I like the fact that Marvin Shilmer provided references when blogging on this letter. I wish more people would do that.
Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding
by defender of truth 77 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
OrphanCrow
I wish that document had been in place 40 years ago. My son would not have had to go through what he did if it had been. He would have got blood when he needed it.
I had no choice in the matter - I was a minor teenage mom. It's funny how the 'mature minor' clause didn't apply to me when I objected to the elders' interference.
-
Marvin Shilmer
For those who have the courage to read it, and in memory of 14-year-old Dennis Lindberg and the many others like him. This source tells it just the way it is: Boy dies after refusing blood
-
millie210
Marvin Shilmer,
First of all a huge thank you to you for all you do to educate and raise awareness on this issue. I remember when I first posted about the LOU no one knew what I was talking about until you stepped in and provided more information than I had.
So much appreciation to you and the work you have done.
Also, this letter is quietly making its rounds in the U.S. I believe. Recently a friend of mine in another area was told by the Liaison Committee to use this for a difficult surgery their infant son was facing.
I remember everyone involved was shocked (and relieved Im sure) that such a thing existed.
-
millie210
one more thing...
I came across this while researching the blood issue in 2012. The first article I found was in a Canadian newspaper and the headline was:
Without fanfare, Jehovah's Witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusions
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions/
-
Marvin Shilmer
Also, this letter is quietly making its rounds in the U.S. I believe.
If not by hospital administrators, Watchtower appointed HLC members are made aware of this option by Watchtower, and they are encouraged to make use of this letter in cases of JW minors when it looks like blood will become an issue. One source cited in my blog article relates the incident of a Watchtower HLC group asking for this document for sake of the JW.
-
OrphanCrow
...this letter is quietly making its rounds in the U.S...
I remember everyone involved was shocked (and relieved Im sure) that such a thing existed.
This is an important document that could mean the difference between life and death. A person would think that the Letter of Understanding should receive just as much attention as the LARS document and medical directive that all JWs are encouraged to sign.
It is strange that the Letter of Understanding isn't promoted in their anti-blood propaganda when it is such a serious matter.
Why not?
-
millie210
I think the answer lies in the statement made in the headline of the article above, ironically enough.
The Org is quietly trying to shift the focus.
I approached an elder when I was researching this and asked him exactly what the elders manual had to say on the matter.
He got his manual out and read quietly for a minute and said "well this has changed a bit and I wasnt aware"
Apparently now, it says something along the lines of "if it isnt well known AND if the person was having a moment of weakness and took blood, its not necessary to DF them."
I dont have an elders manual past or present to see when the shift occurred so maybe someone else can clarify this further .
-
Fisherman
But to the day Watchtower has not once advertised this agreement
It has not been established on this thread that the posted "agreement" is genuine and used by JW, but assuming that it is: You seem to be implying that the WT is derivatively consenting BT if a JW executes such related document. They are not. You also seem to be implying (again as you have done in the past involving C Plasma,) that the WTS is covert by not advertizing to the extent of your satisfaction WTS documents that you have decided that should be, because you think 'that the WT knows that they are contradicting their otherwise formal position on blood,' and that is why it seems to you that the WT is being secretive. You are wrong again.
You are well aware that in the US and in most countries ( not to say all ), a child and most minors becomes a ward of the state in medical life and death decisions. This includes the purpose of administering BT to a JW minor without any consent from the parents.
Given such document that is referred to in your post, if a JW parent refuses to sign it, the authorities can (not to say will) administer a BT without first using an alternative. The hospital does not need any cooperation from JW parents to administer blood if they deem it medically necessary. Case in point: A friend living in a territory outside the US was informed by medical authorities that his baby needed a BT. He requested that the doctors first try blood alternative products. The hospital told him that he had no say or choice. The baby got the transfusion, and in his case, the baby died as a result of the transfusion.
Regarding the document that you posted, since the authorities have the power to administer a BT with or without the document anyway, the parent is not authorizing or tacitly consenting to BT by signing it because the authorities do not need any consent or signature from the parent to administer blood to a minor they deem needs it.
In fact, such document is a concession from the hospital to use medical alternatives first before exercising their power to administer blood. The parents are not saying "..ok we give you permission to give blood but first try the non blood.." That is not the case, the hospital does need any signature or authorization from the parents granting them authority to give BT, they have it by law. Whether they put the statement down or not in the document (that the hospital will administer blood to the child if they deem life and death) does not take way the hospital's authority to do so, and, it is not a concession by the JW parents or by the WT as you seem to be misrepresenting that it is.
Case in point: In certain jurisdictions, in Family Court Proceedings involving marriages, Family Court documents sometimes contain the following statement: "The Family Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court." and litigants are required to sign such document with that statement, as if the litigant's signature or the statement has any effect whatsoever on the Powers of the Court, it does not because Family Court and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction by statute and it does not make any difference whatsoever whether the statement is in the signed document or not, or whether the litigants agree to the statement or or not, the Courts are not able to waive that authority.
Relating to the alleged document referred to in your post though, the purpose of the blood transfusion statement it contains, is to make it clear legally that the hospital is not waiving it's authority to administer a BT even though the hospital has agreed to use ABP first. The hospital, having agreed to use the ABP first, requires that the JW parent sign the document for legal reasons, to establish beyond any doubt whatsoever, that they are not waiving their authority to administer blood, but not because the parent's signature can affect the authority that they already have. So, the parents are not agreeing that the hospital give blood to their child by signing the document and neither is the WTS by choosing to allow the use of such a document.
I am sure that you are very well aware of this, but it seems to me, that you nonetheless with your sophistry publicly misrepresent the intentions of the WT in the above related matter, and you also publicly misrepresent the purpose of such document that you have posted, that you claim is used by JW.
-
defender of truth
Fisherman said:
It has not been established on this thread that the posted "agreement" is genuine and used by JW...
The evidence that suggests such a letter exists and is used, is abundant.. for those who are not biased:
“3. The JW Hospital Liaison Committee members supporting this couple inquired whether an option existed for them to sign a letter of understanding (LOU) indicating their acknowledgment that their child will receive necessary transfusions, without requiring either their explicit consent or [Child Protective Services] involvement to temporarily apprehend the child.”—(Frolic et al, Opening the Black Box of Ethics Policy Work: Evaluating a Covert Practice, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 12, No. 11, November 2012, pp. 3–15)"
And from the news article:
"Toronto’s Sick Kids... Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. [The hospital] also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion."
Justitia Themis
"The following seems to document the usage of a similar document in a 2006 or 2007 North Carolina case:
"Hospitals have an ethical obligation to delineate expressly to guardians of minors the parameters of the law and how medical care will be administered.
The institution operating the “blood conservation program” in the above case routinely utilizes acknowledgement statements in circumstances involving the medical care of minors whose parents seek to refuse blood transfusions. These statements serve as a tool ensuring and documenting that clear and complete disclosure of the hospital’s intentions are conveyed to the patient’s guardians . . .
Failure of the parents to sign such a document would not alter the care administered to the minor under North Carolina law in the event a life saving [sic] transfusion is required. From a legal and ethical standpoint, the statement serves to document formally that a clear dialogue was conducted between the hospital and the parents regarding the emergent administration of blood products.”
Paul R. Brezina & John C. Moskop,Urgent Medical Decision Making Regarding a Jehovah’s Witness Minor: A Case Report and Discussion, 68 NC MED J 312, 314 (2007)."
www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/244052/blood-transfusion-letter-understanding?size=10&page=3
Justitia Themis
"In the article I quoted earlier, the doctor actually directs physicians to www.noblood.com to obtain similar documents..."
www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/244052/blood-transfusion-letter-understanding?size=10&page=4
AS FOR THIS LETTER SPECIFICALLY:
"4. First hint of this document came in early 2008 after reading the article “Only flesh with its soul–its blood–you must not eat” (Dr. Christine Harrison, Paediatric Child Health, Vol. 12, No. 10, December 2007, pp. 867-868) and attempting to retrieve an unpublished referenced guideline titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Products within The Hospital for Sick Children. Success in obtaining the policy and the Letter of Understanding is recent. It turns out Dr. Harrison was the issuing authority within The Hospital for Sick Children for the policy and letter."
With just a little research, I tracked her down.
If anyone (FISHERMAN for instance) wishes to email her and confirm the validity of this letter, *PLEASE DO SO* rather than publically suggesting that the document may not be 'genuine'... find out for yourself (and please post here when you get a reply, otherwise me posting all this was a total waste of time):
www.jcb.utoronto.ca/people/harrison.shtml