Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth 77 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  defender of truth

  The document is known by Watchtower appointees and is asked for by those appointees for sake of JW parents having the opportunity to sign it.

  
  

  I did not know this ever, even though you conclude that I should.

  Fisherman, you already said on page 2:

  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.

  HLC are appointed by the Watchtower and must follow Watchtower instructions. Various HLC's are aware of this type of letter, as the newspaper article shows.

  A template for a 'letter of understanding' may be held on file by HLC, or requested. I don't know.. The important point is that the Watchtower allows it to be used, as you admitted.
• 

  Splash

  I'm missing something here.

  If this document is not an agreement, then what is it's purpose?
  Are there two parties agreeing a course of action?

  The document says two opposing things in order to appease two different parties:
  1. Medical staff will provide treatment that may include a blood transfusion.
  2. [The parents] signature is not an agreement for blood transfusions.

  So the parents signature will allow a blood transfusion to occur, even if the parent is not in agreement with it.

  This lets a JW parent save the life of their child while insulating themselves from WT sanctions afterwards.
  By signing the form the parent is agreeing to the conditions set out on the form.
• 

  Fisherman

  It has not been established on this thread that the posted "agreement" is genuine and used by JW, but assuming that it is: ..............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.

  
  Sorry if you misunderstood what I meant when you read my statement that you quoted. I did not mean to say that the WTS uses the LOU posted on this thread. You used my statement out of context from the related post that your are quoting from. I clearly stated in that post :' assuming that it is'. My statement that you have quoted above assumes that the document is genuine and it also assumes that Watchtower uses it ( it is not an admission that the WT does use it). I then used the assumptions as a a given (suppose thy were true) to prove that the WT and the JW do not agree to blood transfusions ( even if the assumptions are true, the WT and JW do not accept BT).
  

  I don't know.................as the newspaper article shows...........may be held

  Defender of "I don't know" and "depend err" on the statements of others, as if what "defender of truth" believes statements of others mean to him- are facts.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Defender of truth, kindly answer yes or no to the following questions ( if you want ):

  1. Do you know for a fact that Watchtower drafted any part of the Letter of Understanding posted on this thread?

  2. Do you know for a fact that Watchtower (appointees) asks for the LOU posted on this thread in connection with medical treatment?
  
• 

  defender of truth

  Yes, I did misunderstand that part you quoted, I apologise for that.

  Your reasoning still proves nothing except what we already know, that neither the watchtower nor the parents are allowing blood transfusions, and they have no authority to prevent it from happening.

  1) No, but I never claimed they did. (Hlc's draft these kind of legal documents, that's part of their work.)

  2) No, and I never claimed they had.

  All I do know is that the hlc's will follow guidance from the watchtower when they act, so either the watchtower allows the hlc's to draft these documents, or the hlc's keep it private and the watchtower is not informed or consulted.

  Now I have questions for you:

  Why are the parents asked to sign the document? Why do the hospital sign the document?

  There has to be a benefit on the hospitals part,otherwise why would they make the concession? Is it so the parents do not cause trouble? Does coming to this understanding make things easier in any way for the hospital?
• 

  Fisherman

  1) No, but I never claimed they did. (Hlc's draft these kind of legal documents, that's part of their work.)

  2) No, and I never claimed they had.

  Thank you for kindly answering my questions. I have nothing more to post on this thread.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I did not know this ever, even though you conclude that I should.

  Then either you're not paying attention or else you're not reading. 5 days ago in this very discussion you were pointed to source material documenting that the instrument at issue is known by Watchtower appointees and is asked for by those appointees for sake of JW parents having the opportunity to sign it. I see no need to repeat myself. See reference 3 in my blog article. You know how to find it.

  Are you saying that you know for a fact that Watchtower (appointees) asks for the LOU posted on this thread in connection with medical treatment?

  I know this for a fact. I also know for a fact that the critical language of this agreement is documented to have been requested by Watchtower representatives for sake of parents with JW children in need of medical attention.

  I disagree, the LOU does not say that.

  Because a document does not contain the phrase "terms of service" does not mean it is not a terms of service document as constructed.

  At this point you're quibbling and adding nothing to the subject.
• 

  Fisherman

  source material documenting that the instrument at issue is known by Watchtower appointees.....................reference 3 in my blog article.

  I think that you shouldn't have to decide what people should know. Didn't I tell you that before in one of my posts? In fact, Defender of Truth having all of your pointed references too, claims that he does not know either.
  

  Because a document does not contain the phrase "terms of service" does not mean it is not a terms of service document as constructed.

  Neither is the Letter of Understanding posted on this thread a terms of service document because you proclaim that it is.

  I know this for a fact. I also know for a fact that the critical language of this agreement is documented to have been requested by Watchtower representatives for sake of parents with JW children in need of medical attention.

  I have concluded from reading your posts that you know what a fact is. I think(Should I conclude that ?) that you mean in your kind response to my questions:
  

  1. You know for a fact that the LOU posted on this thread is requested by Watchtower appointees in connection with medical treatment.

  2. You know for a fact that the language used in LOU posted on this thread was formulated together with Watchtower appointees
  

  I think that you know for a fact, that you know the difference between pointing to references and or documentation to convince someone and having them conclude that something is a fact and to say that you know something is a fact. I told you very clearly when I asked you the questions, that I was not interested in your commentary, all I wanted was your kind response to the questions.

  At this point you're quibbling and adding nothing to the subject.

  You are not an arbitrator on this point
• 

  goingthruthemotions

  marked
• 

  Fisherman

  6. In 2005 there was a publicized incident of a Canadian teenager among Jehovah's Witnesses whose treatment at a hospital in the United States was negotiated with full support of the religion's authorities and the agreement included an understanding that blood transfusion would be avoided unless her life depended on it. Ref: Globe and Mail, May 5, 2005, "Forced return to Vancouver angers girl, By Jane Armstrong.

  http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11138/forced-return-to-vancouver-angers-girl

  B.C. child welfare authorities say they can and they will.

  What I have concluded after reading the article you referenced is that the Court ordered a blood transfusion. I also concluded that the parents did not want their child to receive a blood transfusion. I also concluded that this article does not support your conclusion about the LOU posted on this thread.