Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth 77 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  defender of truth

  "What are you saying? Make your point."

  Make your point??
  I already have, repeatedly. Also, you have no right to order me around. A 'please' wouldn't hurt, would it?
  
  If you would like to explain the difference between:

  Elders sitting on a judicial committee and possibly reproving or disfellowshipping a rape victim, because they should have fought (even to the point of death) rather than acknowledge the rapists power and accept that it would happen, which would have the same eventuality except that the victim and possibly their family survives if they just accept it and let it happen..
  on the other hand, elders (with the Watchtower choosing to allow it, as you admitted)

  helping to draft a document that acknowledges the hospitals power to 'violate' their child (assuming the parents see it that way) with a blood transfusion, rather than fighting the system, even to the point of loss of life, to prevent this from happening.
  

  
  

  
  That is my point. It is just a thought that occurred to me. I am not going to repeat myself.
  
  I am not criticising either the document or any who use it, as consent is not required anyway and it will make things go more smoothly for all concerned. It is a good thing, and I am glad the Watchtower allowed it to be used.
  
  I am not talking about consent or agreement with the transfusion happening.
  There were rape victims who went along with it quietly, perhaps because they didn't have any choice except to be harmed or lose their life, who have been told by elders that they need to repent. The Watchtower taught that they should have fought back at all costs and been harmed or killed, otherwise they were indicating some degree of consent and could not be sure of a clean conscience.

  
  Do you not think there is any comparison?
  Please explain why or why not specifically, if you have time.
  
  For now, though, your discussion with Marvin will probably take up your time and mental powers. And it is more important to anyone following this that you talk to him about the blood issue.
  So I understand if you don't respond.
  It's all just 'commentary' any way.
  
  That's the beauty of freedom of speech on this forum.
  This isn't a Watchtower 'study', where we must all make a statement that agrees with, and directly relates to, the printed statement,
  in 30 seconds or less ;)
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I read your blog before, nothing remarkable, only commentary.

  The "commentary" is to publicize that Watchtower advertises one policy (i.e., its 1992 policy) yet has so far not advertised its complicity with the letter of understanding document that is less stringent.

  Using the term agreement referring to the document on this thread led me to believe that you were referring to the document as an agreement. Since you did not clarify what you meant but made remarks about the WT not advertizing it, It seemed to me that you meant that it was a secret agreement. Your remarks on this thread about the document also led me to believe that it was a covert document, secretly allowing blood transfusions. I wonder how many people believed that too until I showed that it was not. I see that now that you deny asserting it.

  The document in question (i.e., letter of understanding) is an agreement. Watchtower is okay with it. It represents a change from its 1992 position. Watchtower has yet to publicize this less stringent position to rank and file membership. All this has been spelled out. Try reading what I've actually said rather than reading your conclusions into what I've said.

  explain

  "It is estimated that approximately 1000 Jehovah’s Witnesses die annually worldwide and as many as 100,000 may have died by abstaining from blood transfusions since the blood ban was introduced in 1945."--The Management of Adult Jehovah’s Witnesses in Anaesthesia and Critical Care, by AM Welsh in Australasian Anaesthesia, 2011, pp. 125-132

  
  Watchtower's position on blood transfusion has led to tens of thousands of premature deaths.
• 

  Fisherman

  It's all just 'commentary' any way..

  Can you please explain why did you publish a link on this thread to WT material that you know WT does not want published?
  
• 

  Fisherman

  M S says: in response to:
  

  Do you know if this document is used anywhere besides Canada?

  He says (in reference to the LOU)
  

  I don't have copies from any sources other than from Canada, but the document is in widespread use inside and outside Canada based on what is published in medical literature on the subject. For instance, Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio has developed a training seminar for clinicians that heavily admonishes use of the document in pediatric JW cases.

  Also, in the 2005 incident of the 14-year-old Canadian JW who left Canada for treatment at Schneider Children's Hospital in New York the agreement reached between the US medical facility and the JW girl's family (with Watchtower's support!!!) was the same as found in the Letter of Understanding document. My opinion is that the horribly bad press Watchtower was suffering at the time in cases like this compelled it to relax its 1992 position, which allowed for this agreement that was later framed as a form document for institutional use. But to the day Watchtower has not once advertised this agreement (or the form) among JWs for use by parents and their children. This lack is one reason for my blog article on the subject. Advertise! Advertise! Advertise!

  Referring to the LOU, you state that it is an agreement
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Can you please explain why did you publish a link on this thread to WT material that you know WT does not want published?

  Because I wanted to and because JWs and those interested in JWs deserve to know this information.

  It does not matter to me what Watchtower wants.

  Referring to the LOU, you state that it is an agreement

  The letter of understanding is an agreement.
• 

  millie210

  fisherman,

  When an organization has a policy that results in the death of many people and it doesnt even maintain its own policy in a coherent and evenly applied way, a voice of reason steps in.

  Marvin Shilmer has attempted to shed light on the travesty known as the "blood policy".

  Surely you see that peoples right to have an educated choice supersedes murky, poorly defined policy?

  Let me simplify. If the Org would do its job - there would be no need for a Marvin Shilmer.

  So there is a place to start if you dont like what he does.

  Get the Society to do their job since they are the policy setters. Get them to share the same information with everyone for starters.

  Wouldnt that be better use of your time than quibbling on the internet?
• 

  Fisherman

  MS says:

  The document in question (i.e., letter of understanding) is an agreement.

  It is very interesting, how on this thread, you refer to the "LOU" as an agreement.. On this thread, by referring to the LOU as an agreement, did you think, that some people that tried reading your commentary, could conclude that you meant, that the LOU was an agreement between an entity and a JW parent, that when properly executed is an authorization to administer blood transfusion to a JW child? I think, that after reading your commentary on this thread and the LOU posted on this thread, some people could reasonably conclude that the LOU posted on this thread is an agreement. The LOU posted on this thread when properly executed is not an agreement because I have shown that the JW parent is not agreeing to a BT and neither is the WT.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Because I wanted to

  I think that the WT should not have to publish material that they do not want published. I also think that some WT literature is private for church use only and should not be published if the WT does not want it published.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  • It is very interesting, how on this thread, you refer to the "LOU" as an agreement..

    Glad you find it interesting.

    On this thread, by referring to the LOU as an agreement, did you think, that some people that tried reading your commentary, could conclude that you meant, that the LOU was an agreement between an entity and a JW parent, that when properly executed is an authorization to administer blood transfusion to a JW child?

    People can conclude all sorts of things, but nowhere in this discussion have I suggested the letter of understanding is an agreement authorizing administration of blood transfusion.

    I think, that after reading your commentary on this thread and the LOU posted on this thread, some people could reasonably conclude that the LOU posted on this thread is an agreement.

    The letter of understanding is (IS!!!) an agreement.

    The LOU posted on this thread when properly executed is not an agreement because I have shown that the JW parent is not agreeing to a BT and neither is the WT.

    Because a document is not an agreement to administer blood transfusion is not evidence the same document is not an agreement. You're talking nonsense!

    I think that the WT should not have to publish material that they do not want published.

    Of course Watchtower is free to do as it wants, which is what Watchtower does. But failing to publicize an effective change and leaving a more stringent position as though place is dishonest.

    I also think that some WT literature is private for church use only and should not be published if the WT does not want it published.

    Glad you have an opinion. Glad you felt free to share it. I disagree. The document in question can have a life and death consequence for a child. When it comes to saving lives I'm willing to publish what a religious organization opts not to.
• 

  Fisherman

  MS says:
  

  The document in question (i.e., letter of understanding) is an agreement.
  

  The letter of understanding is an agreement.
  

  to relax its 1992 position, which allowed for this agreement
  

  But to the day Watchtower has not once advertised this agreement (or the form)
  

  Because a document is not an agreement to administer blood transfusion is not evidence the same document is not an agreement. You're talking nonsense!
  

  I disagree. I am referring only to the "Letter of Understanding" (LOU) posted on this thread. It is not clear with certainty what you mean or are referring to in the above. Besides your commentary about the LOU, can you please show from the "Letter of Understanding" that it is an agreement. I do not understand.
  

  The document in question can have a life and death consequence for a child.

  I think that you mean any document that you want. I also think that you mean that you get to decide when a private WT document should be published. Referring only to the LOU , besides your commentary, can you kindly show from the document itself how not publishing it can have life and death consequences for a child. It seems to me that you are asserting that because the WT has not published the LOU it has resulted in deaths of children, the LOU having been around for many years (as you seem to claim), and the LOU not having been advertized by the WT to the extent that you want. What are you asserting?