Shouldn't JWs ALSO go to prison if minor dies due to blood restriction?

by herk 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  IslandWoman

  Hi Manon,

  You wrote:

  In the USA in order to join the military you must be 18 years or older you're considered an adult at this age

  Good point! Yet, many young men who volunteer do so because their father or mother encouraged service to country through military service. Listen to many young men in the military and you will hear parental example or encouragement driving them towards a military career.

  Look, my point is many parents do their best to give the most beneficial counsel to their children as they can. JW and non JW. Both may turn out to be flawed.

  Linda
• 

  Brummie

  My take on this:

  I would have refused blood and let my child die when I was a JW, I dont doubt this even though I am aware that we often have to be in the predicament before we can say what we woud do, but I was always "mentally" prepared to reject all blood under any circumstance so I just dont doubt it.

  Now had my child died, and I was put into prison, I would have considered it persecution for keeping Gods law. The everlasting life of my child rather than the immediate life would have been the reason I went to prison so I would feel innocent of any crime and would wait on Jah to justify my actions and ressurect my child.

  In answer to your question, YES send them to prison, send me to prison regardless of how inoccent I feel my actions were, the child was innocent too but I let it die. I have the less harmful fate, there should be a penalty for self rightous murder. At least while I am locked up in prison I am less harmful to other members of my family who need a blood transfusion. Protect them and send me to prison, if I let my child die I will also rightously and fanatically let any memeber of my family die.

  A stint in prison will give me time to think things over without the influence of 5 meetings a week, who knows, it may help me to think twice next time I decide I have the right to with-hold lifesaving treatment from a baby.

  It would be an added bonus if they held the GB responsible for the deaths also.

  Brummie
• 

  IslandWoman

  Unlike the child whose sad death is chronicled in the first post of this thread, the withholding of blood tranfusions in the U.S. is by court order or sanctioned by the Doctor in charge of the patient rather than done in secret.

  Should then the doctor or the judge who allowed the child to be deprived of blood be brought to trial?

  Linda
• 

  Brummie

  Good thought IW. I think the yes, they should be forced to give a good reason for allowing the child to die.

  Its usually the other way round here, the court over rule the parents and force blood on to a minor.

  The right question is "should the child have a right to live?"

  Brummie
• 

  Joker10

  People choose their own medical treatment. It's that simple.
• 

  Brummie

  No its not that simple Joker, we are discussing minors, they are little people too but unable to speak for themselves.

  Brummie