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.
I haven't decided what you know. I have decided what you should know based on evidence put before you. Perhaps you can't read, or perhaps you don't want to. But evidence has been put before you that you ignore for reasons unstated.
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. Ether you're not paying attention when this was pointed out, or else you're not reading.
Neither is the Letter of Understanding posted on this thread a terms of service document because you proclaim that it is.
A document that presents conditions and services that will be rendered that also documents acknowledgement of those conditions and services is commonly understood by layfolk and lawyers as a terms of service document. Of course you are free to characterize it however you want. The instrument at issue outlines conditions and services and both parties acknowledge these as operating foundations.
I have concluded from reading your posts that you know what a fact is.
Excellent!
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.
You're free to think as you will, which is how it should be. But your conclusion avoids the point because it ignores the information in that media report that is relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about a letter of understanding document where JW parents in writing acknowledge in advance that a medical facility may transfuse blood to their child if in the opinion of the medical staff this is necessary to protect life and/or health of the child. This is, in effect, exactly what the letter of understanding does.
Mavin Shlimer, I think that you know that I do not want to waste any more time posting that I disagree with your conclusions about the LOU posted on this thread. It seems to me, that in your reference 3 of your blog, you would have quoted from the article, the part that most supports your conclusions, but I have concluded, that what you posted from the article, does not document or even support what you have asserted about the LOU. I know for a fact that I will keep my forty dollars.
Whether you agree or disagree with me is of no importance to anyone here other than you.
If you want to learn more about the referenced material you need not spend 40 bucks. You can go to a nearby public library, which is where I found and read the article along with a great many others on this and other topics. No one can make a horse drink.
An additional excerpt from Frolic et al:
"The need for a policy to guide staff when Jehovah’s Witness (JW) parents of pediatric patients refuse to consent for medically necessary blood products emerged from an ethics case consultation. The JW parents involved in the case were told by hospital staff that that the local child protection services (CPS) would be contacted to seek a temporary judicial apprehension order to ensure that their child received necessary treatment if they persisted in their refusal to consent to blood transfusion; this was the hospital’s usual practice at the time. 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 CPS involvement to temporarily apprehend the child. This option did not exist at HHS, but did exist at a neighboring hospital. After this case, the local JW Hospital Liaison Committee encouraged HHS to develop a similar policy and LOU; this idea was supported by the HHS administration and an initial draft was created by hospital legal counsel. The goal of the policy was to promote collaborative relationships between JW parents and health care providers, and to clarify the process for obtaining consent for blood products with pediatric patients in light of the relevant recent Supreme Court decision in AC v Manitoba (2009)."
The article goes on to talk rather extensively about the development process, which of course included discussion with Watchtower appointed hospital liaison committee representatives.
