Malpractice lawsuit

by hubert 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AGuest

  I think you can apply the same argument to, say, fast food, soda, transfats, and things we KNOW are carcinogenic, yet are still marketed and sold... and literally consumed... couldn't you, dear Snoozy (peace to you!)?

  Manufacturers have a duty to warn of their products' "defects" (and causing death is a defect!)... AND do so in a way that the public cannot deny they've been warned. However, when what you're manufacturing is addictive, in addition to causing death... yet you're not saying THAT (indeed, you say everything BUT that, including that it'll make you "cool" and all the guys/girls will "like" you and you will become popular, even famous)... then I think you should be held liable. Your manipulating consumers to their own death... for a PROFIT. You ought to pay someone, somewhere, somehow. More power to the one who causes you to have to.

  Also, where addiction is involved, dear one, common sense isn't always an issue. In fact, it almost never is.

  Again, peace to you, dear one!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  TD

  It looks to me like the W.T. Society is "practicing medicine", giving advice about medical issues without having a medical license for this.

  Practicing medicine without a license hinges on either deliberately or inadvertantly creating a doctor/patient relationship with an individual. The JW parent organization has not actually done this AFAIK, but they definitely get away with stuff that you or I would not.

  Even if all you're doing is writing a fluffy little article on the latest exercise program in a trendy little health magazine, you need to protect yourself by saying, "Always consult with your physician or healthcare professional before starting any exercise program." If you thumb through health magazines, you will see this repeated over and over.

  Contrary to what some claim, JW's have not consistently presented the transfusion medicine taboo as strictly an opinion based on scripture. They have presented it as a superior medical choice as well, even going so far as to misrepresent articles written by physicians.

  But Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion and the bad information they have presented is pretty much safely hidden behind the large shield of freedom of religion.
• 

  AGuest

  the bad information they have presented is pretty much safely hidden behind the large shield of freedom of religion.

  Yes, but never say never, dear TD (peace to you!). Public policy has a way of coming back to bite some folks, long after the deed has been done. I don't think a religion would get away with passing out Kool-Aid these days, you know? And that indictment a few years ago of the LDS polygamists (and the attempted indictment of others)... I dunno. The JWs just haven't messed with the wrong politician's... or attorney's... family... yet.

  Religion's shield has been dented by many a "David" over its history.

  Here, highly unlikely... even slim to none... but never say never.

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA