by Balaamsass 57 Replies latest watchtower medical
This "softening" will take them off the radar as far as negative press. This issue has never brought them a positive response in the news, or at the door.
The df'ing policy will likely never change. It's viewed as a insider docternal issue that no court will ever touch
More & more hospitals and medical centers are respecting Jehovah's Christian Witnesses beliefs regarding the sanctity of blood and understand or respect their point of view. At the same time, there are many alternatives to blood transfusions out there, and, thanks to the Witnesses, they are now regularly used by a growing number of hospitals and have helped both Witness and non-Witness patients. Many documentaries and news reports confirm that fact. There is also a growing number of surgeons that specialize in non-blood surgery techniques, a few of these who themselves are Witnesses or were raised in the Witness faith. The Watchtower Society itself has donated several hundred blood salvage machines (which transfuses one's own blood back to his or her body during a surgical procedure) to several hospitals in many countries.
When it comes to transfusing children, it appears that more hospitals are also repecting the Witness belief, and will do everything possible to avoid a blood transfusion, opting instead for the many new alternatives that have been tried on the Witnesses for the past several years. That has been the case in hospitals in Montreal, Canada, where I know at least 3 Witness families in which there children were operated without the use of blood.
They sign a form, which has been standard for a couple years now, in which the hospital and medical staff essentially promises to use non-blood products as the alternative to blood, and may only use blood as a last resort. This specifically only applies to child medical care. The Witnesses I spoke to, view this very much as a similar case to when a Witness mother who is giving birth is in danger of losing her life or her the child aobut to be born's life. In that case, the husband and family will not choose, due to conscience reasons, who will live or who die. They will leave that decision about to the doctor, and hope that in the end, both live.
The thing is, why bother litigating a case in which in the end it appears the Witnesses will most likely lose? It has already been decided that a child old enough to make his or her own decision (14 and over), that hospitals must respect his or her beliefs. However, in the case of younger children, courts usually decide in favor of the hospital. It is best then that the Witnesses work with the hospitals to ensure that all alternatives to blood transfusions are used.
why bother litigating a case in which in the end it appears the Witnesses will most likely lose?
This was not the Watchtower position in the past, so it is a change. They are not litigating because it's an embarrassment to the Watchtower and the parents that they would let their children die over this nonsense. When I was young, they printed articles in the literature likening a blood transfusion to rape and implying that it would be proper for a child who had a blood transfusion forced on her to scream and protest and pull the tubes out of her arms.
This was not the Watchtower position in the past, so it is a change
It appears the Watchtower has been using these tactics for quite some time, perhaps even as early as the 1990s. If so, the Letters of Understanding are not evidence of a change in position.
For a more complete discussion, see the following thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/244052/1/Blood-transfusion-Letter-of-Understanding
If so, the Letters of Understanding are not evidence of a change in position.
I didn't charge that it was a recent change. If it's a deviation of the policy from the 1980's or early 1990's, it's still a change. The offical word in the literature used to be that it was akin to rape and transfusions should be resisted at all costs. This hasn't been changed in the publicly distributed WT literature as far as I'm aware. So it could be that this unoffical policy change took place a while back, but is being publicized more widely now.
I think if the Watch Tower made a person liable to being disfellowshipped for signing this form, this in turn could make them liable to criminal charges invovling young childrens safety concerns.
I'm thinking this gives them a way out some type of fudiciary lawsuit or child endangerment charges.
Or, it could be a non-JW writer, who had no idea that the HLCs have been promoting these non-legally binding, feel-good Letters of Understanding in other countries for decades, jumping the gun and announcing a 'change' in the WTBTS stance when no such change has happened.
If it's a deviation of the policy from the 1980's or early 1990's, it's still a change. The offical word in the literature used to be that it was akin to rape and transfusions should be resisted at all costs.
A JW could sign a LoU and subsequently still fight a blood transfusion claiming it against his or her religious mores and akin to rape because LoUs do not affect the legal rights of either the JW or the hospital.
The thing is, why bother litigating a case in which in the end it appears the Witnesses will most likely lose?
I suspect you are correct Davidl7. I posted the following on the other thread:
I think the Letter of Understanding and HLC’s willingness to cooperate is due to a clarification of Canadian law and not a softening the JW blood prohibition.
The article specifically states that the Ethics Committee discussed the “relevant” case of AC v. Manitoba. That case established the bright-line rule that in Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Newfoundland, the court—not physicians—must decide whether or not a child under the age of 16 may refuse life-sustaining treatment. Since this case was “relevant,” I suspect this hospital was in one of those provinces. Therefore, the HLC had nothing to lose because if the hospital wanted to transfuse, the case would automatically obtain judicial review and more bad press.
Other Canadian provinces examine the minor’s capacity to consent (or refuse) treatment as opposed to the minor’s age.
The wife was just telling me about a child who almost died in the 70s because the parents were told Rattlesnake Anti-venom had "blood" in it.
JW.org should be putting this on their site.
-
“The thing is, why bother litigating a case in which in the end it appears the Witnesses will most likely lose?”
Are you kidding me?
Watchtower has taught Jehovah’s Witnesses that transfusion of blood is equivalent to rape!
Would any decent parent bother litigating a case of attempted rape because it appears they will most likely lose?!!
Marvin Shilmer
