Adoption by Jehovah's Witnesses is blocked

by expatbrit 72 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  expatbrit

  Adoption by Jehovah's Witnesses is blocked
  The Independent - United Kingdom; May 26, 2001
  BY BRIAN FARMER

  A COUPLE originally approved by a council as adoptive parents have been refused permission by social workers to adopt a child, because they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

  The couple, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have had temporary care of the 16-month-old girl since she was a few days old. But the couple, who live near Cambridge, have now been told that they cannot adopt the child permanently because the girl's natural mother does not want her daughter to be brought up by Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Cambridge County Council's social services department said that officials were acting in accordance with the child's natural mother as laid down by law. A spokesman stressed that they would probably be able to adopt other children as the council had approved them as adoptive parents.

  The couple plan a meeting with social workers to try to reverse the decision. Liz Railton, Cambridgeshire County Council's director of social services, said: "The county council's adoption process does not have any religious restrictions."

  All Material Subject to Copyright
• 

  patio34

  Expatrbrit,

  That was an interesting news article. I can understand the natural mother's feelings. But have sympathy for the JWs also.

  Pat
• 

  Lindy

  We were foster parents for about 3 years or so. There are a lot of Amish in our county and a few are foster parents. I wondered why the Amish would get involved in being foster parents since they avoid most all modern "English" ways. (Anyone who isn't Amish is "English") I found out in a short time that they enter the system in order to bring "new blood" into the Amish community. There is a large amount of inbreeding with cousins and the like because of the smallness of the community and other Amish at distant communities are hard to come by. So they are adopting children to fill the void. I have questioned this because of raising these kids in such an extreme culture from the "norm" around them. I know I wouldn't want my child being adopted by them. At least with a JW family the kid has a better chance to being normal than if adopted by the Amish trying to live in the old world inside the modern world. Although, I wouldn't given the choice, have JW's raise my kid either.

  Lindy
• 

  Agape

  Since the issue of blood transfusion alone makes JWs "worse than Waco" and "worse than Jonestown", I would support creating legal constraints on adoption by JWs. Taking the position as they do against life-saving medical procedures, such as transfusion, automatically disqualifies JWs from being legitimate candidates for becoming adoptive parents. Sincere as they may be, they are sincerely wrong on this issue (and many others).

  Feel sorry for JWs? Yes, but not for anything other than that they are duped.
• 

  MacHislopp

  Hello Expatbrit,

  thanks for the information!

  I do like the comment about the "blood issue" .
  Very logical and true.

  Agape, J.C. MacHislopp

  P.S. To some it may sound "discrimination"
  but the child's interests do come first!
• 

  Sunbeam

  Not so long ago, British TV ran a series about adoption. It followed a number of couples through the adoption process, showing how they were screened before being approved as adopters. In each case, they were allocated a social worker who conducted several interviews with them at their homes over the course of a number of months.

  From beginning to end this procedure usually takes, appropriately, 9 months. Having put together a report about all aspects of the couple (their home, family relationships, values, religion, etc) and if they believe they are suitable, the social worker then pleads their case at a formal meeting of senior social services staff.

  It seems to me that this time someone hasn't done their homework. In the tv series, the social worker even researched the small evangelical church that one couple attended to ensure that it wasn't a cult.

  In the UK, there is a desperate shortage of potential adopters, especially for children who have passed the cute toddler stage. So the rules governing who can adopt have been relaxed. You no longer have to be in a longstanding heterosexual relationship, under the age of 35, to be considered. But whoever this couple adopt, it's possible that one day they try to sue Cambridgeshire social services for the damaged caused by their ultra-pc policy.

  Sunbeam
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day all,

  My sympathy's with the foster parents. They've been nurturing this child for its entire 16 month life. Denying the foster mother, whether JW or not, the child is a tremendous emotional loss for her, much like grieving for the child.

  If it was good enough to allow the parents to be foster parents, why not adoptive parents?

  I just wonder too whether some religious prejudice on the part of the social workers may not have influenced the natural mother to express her wishes.

  Poor mother!

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  Freedom is not having to wear a tie.
• 

  LupyLu

  I just had to respond to your statement about the blood issue. I ran into this site looking for adoption info...how I got here I don’t' know. Anyway, my father has worked in hospitals up until his military retirement. Over 16 years ago, my dad tried to document in his medical records that he would rather die before receiving a blood transfusion. Of course, it was the norm to ONLY consider that "choice" with Jehovah Witnesses. My dad has never been and to this day he isn't a JW. However, there was a one-day conference about two Saturdays ago at John Hopkins University/Hospital. It was about the benefits of blood-less surgeries and other blood-less issues.

  Did you know there are now over 350 hospitals AROUND THE WORLD that are blood-less hospitals? Do your research! Don't slam the JW's about this. They do not wish for their children to die! They seek better and healthier alternatives. They are common now, but back in the days they weren't and of course, the mind thinking of doctors where VERY narrow and authoritative. From my experience, the JW's are very demand-full for the best care of their children! Wait and see, in a few years, the JW's will be acknowledged for the blood-less stand. What will all of you do when blood is no longer an option? We are living in the 22nd century!

  You have choices now. For your better health and that of your children's (if you have any or for those readers that do) health, I recommend that you all educate yourselves on the issue before speaking so badly about the JW's. Look it up in the Internet under: bloodless hospitals/surgeries/alternatives etc. But you certainly won’t find anything under Waco!

  I feel bad about the way people talk about the JW's and the blood issue. But I don't blame you. The media will all ways present the truth to their standards. For instance, the media will re-play and re-play cover stories about the mal-treatment on gays. But why haven't they done cover stories on the two gay man that brutally raped a young man up north (I think it was Chicago)? The response I got was that the media will not talk about the gay community in fear of retaliation. It will cost them money and a very vast audience. Think about it!
• 

  twvsnt

  LupyLu I rarely come across someone who isn't a JW nor have relatives whois a JW that take up for JW's, you're truely unique!!!! But then again when you've done your research concerning a certain aspect of the WTBS then you're most likely to be accurate in what you say. There's even been an Awake article on the blood issue. Granted this religion like all others has its flaws because its members are imperfect. WHile some members are humble others may be concieted while some may be laid-back other members may be anal but the whole fact of the matter is, we're ALL imperfect. But when you belong to an organization whom you honestly feel enables you to have a closer relationship with God ;through meetings, bible studies (on our own personal time) as well as other activities, people will give you a hard time when you're a JW. Some of the many reasons this is so is because of the blood issues,the obstaining from the celebrating of holidays and birthdays etc. But when this very same organization plays a significant part, not the whole part, but some part in the invention of Blood-less surgeries and other bloodless issues, all people will say is the WBTS is a horrible organization and forget some of the postive influenes it has made in some peoples lives!!
• 

  AlanF

  To LupyLu:

  It's pretty obvious from your comments that, while your father isn't a JW, you are. As such, you have not understood what the objections of JW critics to the blood transfusion ban are. Likely, you only go on what the Watchtower Society has told you, which a bit of research will show you, is grossly biased and misrepresents a great number of things.

  Very few people I know of don't know that bloodless surgery, or using a minimum amount of blood in surgery, is a good thing. But there are certain situations, usually involving trauma, where there is simply no alternative to a transfusion of, say, red cells. The Watchtower is dishonest because it almost NEVER deals with such traumatic medical situations when it discusses the stand of JWs on blood. The recent blood video made for the medical community is a case in point: not a single word is said about what a doctor should do about massive blood loss in a JW patient.

  In short, the Watchtower presents a strawman argument to the medical community about bloodless surgery.

  In a larger view, the Watchtower is simply wrong when it claims that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions. The Bible says nothing about the subject, so anything that someone infers from scriptures like Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15 is just that -- an inference. And we all know how many wrong inferences the Watchtower has made over the decades.

  Critics of the JW stance on blood are not generally overtly in favor of using blood therapy, nor are they against it, any more than they're personally in favor of or against any other medical treatments. What critics are most concerned with is the fact that JW leaders do not allow JWs the freedom of conscience to make their own personal decisions about a potentially lifesaving treatment when the Bible itself is silent on the matter. I have no doubt that, in the long run, the Watchtower will abandon its current stand and make transfusions a "conscience matter", just as it did with taking vaccinations or having organ transplants.

  For a solid refutation of the JW view on blood transfusions, take a look at http://www.jwbloodreview.org .

  Anyone who is familiar with details of Watchtower policy on blood knows that it is arbitrary and inconsistent. Until one year ago a JW would have been disfellowshipped for taking a transfusion of red blood cells that had been processed into a more pure form of hemoglobin. Yet today, that kind of transfusion is allowed, because the Watchtower has informed Hospital Liaison Committees that products such as HemoPure are now allowed. HemoPure is nothing but cow blood that has been purified and had the hemoglobin concentrated. Can you explain why straight red cells are forbidden while processed red cells are permitted? Can you explain why just a year ago such products were declared to be such an offense against God that it resulted in disfellowshipping of unrepentant transfusees, yet by a simple policy change it is no longer against "God's law"? If you can, you're doing well because experience shows that not even the Watchtower can explain these things. All they can manage is some form of "this is our religious belief and you dasn't question it."

  AlanF