A reminder - the crown was present in the case. But Lawrence, as an intervenor represented himself.
As for Fred - your silence answers the questions.
hawk
Calgary Blood Case Effectively Over - We Won!
by AlanF 63 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlanF
All I know about Stafford's role, OldHippie, is that he was willing to testify in behalf of the father. I have no sure idea what his testimony would have been, but I can guess.
After reading all these comments, the thought occurred to me that it could be possible that the same three witnesses could be called to testify before the Supreme Court, and perhaps others could testify as well. That would be virtually a death knell for Watchtower.
AlanF
-
waiting
hey alan,
Quote: That would be virtually a death knell for the Watchtower
Perhaps. I would think only on the intellectual, legal, professional, level. For the average jw? Naaaaaa. They would only sigh that Satan is getting stronger....and The End must be getting nearer every day - as this would be only more proof of Bible prophecy. "Draw nearer to Jehovah."
However, with more legal losses, the WT will walk more carefully, and just perhaps - start walking a death march as you mentioned. But it'll probably be decades before the average/below average jw realizes it, particularily in countries without common access to computers.
waiting
Edited by - waiting on 26 June 2002 8:13:43
-
hawkaw
Alan,
No witnesses will appear in front of the supremes (if they hear the appeal).
If it does goes to appeal, it will be the lawyer's arguing about - if or if not the judge erred in the decision to uphold the statute that indicates a person in Alberta is a minor until the age of 18. As an adult they can make their own decisions but as a minor doctors can intervene.
But again the case is at the "leave to appeal" stage meaning 3 supreme court judges are deciding if they want the court to even hear the case.
hawk
-
MikeMusto
I cant imagine that Stafford is in good standing in his cong. He surely has been
subject to some form of witch hunt. Dude is on his way out.
Stafford wrote:
Because of my history as one of Jehovahs Witnesses and my research into issues pertaining to the authority structure of the Watchtower Society and its unique policies and teachings (in particular, their blood doctrine), I was asked to appear as a witness for the applicant, Lawrence Hughes. Lawrence is the father of Bethany Hughes, a 16 year old girl who suffers from leukemia which requires chemotherapy, a procedure that destroys healthy red blood cells that can be replaced by a red cell transfusion.
Bethanys father, though at one time opposed to blood transfusions due to what he had been taught as one of Jehovahs Witnesses, ultimately determined through a re-reading of Bible verses and accounts dealing with the use of blood that the Bible did not forbid the blood transfusions. Bethanys mother and daughters, together with members of their congregation and representatives of the Watchtower Society, opposed the transfusion of red cells and platelets which led to court battle after court battle.
Several witnesses, including Jim Penton, Dr. Sam Muramoto, and myself, were called as witnesses to testify on the question of whether or not Bethany was in a position, as a 16 year old Jehovahs Witness, to make an informed decision about blood transfusions, or in this case transfusions of red cells and platelets. This list of witnesses was declared in court at least a week prior to the scheduled dates for our testimony (June 21 and 24, 2002). At that time Bethanys attorney (a Jehovahs Witness) and the attorneys for the Watchtower Society, objected and asked the court to prevent the aforementioned witnesses from testifying. The court denied this request (see Disgruntled Jehovah's Witnesses can testify at Calgary trial, judge rules, Canadian Press, Canadian.com News, Tuesday, June 18, 2002).
I was later informed that shortly after the judge denied the Watchtower lawyers request to prevent the witnesses from testifying, Child Welfare offered the Witness/Watchtower attorneys a deal: Allow Bethany to complete her treatments (which were to extend about another three weeks at the time) and the witnesses would not testify. The Watchtower attorneys and Bethanys attorney rejected this offer as it would mean continued transfusions for Bethany.
On Monday, June 24, 2002, I was scheduled to testify along with Dr. Muramoto. However, on Sunday, June 23, 2002, the attorneys for Bethany and the Watchtower Society contacted Lawrences attorney and offered to accept their previous offer in order to prevent Lawrences witnesses from testifying. This meant, of course, that Bethany would get the rest of her treatments (transfusions included) and that the lawyers would not fight the treatments until the case resumes later this year, in October, long after Bethanys treatments have been completed.
THE DAY OF TESTIMONY
I entered the hallway leading to the courtroom and noted that about 50 or more Jehovahs Witnesses were present. None of these spoke with Lawrence at any time during the time preceding the trial, and none spoke with him after the trial. I noticed that Lawrence attempted to speak with one of his daughters after the trial, but he received only a brief remark before she simply turned away from him. Lawrence did have several people there to offer some support: Jim Penton and his son, Dr. Muramoto, Richard and Francis Rawe, Chris Christenson, myself, and one other lady whose name escapes me. (Remember, Lawrence is at this time neither disfellowshiped nor disassociated from Jehovahs Witnesses.)
After entering the courtroom Lawrence and the attorneys for all parties were gathered together for a conference with the judge, and after some time they returned. The judge entered and the proceedings began. The attorneys for Child Welfare outlined their proposal for adjourning the trial until later this year, in October, since with the appearance of witnesses for Lawrence would extend the trial beyond the period of Bethanys treatments. In other words, by the time the trial had finished, Bethany would already have received the needed treatments. The judge asked Bethanys attorney and the Watchtower lawyers if they agreed to the adjournment (though this had already been worked out in conference), and they stated the following: We oppose the adjournment as to do otherwise would be to accept further transfusions. However, we appreciate the reasons for the adjournment as stated by [the attorneys for Child Welfare]. The judge then asked if they would agree to the adjournment, and the Witness lawyers said they would agree to it but that they are opposed to its consequences. Lawrence was asked if he agreed to the adjournment and he stated that he did agree to it.
Then the Child Welfare attorneys provided the details of the adjournment and the judge agreed to allow it. Part of the Witness lawyers acceptance of the offer (the offer they initially declined but later initiated themselves [see below]), was that Mrs. Hughes be allowed to make a statement to the court. Mrs. Hughes took the stand and Bethanys lawyer asked her a series of questions, one of which was: What decision would you like to see this court make with respect to your daughters situation? Mrs. Hughes replied: I would like this court to decide in favor of my daughters right to make her own informed decision about whether or not to accept a blood transfusion. Mrs. Hughes went on to state that she did not at any time attempt to remove the IV from her daughter, but that Bethany herself had attempted to remove the IV, and that Bethany has not been the same since the transfusions have been forced upon her. Then the Witness lawyer asked her the following question: What would you do if Bethany decided on her own to accept a blood transfusion? Mrs. Hughes responded: Although I would not agree with her decision, I would support her throughout the entire time she decided to receive the transfusions. Mrs. Hughes appeared to be sincere and genuinely concerned for her daughter. Her responses were coupled with displays of emotion, which is certainly understandable.
PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE
While I do not doubt that Mrs. Hughes would support her daughter if she decided to accept a blood transfusion or a transfusion of red cells or platelets (there is a difference between a blood transfusion and a transfusion of red cells, etc., namely, blood is blood and red cells are a component of blood). However, the question that was not raised by the Witness lawyer (Child Welfare declined to cross examine Mrs. Hughes, reserving the right to do so at a later time), is whether or not he or any other Jehovahs Witness would also support Bethanys decision to accept a transfusion. We can imagine the strain that a mother would feel if she did not support her child under such circumstances, even if she disagreed with her childs decision. But it is a fact that if Bethany made a conscientious decision to accept transfusions, multiple transfusions over a period of weeks or months (as in this particular case), she would be disfellowshiped from the congregation. How might such knowledge affect a 16 girl? How might the prospect of losing your immediate friends and larger social circle/religious community affect her? It seems to me that the implication of the lawyers question and the mothers response was that Bethany would receive support from the entire Witness community, for if her mother would support her, being one of Jehovahs Witnesses, then other Witnesses would support her, too.
Mrs. Hughes has a right to speak up for her daughters right to make her own informed decision. Bethany has a right to make her own informed decision, and one of the lingering ethical dilemmas of this trial will revolve around the question of the extent to which a person should be expected to consider information that truly allows someone to make an informed decision, should they decide they do not want to be exposed to information that would be essential to making an informed decision. If, for example, we support a persons right to make their own informed decision, what is our responsibility for making sure that they have informed themselves about the particular issue(s) in question so that their decision can truly be considered informed?
In any event, what clearly is not apparent to Mrs. Hughes, and understandably so, is that Lawrence, her husband, Bethanys father, is seeking the very thing for which she asked: Let Bethany make an informed decision, a decision not forced upon her by information that lacks balance, information that does not provide an analysis or explanation of all the relevant issues. Does Bethany, or her mother, or any of the other Witnesses in attendance at trial for that matter, know why the Watchtower condemns red cell transfusions but does not condemn the use of hemoglobin? Consider: According to the Watchtower Society, red cells (and platelets, plasma, and white cells) should not be transfused because they are considered major components of blood. Yet, if we use that same logic, then since red cells are basically hemoglobin with a cellular membrane, making hemoglobin a major component of red cells, why isnt hemoglobin condemned on the same basis, namely, being a major component of a prohibited substance (a red cell)?
It might also be asked whether or not Bethany is aware that appointed elders in various congregations of Jehovahs Witnesses disagree with the Societys blood doctrine, but are in some cases hesitant to make their concerns public for fear of what might happen to them? Can we say that Bethany might also be pressured by these same or similar fears, so that she would not expose herself to questions about the Watchtower blood policy as presented by others, Witnesses and non-Witnesses, who have studied the issues at length?
Suppose Bethany was able to read enough material and study the issues to such an extent that she could rightly say that she is familiar with the arguments for and against the Societys blood policy, and the result is that she is uncertain about what the Bible actually prohibits. What pressure would there be in the Watchtower organization that might sway her uncertain view to one side or the other? Perhaps something like this:
Do we doubt that a faithful and discreet slave has been appointed to give Jehovahs people their food at the proper time? (Matthew 24:45-47) Why deprive ourselves of godly joy because not everything is completely understood? Remember, Jehovah decides when and how to reveal his confidential matters.Amos 3:7. [Show A Waiting Attitude, The Watchtower, September 1, 2000, page 13].
Or something like this:
[A] mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions *OR* harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the faithful and discreet slave. [Make Your Advancement Manifest, The Watchtower, August 1, 2001, page 14.]
The only way Bethany could obtain a sufficient knowledge of the issues so that it could truthfully be said that she is able to make an informed decision is if she is exposed to writings on the subject outside of what is provided by the Society. What is the likelihood that this is the case for a 16 year old? Its possible, of course, but if she has had such exposure then she or anyone else who claims to have made an informed decision about such matters should be able to articulate the arguments having to do with accepting or not accepting a red cell transfusion. It might also be expected that such persons could explain where and how the Bible provides a basis for excluding red cells but not hemoglobin. In any event, when one looks at the environment in the Watchtower Society that instructs persons about the blood policy, it is fair to say that it is unlikely that most Witnesses have a full appreciation for the arguments against the Societys blood policy. It is even reasonable to suspect that most Witnesses do not have a healthy understanding of the particulars of the Societys own arguments!
One final note: As noted earlier, on the day of testimony, June 24, 2002, the Watchtower lawyers verbally opposed the adjournment of the trial on the grounds that accepting the adjournment would be tantamount to accepting further blood transfusions. However, what the 50 plus Witnesses in attendance do not know, and likely will never know, is that it was the Societys and Bethanys lawyers who initiated the offer between the parties legal representatives the day before they verbally opposed it in court. This they were able to do because the offer they initiated had been first advanced by Child Welfare. Again, it was originally rejected but, as noted above, it was later initiated by the Watchtowers and Bethanys lawyers one day before the testimony of Lawrences Witnesses, apparently to prevent the witnesses from testifying.
True, they likely realized that Bethany would receive the scheduled treatments anyway, and that to continue the trial would provide an opportunity to examine the question of whether or not Bethany has been unduly influenced to refuse transfusions of needed blood components, or if she has truly been able to reach an informed decision on the matter. It can only be concluded from their offer to accept the settlement previously proposed by Child Welfare that they did not want to have this question examined.
Edited by - mikemusto on 26 June 2002 8:54:39
Edited by - mikemusto on 26 June 2002 8:56:46
-
hawkaw
Mike,
Its amasing how some come around. There is nothing worse than people like Alan F, Barb, Bill, Dr. Penton and now Greg coming around and recognizing that these people are needlessly killing little children.
I wonder if Greg, seeing "them" in action against Larry had had now an even more serious affect.
hawk
-
thewiz
funny how you applaud the decision of the court to walk all over the rights of others to decide for the best medical care and alternative medicine. blood tansfusions have always been the quick and dirty approach to a fix. it can and often does cover over sloppy surgery. people make the ASSumption that the transfusion of blood is the first and best approach to blood replacement, when it isn't. even the medical and scientific community recgnizes this, for all the factors involved.
so if anyone of you had a bad tooth, lets say. your first and only approach would be to pull the tooth out? what about all the other ways to fix the problem? after all pulling a tooth is the quickest, cleanest, cheapest way out, but by no means the only fix.
i recorded something off the medical discovery channel about blood replacement therapy and different research going on for alternatives to blood. the reasons they gave for this were many and reasonable. there was a guy on there who said he would never take blood because of all the risks involved (i believe he had gotten a disease from a previous transfusion). he also releated how someone gots AIDS
first no good people like, who bitch and complain about how 6 million+ JDubs don't give blood, but don't bitch about the other, let's be conservative and say 2 billion people, who can and don't (and then of course when one JDub does "crack" and takes blood -which appears to be what you really want anyway, you bitch about that too).
1. the blood supply reserve is low and it isn't because of a puny 6+ million Jdubs, it's the other 2 billion. people giving blood has dropped, dramatically.
2. contaimination of the blood supply which is still a very real threart no matter how many checks are done. Some, of which, is that way because people want to live a debauched life.
3. blood only has a refrigerated shelf life not more that 30 days (i think).
4. in times of war there simply is not enough blood around to transfuse, and we want our boys to get up off their backs as soon as possible so they can kill again
5 screening of blood is essentially moot (which the AIDS virus proved) how would they know how to test for the next great pathogen, by then it's too late for millions
6. The non-blood therapy has a non-refrigerated shelf life of two years, can be given to anybody, no risk of disease because the creation of it is controlled. and can be made into virtually limitless quantities.
----
this is a larger issue and bigger implications.
let me relate a story about a woman who went into the hospital with a bum/gum/bad leg. Her HMO said, "cut the damn thing off. we'll pay for that. if she wnat's to keep it she'll have to pay for it herself" -imagine that, the quickest fix is to cripple the woman for life. it's the fastest, cleanest, cheapest, and gets her over her problem immediately. but what are the long term affects? need i explain?
she said "shove it, i'm going to at least try another alternative/opinion." she stayed in the hospital for a month 'til everything got better, and it did. she kept her leg. her HMO said, "we ain't gonna pay for that. you didn't take our mandate on the recommended course of treatment." she sued them, and won. I guess you idiots would have had your leg taken off. and apparently you have never heard of a second opinion.
then you'll use the standard cop-out, of course, and say, "yeah, but this isn't the same." you only know one alternative because that's all your ever presented with. but people have another weapon, they can stay informed, more than ever before, and not just take their dr.'s word at the drop of a hat. dr's have fallen from the gods they used to be.
please
-
Pathofthorns
Thanks for sharing those comments Mike... Very interesting and informative. Can you state where they were originally posted?
Path
-
hawkaw
the wiz,
You are a person who does not provide one ounce of scientific facts but can provide tons and tons of opinions.
In the case of "Mia" she had to have chemotherapy and with it blood transfusions. There is no other alternative and sadly even with the treatment she has only a 40 percent chance at life. But without the treatment she has a 0 percent chance at life. Here let me repeat that number - 0 percent!!!!! Even renound professors from Harvard and other Professionals were called into the case to explain this to the judge in the first lawsuit.
It was the Witness lawyers who argued that Blood therapy was a "clincial trial" and test case type of therapy that has not to be proven to work. And they did it without any sound medical or scientific facts.
The facts are the facts. The facts of this case have been explained. The facts are this girl is a "minor" under the law and must be protected by the "state" until she is 18. At that time SHE can decide what is best for her.
One quick note - those non-blood products you talk about are actually blood products (hemoglobin based). These products ARE NOT APPROVED do to problems with them too that are MORE SERIOUS THAN TAKING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION!!! - yet you write to this discussion board suggesting that they are better than blood!!!! And you have the gaul to forget that these products wer BANNED by the WTS prior to June 15, 2000.
Each therapy has it risks. It up to the individual to become FULLY INFORMED by credible doctors (not so-called doctors) and determine what the risks are and go from there wrt the therapy. Just as an example there is a 1:30,000 chance of a problem with a vaccine. Yet most witnesses take them. And Witnesses will more than gladly except a heart or kidney transplant that has an 1:10 to 1:5 chance of KILLING YOU. But when presented with the evidence that there is a 1:1,000,000 chance in Canada of a problem with AIDs or other diseases in the blood - most Witnesses will Not take them even if it is there only chance at life. Why is that? Because Witnesses ARE NOT fully informed about blood therapies.
And just as wild - IN the 1970s and 1980s, Witnesses gladly accepted taking FACTORs 8 and 9, which are components of blood all during the same time that whole blood and these components contained the aids virus!!!!
The point the father, Lawrence Hughes, wishes to make is that its up to the daughter to decide as long as she is FULLY informed. He knows, just like I, that HLC's and others such as our so-called expert resident doctor (called the "wiz") DO NOT fully inform the Witnesses and HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to offer medical advice or medical statistics to ANY Witness patients.
hawk
Edited by - hawkaw on 26 June 2002 15:6:35
-
dungbeetle
This is not about blood, WIZ, this is about child abuse. The fact of the matter is, the mother AND father belonged to a religion, and they told this child she would lose eternal life if she accepted blood. This is the worst kind of child abuse imaginable, becasue the child must die to please its parents.
And they also know that if she accepts blood she will be expelled/shunned and this is NOT a choice. This is NOT free will
the analogies you made in your post are not appropriate. All of the people in your post were adults. Thee were other treatments available for what ailed them (as far as I could tell)
But this mother was going to commit child sacfifice, for her own personal reasons. It is incontravertible that when a JW child dies, the surviving parent is buried under an avalanche of sympathy and well wishes; I am not saying the Canadian mother was motivated by this, but look at it from her point of view: choice 1, let the child die and get accolades choice 2: keep her child alive and get what the father got. Even the mother doesn't have free will here.
WIZ, you have demonstrated since the day you came to this board how easily you judge others, their motivations, their pain, their anger, everything about them. You are not QUALIFIED to do this.
That father SAID his child was not mature enough to make her own judgements, and what HE said should have been respected by everyone.
Ask yourself, if the girl decided, on her own, to accept treatment, would those fifty Witnesses still be present?