they didn't)... well, that's a whole nuther thing.
I hope that helps and, again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Simply put no.
Malpractise only exists with the body performing the work and not with an opinion based on scriptural law as defined by a religious orgnaisation. Since it is based on "conscience" there would be no malpractise as it is a freedom of choice issue to be part of a religious organization.
Only if a body is aware of a law and wilfully skirts the law can malpractise be brought forth.
Aguest and Truthseeker, thanks for your comments on this. I was thinking that maybe other surviving family members could sue the WT for malpractice "advice/orders". Guess not. Too bad, though.
Hubert
If I recall correctly, malpratice has a short statute of limitatoins of around two years. You can easily find out by googling negligence in your state or getting a free consultation. I would stick with a lawyer who specializes in malpractice, rather than a local general practicioners.
The Witnesses have a First Amendment right to state their beliefs concern organ transplant. Other religions are opposed. No court will allow such a suit.
It is not practicing medicine. The WT never held itself out as a doctor. Nor did it give medical advice. It gave religoius adivce. No one would ever confused a large publishing company for a doctor. The Witnesses did nothing to stop anyone from consulting with said doctor.
I do First Amendment law. Nothing is more egregious to American jurisprudence than terming this malpractice. I am only a person on the Internet. Consult with an actual lawyer for free.
Law does not mean justice or fairness. Recourse is available in the court of public opnion. This is a theological issue.
Thanks, Band.
So basically, it's an interpretation of the bible....which means the WT can do whatever they want. Looks like nothing can ever be done about the blood ban, if they suddenly lift it. Thanks for your advice, though. I wanted to get a lawyers opinion on this, and you gave it to me. I appreciate that. I don't know of anyone in my family that was involved in the organ transplant issue. I was just curious as to why no one ever tried to sue the Watchtower after they changed their doctrine on it.
Hubert
The Watchtower Society has had its head up its ass for over a hundred years. That is an organ transplant.
It is very sad. They issue the edicts and real people suffer. I see it as a moral outrage. The problem is lay people believe law is linked to justice. The law only addresses certain areas of life, usually business and tort law. I became a lawyer to change the world. It was my belief that as a 60s acitvist, law could transform society. Society transforms law. There are so many rules that were developed in the Middle Ages. What law addresses, I think it addresses well.
When law fails, there are usually other avenues such as lobbying and public opinion. Law is very detail oriented. When I was in law school, I wondered when we would ever learn the substantive law rather than civil procedural rules. Now I understand there can be no decent result without good process. If I wanted to change the world, I should have become a community organizer or powerful politician.
Most of the trials that so inspired me, such as the Berrigan's Catonsville trial, were civil disobedience actions. The litigants used the law to show how hollow society was and these rules prevented people from focuisng on ending the Viet Nam War.
Oh, if I could do poli sci again.
It still amazes me the crazy things people sue for and get away with it and the ones that should sue and do and don't get anything..
A prime example is cigarettes..they sued the makers and won all because they didn't have a warning on them..like who wouldn't know that when you first inhale something and it burns the heck out of your mouth and you get a cough that it isn't good for you? And yet they were able to sue.
Now they have huge warnings and yet some can still sue and get away with it..
Like our common sense wasn't given to us for a reason? Like we didn't have a choice? People believe what they want to believe..can we blame someone else for our own weaknesses for falling for such Bull..? People have to take responsibility for at least some of their own actions..
Snoozy..JMO
the cigarette suits have to do with placing a very dangerous and addictive substance on the market. Tobacco companies knew just how dangerous nicotine was and still place cigarettes on the market. I remember cigarette advertising. They were on just about all TV shows, magazines, newspapers, and billboards. Tobacco was sexy.
If cyanide were marketed, would it be okay? I doubt it.
The tobacco lobby wields tremendous influence to this day. We do not tolerate any other substance proven so dangerous and addictive. Yet tobacco remains legal.
The surrounding culture has changed so much, I wanted to smoke to look cool. French Galuloises, very potent, were popular with college students. People pretended they were Sartre or Camus as they puffed their way to lung cancer.
