Jez:
I know her first name, moderator: can I post it?
As much as I'd like to say Yes, since her identity is protected by Court Order, it would be best to keep it confidential.
14 YEAR OLD JW GIRL NEEDS BLOOD - CAN YOU HELP
by SHUNNED FATHER 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
Scully
-
Scully
Alleymom:
what troubles me is the question of what constitutes truly informed consent.
You're quite right. This is where the WTS, in my professional opinion, does its members a huge disservice. By plying them with propaganda and misinformation for years and years, and promoting a general distrust among JWs of the medical profession, the average JW layperson cannot make a rational decision - and in fact, the decision is often a solely emotional one based in their deepest fear of displeasing Jehovah and losing his favour, and subsequently losing out on their only opportunity to Live Forever In Paradise On Earth TM .
The doctors can only offer statistical odds of risks versus benefits. And to the mind of the average JW, the risk of losing God's Favour TM is 100% if they accept blood, even if the risk of death is 100% if they refuse blood, they still believe they have a 100% chance of being Resurrected TM .
Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a medical professional who will not be held liable for honouring a patient's expressed wishes to refuse treatment) there is no ethical doctrine of Informed Refusal. Even if a patient is clearly making a decision that is detrimental to them, they have the right to refuse treatment.
Love, Scully
-
Will Power
Excellent and very important comments made on the INFORMED decision part. That is the key here - That is what gets this board so crazy. We know it is NOT and informed one. This is what the courts need to understand.
I wonder if those statements would still stand if she decided to become sexually active and go on birth control. I bet you that she wouldn't have the right to decide what to do with her body then.
Would she have the right to smoke a cigarette? Would the WT lawyers be defending that right? No, they would condemn her & remove her family from her life.
Will the Bulgarian rules be read as part of the "informed decision?" The NGO status used to gain the borg's RIGHT to "LIVE" in certain countries?
Evil thrives when good people do nothing. (or say "everyones got THEIR OWN rights) This 14 year old girl has had HER RIGHT to 'LIVE" and thrive taken away by the WT & its members to advance their own agenda.
phew, just when I think I can remove this shyt from my life.....
will
-
TresHappy
A 14-year-old Okanagan member of the Jehovah's Witness church has lost a bitter court battle against receiving blood transfusions.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mary Boyd ruled yesterday that a provincial court judge had the power to authorize emergency transfusions against the girl's will.
Her lawyer, Shane Brady, said the girl's family is "disappointed" and is considering taking the case to the B.C. Court of Appeal.
"The family is disappointed because their position has been, all along, that once the court has found that she is as capable as you and I, that young woman should make the decision," said Brady.
The girl's name and her hometown can't be revealed, due to a publication ban. She was not in court yesterday.
Brady said the girl believed transfusions were a "violation of the biblical command to abstain from blood. The decision is based on her religious conscience."
The girl was diagnosed in December with a cancerous tumour on her right leg. The tumour was removed and she began chemotherapy.
After the girl and her family refused consent for blood transfusions, the case was forwarded to B.C.'s director of Child, Family and Community Service.
In court documents, the girl described how a transfusion would contravene her religious beliefs.
"It's no different than somebody getting sexually assaulted or raped or robbed or something," she said. "You'd feel violated because it's not anybody else's property, it's you."
Lawyers for the girl fought the case on the grounds the girl was not represented by legal counsel and that she was a "mature minor," capable of deciding her own treatment. They also said the girl's Charter rights were infringed by provincial law and she had suffered age discrimination.
Boyd said yesterday that by March 15, the girl's hemoglobin dropped to "well below" levels where a transfusion is normally given.
Boyd found that Provincial Court Judge Paul Meyers was "considered, thoughtful and sensitive" in ensuring the child had a fair hearing on March 18.
Boyd said doctors needed the "safety net" of having a transfusion available to continue with a more invasive cycle of chemo that the girl is due to start tomorrow. Meyers acted properly and "did everything possible to ensure the utmost fairness," said Boyd. That included talking to the girl by phone in her hospital bed.
Boyd said provincial laws allow courts to protect the rights of children in need of medical treatment. "All children are entitled to be protected from abuse and harm . . . the ultimate threat of harm would be death," she added.
Boyd said that while the girl was free to choose and practise her religion, that right was "not absolute" and orders could be made in a child's best interests.
"Ultimately, her religious beliefs don't override her right to life and health," Boyd said.
Raymond Busby, an elder in Burnaby's Capital Hill Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, said religious beliefs come first.
"The Bible has clear standards that we are not to take blood as Christians," he said.
Girl's Lawyer - Shane Brady
-
Jez
It was on the Vancouver news this morning. She has been made a ward of the province as well. Yipeeee!
What a fine 'witness' to all the people in BC that watch the news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Since this is the first case in BC like this, what a great precedent that has been set.
Why did not their God "Jehovah" support this 14 yr olds right to choose? Why was he silent on this? The JWs have prided themselves on having 'angels' in the courts with them..where were they? Why didn't he help if it is so right? What do they say to themselves now about where was their God? If they had won, you can be sure they would have said, "Oh Jehovah was with us and LOOK he saves his people from the evil worldly influences EVEN in court....blah" They would have milked it for all it was worth, but now that they have lost, what do they tell themselves?
Jez
-
Alleymom
Alleymom: what troubles me is the question of what constitutes truly informed consent.
Scully: You're quite right. This is where the WTS, in my professional opinion, does its members a huge disservice. By plying them with propaganda and misinformation for years and years, and promoting a general distrust among JWs of the medical profession, the average JW layperson cannot make a rational decision - and in fact, the decision is often a solely emotional one based in their deepest fear of displeasing Jehovah and losing his favour, and subsequently losing out on their only opportunity to Live Forever In Paradise On EarthTM. The doctors can only offer statistical odds of risks versus benefits. And to the mind of the average JW, the risk of losing God's FavourTM is 100% if they accept blood, even if the risk of death is 100% if they refuse blood, they still believe they have a 100% chance of being ResurrectedTM. Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a medical professional who will not be held liable for honouring a patient's expressed wishes to refuse treatment) there is no ethical doctrine of Informed Refusal. Even if a patient is clearly making a decision that is detrimental to them, they have the right to refuse treatment.Scully --
Sorry for not responding earlier. I just saw your post this morning.
The editorial in the Journal of Medical Ethics was very interesting, in that it took a position in favor of doctors informing their JW patients that dissident members of their own organization have conscientiously accepted blood. The doctor who wrote the editorial said that he intended to make this information available to his own patients.
excerpt from the Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:299-301 Editorial "Refusal of potentially life-saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses: should doctors explain that not all JWs think it's religiously required?" Raanan Gillon Imperial College School of Medicine, London University [...] In summary, this editorial makes the fairly modest proposal that doctors would at least be professionally justified?and some might consider that they were professionally obliged?to ask their Jehovah's Witness patients if they would explain why they rejected potentially life-saving blood transfusions, and to ask them if they would read arguments from members of their own religion?of course currently dissident members?justifying their acceptance of blood from within the belief system of that religion. The editorial considers and rejects counterarguments to these modest proposals. Henceforth the writer intends to act accordingly and to have available in his medical office photocopies at least of "Lee Elder"?s paper in this issue 1 which he will invite his Jehovah's Witness patients to read. Other doctors may wish to consider doing something similar. One final point, ad homines. Jehovah's Witnesses themselves should respect the virtues of these proposed actions, which involve asking people to explain their religious beliefs, asking them to listen to counterarguments, and asking them to read articles promoting alternative religious viewpoints. As a group, JWs are among the most ardent exponents of such an approach, especially on Sunday mornings when they knock at the doors of perfect strangers and ask permission to reason with them, and offer them literature, as part of their endeavour to help these strangers save their immortal souls. Thus of all people JWs should themselves be the last to find it offensive or immoral if their doctors risk offending them when they return the compliment in an effort to save their mortal bodies. It remains possible for all parties to decline either form of attempted salvation.
Marjorie