Watchtower softens position on Jehovah' Witnesses and blood transfusions? Canadian National Post Story.

by Balaamsass 57 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Chaserious

  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.

  I still disagree with the claim that no change took place, even if it was not a recent change. It's not just about whether legal rights have been disclaimed or not. It's about what the HLCs are telling parents in conjunction with these forms. Everyone knows that the majority of parents will do what the HLC tells them, so that's a more important barometer of their official policy than whether legal rights are surrendered. The fact is that a couple of decades ago, it was commonplace for parents to force a court order, whereas now they will sign this letter and not pursue their legal rights, whether they formally waive them or not.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  The fact is that a couple of decades ago, it was commonplace for parents to force a court order, whereas now they will sign this letter and not pursue their legal rights, whether they formally waive them or not.

  Parents don't "force" court orders; hospitals seek court orders. The hospitals need court orders to obtain the necessary custody to overrule the parents' refusal.

  It's about what the HLCs are telling parents in conjunction with these forms.

  Agreed. That's why the LoUs do not indicate a change in policy. The HLC can tell the parents to sign the LoUs with the understanding that IF the child's condition worsens and the hospital seeks temporary custody, the parents/JWs will fight the order.

  It's not just about whether legal rights have been disclaimed or not.

  Actually, the above is precisely what this is all about. The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, there is no harm to the WTBTS if JWs sign these. Now, if the HLC said parents could sign a document that allows the hospitals to transfuse and the AND that the parents' disclaim any legal recourse, the document would be better evidence of a policy change.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Would any decent parent bother litigating a case of attempted rape because it appears they will most likely lose?!!

  Parents have no authority to bring a criminal attempted (or actual) rape case; that is left to the sole discretion of a prosecutor. They can bring a civil case though.

  However, prosecutors must drop many cases because parents will not allow their children to testify because they fear there will be no conviction (i.e., they will most likely lose). And parents frequently do not pursue civil cases for the same reason.

  I don't think that makes them less than "decent" parents; it's a risk/benefit calculation based upon what they perceive to be the best interest of their child.

  It may be morally bankrupt, but the WTBTS is not legally obtuse, and I'm sure it makes these same litigation risk/benefit calculations. Nevertheless, selective litigation is not synonymous with a change in policy.

  Yet, I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. As it stands, the hard evidence is not very compelling. The only evidence for a change in policy is the discussion of the LoU by a non-JW who opined that he thinks this may signal a change in policy.

  The evidence against a change in policy is the fact that this document has been used since ~1998, with no official change. In fact, from 1998-2010, there were multiple cases in which JWs legally challenged blood transfusions to minors.
• 

  Chaserious

  Parents don't "force" court orders; hospitals seek court orders.

  Of course parents force court orders; they force the hospital to seek them. The hospital does not need a court order for the 99.5% of children whose parents consent to lifesaving treatment by signing an authorization form. For the 0.5% or whatever small minority of parents will not consent, the hospital is "forced" to obtain a court order to provide the treatment. One cannot approach this pedantically, looking only through the narrow lens of sheer legal force. The world does not go around because everyone needs a court order to tell them what to do. Most of the time people acquiesce when they know they have no legal ground on which to stand on without "forcing" someone to run to the court to get an injunction or restraining order. If you owned a house and rented it out, and the tenant refused to move out when his lease was over, wouldn't it be fair to say that he "forced you" to get a court order to evict him?

  The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, there is no harm to the WTBTS if JWs sign these.

  Respectfully, I do not think this is the issue. The WTBTS cannot be legally "harmed" no matter the outcome. A corporation is not the one being transfused. This is a matter between the patient, the parents and the hospital. It has nothing to do with WTBTS legal rights, since they have none in these cases anyone. Watchtower doctrine has often been a matter of symbolism, and not legalism. They caused publishers in Malawi to die because of not carrying a political party card. This was a symbolic issue. I would be quite certain that in the 1980's, the HLC would have told publishers not to sign anything acknowledging blood might be given. It contains symbolism that could be equated with agreement, even if not legal consent. Just as the Malawi cards meant almost nothing practically (it was a one-party country) but might "give the idea that we compromise Christian principles", the LOU would have been viewed the same saw by a hard-line WTS regime.
• 

  Chaserious

  I am also not so convinced that these are "legally useless documents." In my opinion, one should always assume that documents drafted in legal terms have some import. I know nothing about Canadian tort law, but I think that in the United States, were a similar document used, while it would indeed be useless to show consent, it could be proof of notice.

  I think that if the JW parent decided to bring a civil suit later for wrongfully transfusing the child, this document would be admissible in that matter to show that the parent was on notice that a transfusion could be given, and potentially used to argue that a burden shifting had taken place. In other words, since the parent knew (was on notice) that the hospital would transfuse if it thought the procedure was legally justified, the burden would then be on the parent after receiving such notice to run to court and get her own court order if the parent thought it was not legally justified. I would suspect that having such proof of notice would make the hospital's legal team more comfortable with giving an unconsented transfusion.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Of course parents force court orders; they force the hospital to seek them

  So what's your point?

  Your paragraph can be summed in one clean sentence: parents, while unable to actively seek a court order, can passively force a court order by refusing to provide the hospital consent to provide life-sustaining treatment to their minor child.

  Now, what does that have to do with whether or not the LoUs indicate a change in WTBTS blood policy?

  The following was your original assertion: The fact is that a couple of decades ago, it was commonplace for parents to force a court order, whereas now they will sign this letter and not pursue their legal rights, whether they formally waive them or not.

  What evidence do you have that JW parents' behavior has changed? What evidence do you have that they used to passively force court order but now they sign these LoUs and "do not pursue their legal rights?"

  The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, there is no harm to the WTBTS if JWs sign these.

  Respectfully, I do not think this is the issue. The WTBTS cannot be legally "harmed" no matter the outcome.

  Again, what's your point?

  Allow me to rephrase my statement: The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents; therefore, an HLC member can recommend the parent sign them and there is no harm to the parents' legal rights to latter oppose a blood transfusion. Consequently, there is no harm to the WTBTS's blood policy.

  So, now that we have that fixed, what does whether or not the WTBTS can be '"legally harmed" have to do with the topic of this thread, which is whether or not the LoUs indicate a change in WTBTS policy? (BTW, I didn't say they were legally harmed; the harm would be to the perceived integrity of its policy.)

  As I said, I'm open to being persuaded. However, your responses to my posts have done nothing more than muddy the waters by pointing out errors in my merely tangentially-linked statements. These are commonly known as 'red herring' arguments. While I appreciate your concern that all my statements be the most literally accurate, I am still looking for persuasive arguments.

  Do you have any evidence that these LoUs indicate a change in the WTBTS's blood policy as is the assertion in the article, your assertion, and the title of this thread?
• 

  Justitia Themis

  I am also not so convinced that these are "legally useless documents." ...I think that if the JW parent decided to bring a civil suit later for wrongfully transfusing the child, this document would be admissible in that matter to show that the parent was on notice that a transfusion could be given

  JT wrote: It's not just about whether legal rights have been disclaimed or not.

  Actually, the above is precisely what this is all about. The LoU/Acknowledgement Statements are legally useless documents

  It's clear from my statement that I was addressing whether the documents affected legal rights. However, you are correct; they help the hospital/staff meet ethical and notice requirements, as shown from my post below which was copied from the other thread. As I noted earlier, the other thread is a "more complete" discussion, and I invite you to examine it.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/244052/1/Blood-transfusion-Letter-of-Understanding

  The following seems to document the usage of a similar document in a 2006 or 2007 North Carolina case:

  "Hospitals have an ethical obligation to delineate expressly to guardians of minors the parameters of the law and how medical care will be administered. The institution operating the “blood conservation program” in the above case routinely utilizes acknowledgement statements in circumstances involving the medical care of minors whose parents seek to refuse blood transfusions. These statements serve as a tool ensuring and documenting that clear and complete disclosure of the hospital’s intentions are conveyed to the patient’s guardians . . .Failure of the parents to sign such a document would not alter the care administered to the minor under North Carolina law in the event a life saving [sic] transfusion is required. From a legal and ethical standpoint, the statement serves to document formally that a clear dialogue was conducted between the hospital and the parents regarding the emergent administration of blood products.”

  Paul R. Brezina & John C. Moskop, Urgent Medical Decision Making Regarding a Jehovah’s Witness Minor: A Case Report and Discussion, 68 NC MED J 312, 314 (2007).
• 

  james_woods

  As has always been the case with the Witnesses (i.e. - the good of the Watchtower comes first) - this certainly has the smell of being motivated by the desire to avoid Watchtower lowing lawsuits -

  NOT THE GOAL OF SAVING PEOPLES LIVES.

  Pathetic.