JWs relieved when judges decree their kids must have a blood transfusion

by MrMonroe 28 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  MrMonroe

  Danny Haszard tweeted the following story from the Flordia Sun-Sentinel: State Butts in to Give Kids a Life

  It's a fascinating story that shows the real attitude of many parents of young children who become seriously ill. Though ordered by their religion to refuse transfusions and simply accept that their child may die as a result, some parents willingly accept the right of the state to decree that a transfusion must take place if doctors so decide.

  No parent wants their child to die, and it would simply tear them apart to know that a reasonably simple and routine medical practice could save their life ... yet they would be shunned by their family and friends if they accepted. The solution is to hope like hell the state steps in, allowing them to say to their congregation, "Well, what can you do?" The relief of state intervention must be immense.

  The blood doctrine, and the enforcement of it with the threat of shunning, is a terrible thing, like something from a totalitarian government, based on a perverted scriptural basis and junk science, reinforced with skewed, selective information through their literature that exaggerates the dangers of transfusions and never mentions the benefits.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Yes, this sounds so true. I know my JW mother had a blood issue concern with my brother back in the early 1970's. She didn't have to really face it because my father was not JW. Then, years later, my mother had medical power of attorney over her non-JW mother. She's long divorced from my father, but her current usband is again non-JW, so she gave power of attorney to him so that she could say SHE did not agree to allow blood to her mother when it came up.

  JW's want the evil governments of Satan to override the WTS rules or they want other loopholes to be available.
• 

  Terry

  Only the Pharisees could come up a lawyer's trick like this.

  Stop and think about the silliness (if I may use such a casual word for a life or death situation) of this "reasoning".

  Let's substitute another situation into this one and see if it works:

  Back in the days of the Roman empire when the first christians were being persecuted to the point of death by the pagan emperors consider

  what would happen.

  A pinch of incense to the Emperor would be demanded of Christian as a demonstration of loyalty. Historically, the Christian would refuse because "No man can serve two masters."

  But, what if that same Christian were "sentenced" by a Consul to offer the pinch of incense?

  Would they shrug and say, "Okay, sure."?

  What would be the difference?

  Imagine Nero demanding some act of obedience is any different in Authority than having a Judge sentence you to perform an otherwise "forbidden" act?

  Where is the logic of this?
• 

  designs

  In every congregation I was in some parent had to face the Court Order of a Transfusion, a few felt they had not been faithful enough ( snatching a kid out of a Hospital) but most were relieved their child was ok. One Hospital near Los Angeles would put the JW children needing blood in a special Ward and refuse all JWs to visit because of the threat of kidnapping.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Terry, your logic is flawed. Today, a judge removes the decision from you and authorizes doctors to give blood. He is not ordering the JW to allow it or ordering them to give the blood. Essentially, he is taking away custody for this issue to be resolved.
• 

  leavingwt

  Thank you for bringing this article to my attention.

  It's a good reminder of how dangerous this particular high-control group can be.

  Simply put: The WT dogma forces parents to endanger the lives of their children. The authorities must step in, and protect the kids from their parents' bad decisions.
• 

  designs

  The danger for the child is the time it takes to get custody transfered.
• 

  Quendi

  Let us not forget another point that is germane to this issue. Of course, it's easy for the Governing Body to endanger the lives of children when it comes to blood transfusions because they have none themselves. In other words, they don't have to face or live with the consequences of the decision to allow the child to die rather than receive treatment.

  I believe the reason blood fractions are now a matter of conscience is because there was some member of the Governing Body or the upper echelons at Brooklyn who was told it was either undergoing treatment involving blood fractions or death. Staring the Grim Reaper in the face prompted a change in doctrine and policy. It was similar with vaccines. Demonized in the literature, it was only when secular governments decreed that none of the Governing Body would be allowed to travel abroad and address conventions unless and until he was vaccinated that the ban against them was lifted.

  My own thinking on this matter is that the ban against blood transfusions will also be lifted, and this will be done in stages. A possible first step will be to allow Witness patients to withdraw and store their own blood for later transfusion should that be deemed necessary. The reasoning might run this way: Since the law on eating blood was to be invoked only when sacrificing and/or killing an animal, this is not the reason behind surgery where the intention is to save a life. Therefore, there is no need to pour the blood out to Jehovah as an act of recognition of his being the ultimate Life-Giver. That was the reason for the blood ban in the first place. If, therefore, a person can withdraw and store blood to save rather than end life, the ban against transfusions is not in accord with what the Bible actually says and should be lifted.

  There are other scenarios that can be used to justify allowing transfusions and I'm not suggesting mine would even be considered, but one way or the other, the Governing Body will eventually be forced to bow to the inevitable and lift the ban. Having gone partway with allowing the administering of blood fractions as legitimate medical treatment, it is only a matter of time before "new light" is invoked to allow transfusions for anyone who wishes to avail themselves.

  Quendi
• 

  garyneal

  Thank you for this. It reminds me why I do not want to become a Jehovah's Witness. They can be good people all around and they can even display Christian qualities (to their own) but this issue cannot be ignored.

  I've been having 'bible studies' with a man who I refer to as 'Brother Hero' and I have been asking him these questions in regards to their blood policy and he has not been able to give a coherent answer. Upon telling him that I don't think I would ever accept this policy his reply was, "You will. Just keep studying and you will." Fat chance, the policy is too dangerous and too full of holes in logic.

  May I forever be viewed as a 'pawn of Satan' by these morons, the lives of my daughters comes first.
• 

  J. Hofer

  i sat in that room with my wife and the doctor and his assistant. my wifes JW family was waiting outside. our newborn baby was in intensive care. it was a life or death situation. the doctor said, that blood would have to be given.

  so i said "doctor, do you know about jehovah's witnesses and blood?" he nodded. i told him "me and my wife grew up as JWs. i no longer belive any of it. but there's all her family outside and they are adding to the pressure we already have." then i asked "tell me what can i tell them?" so he described exactly what was going to be done including some things that JWs now are allowed to accept. those were the parts i later told to all the JWs who came along and asked for details (including my mother and the in-laws).

  a few long and hard weeks later, after a very long surgery, our baby was put back to intensive care along with a huge blood transfusion hanging on his bed. coincidentally only my wife and me were there at that time with the family waiting downstairs. i also asked the doctors to tell me when they'd have to give more blood, so i could tell the family to leave in the meantime (with some excuse they provided me with).