Should JWs Be Allowed To Foster...This Child Died Over Blood

ISP

Probe into Jehovah's witness's death after crash
A JEHOVAH'S witness who suffered internal injuries in a motorbike crash died after refusing a blood transfusion.
Jonathan Everett, 22, told staff at Bury General that he would not take any blood products before undergoing an emergency operation.
A family friend said: ''It was Jonathan's own decision and he showed the courage of his convictions by making it and didn't seem to have any hesitation about it.'' An investigation has now been launched by Bury District Coroner Barrie Williams to determine whether the decision contributed to his death.
But a spokesman for Manchester's Hospital Liaison Committee for Jehovah's Witnesses - which advised doctors on alternative treatments before the operation was carried out - claimed that Jonathan's injuries would have led to his death whether or not he had taken blood.
Learner driver Jonathan, from Callis Road, Bolton, was travelling home from Haslingden, where he worked as a graphic designer, when his motorbike was in collision with a saloon car last week.
He was conscious when he arrived at Bury General's accident and emergency department where he was joined by his foster father Graham Bibby - also a Jehovah's witness - before signing a consent form for the operation excluding blood and blood components. Jonathan died in a theatre recovery room the following morning after suffering an internal haemorrhage.
Vic Harbinson, speaking on behalf of the family, said: ''Mr Bibby said to Jonathan that he would have to make a decision and it was Jonathan's own decision and he showed the courage of his convictions by making it and didn't seem to have any hesitation about it.
''Jonathan took his beliefs very seriously. Every individual has to make the choice for himself. He made that decision because it was something that he felt strongly about.''
Jonathan, who had been fostered since early childhood, became a Jehovah's witness 10 years ago when he and his brother Christopher, 20, went to live with Graham and Sandra Bibby. The family were members of the Kingdom Hall Bolton meeting place.
Mr Harbinson said: ''The family are stunned and in a state of shock. They were a tightly-knit family. They were very close. It was one of those happy arrangements that was working very well.''

ISP

This is so sad...children who needed to belong so bad...Of COURSE they would go along with whatever would make them accepted by their new "family". I would think that the blood issue would be a major issue with the Witnesses fostering, but....I guess not.

ISP

Its not really a choice, you either do it or you get rejected by your family. This is an excerpt from Hansard that I have posted before. On this occasion, the JW parents did not want the child back that had a transfusion forced on it.

25 Jan 1996 : Column 1162 to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, if this was a matter with which she had to deal. I do so because it actually happened in Oxford.
The child of two Jehovah's Witnesses aged eight was knocked down, severely injured and was bleeding to death. The parents refused to sign the form giving permission for a blood transfusion, as they would because of their religion. A judge was summoned to the child's bedside; a care order was made; the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.

ISP

Cassiline

the transfusion was given, and the child recovered. However, the parents refused to have the child back because they said that it was no longer the same child.

OMG

I have never seen this before, how horrible! That poor child. Once again it is proven that you can't know witnesses "by the love they show", as in many cases it is not present.

NeonMadman

My ex-wife and I foster parented in Massachusetts for about 10 years. In that time, we had 4 different children in our home, two of them for extended periods (4 years each). The children were wards of the state; we were merely caretakers in the legal sense. We did not have the right to dictate medical treatment for the children, and, had any of them needed blood while in our care, it would have been given. None of the children adopted the JW religion when they were with us (though all of them were required to attend the meetings with us as a matter of practicality - they couldn't very well be left at home alone), even though we were active Witnesses at the time.

The situation described in this article is that of a foster child who personally adopted the beliefs of his foster family, and then, as an adult, refused blood and died, presumably as a result of the refusal. His decision was in accordance with the teachings of a religion that he had now, as an adult, made his own.

I certainly don't see any justification in this for disqualifying JW's as foster parents. Why? Because the foster child might come to believe in the religion and subsequently be harmed by it? Are we prepared to ban all cult members from providing foster care? Should Christian Scientists be banned from being foster parents because they don't believe in medical care at all? How about groups that just have strange beliefs? Some people think Baptists are strange, should they be prohibited, too? Or Wiccans, they're kind of unusual, right?

If we're going to that length, maybe we should ban the door-to-door work, too. After all, the JW's might talk with a teenage kid they meet in service, and the kid might ultimately become a JW himself, and then, years later, die from refusing a needed transfusion.

I think most of can agree that the JW's are a dangerous religion for a variety of reasons. Their policy on blood is both inconsistent and unscriptural. But it is dangerous to restrict people's rights within society because of their religious beliefs. As my own case demonstrates, not every child who is provided foster care by JW's will become a JW. That this one kid did, and later died because of JW beliefs that he personally adopted and maintained into his adult life, is not sufficient grounds for the restriction of religious freedom.

RunningMan

Make sure you send this article to the Watchtower Victims Memorial at AJWRB.

ISP

Neon Madman,

The deceased was an adult, but he was influenced to give his life up for nothing by his JW indoctrination. Although it was said it was his own decision, we all know what that means don't we? He would have been DF'd - disowned by his foster parents if he had gone against the WTS dogma. Did he have any real choice?

I would not allow dubs to adopt. Their teachings can kill.

ISP

Yizuman

I would not allow dubs to adopt. Their teachings can kill.

I concur!

Yiz

freedom96

The WTS is bloodguilty over the blood issue. Period.

happyout

Adopting and being a foster parent are two very different things. Foster parents don't usually have legal rights over the child, and also, don't normally keep them until they reach adulthood.

However, knowing what I know about the foster care system in the US, I would definitely NOT exclude dubs, or anyone else who is willing to give a child sanctuary. Many of these children are taken from homes where they were beaten, raped, and many other horrible things. Since a foster parent would not be able to forbid a blood transfusion, it would not be an issue. As was pointed out, this individual was not a "child". And while I think the WTS is bloodguilty over this stupid rule, as pointed out already, there are many religions that forbid various forms of medical treatment, and it's not logical to try to exclude them all.

It's better for a child to have a home where they are fed and cared for than to continue to suffer the way many of them do.

Happyout