THEY MURDERED MY DAUGHTER - WILL YOU HELP ?????

by SHUNNED FATHER 82 Replies latest jw friends

  • undercover
    undercover

    First of all...I agree that the blood policy helped lead to this terrible tragedy and the WTS shares some blame...but I am confused on some things. I have not kept up with this case very close I admit, but some things raised questions just from what Shunned Father said and what the articles said.

    First Shunned Father says:

    Two leading Oncologists both agree that my daughter Bethany might be alive today if she had not been fed Arsenic. As you may recall, the WTS arranged to take my sick daughter into hiding for two months and payed a doctor to prescribe Arsenic. The doctor ant the WTS lawyers convinced Bethany that the Arsenic treatment could cure her.

    Was she fed arsenic or did the alternative treatment she was given contain arsenic in it? There's a difference there. Some foods have trace amounts of arsenic. Chemotherapy is a form of radiation. In normal circumstances one would want to stay away from radiation. It could be a similar situation with the arsenic treatment. The statement above seems to want to lead one to believe that some witch doctor practice was being used.

    Hiding the daughter from her father is unpardonable. But did the WTS whisk her away or did her mother? Yes, the mother was definitely under the influence of the WTS, but if she took her and hid her, can you prove that the WTS had anything to do with that? Maybe they did, but can it be proved in a court of law that they had this kind of influence on the situation or will it be presented as if it was the mothers decision alone? Remember, most people do not know how cult religions work. It will be hard to get them to envision life as a JW and understand how one's thinking and decision making is influenced by the indoctrinations of the church.

    The medical records show that the doctor could have saved my daughters life at any time , right up to the last day, if he had given her blood.

    According to the one article listed, she was given 38 transfusions. Maybe it was too late by then, but that doesn't jive with what was stated above.

    The WTS is an evil empire and they are easy to hate by ex-JWs and I feel for those that lost a family member when the blood policy is strictly adhered too, but sometimes grief can make us overreact and strike blindly out at the easiest target. The WTS is an easy target to lash out against, and they deserve some heat for the blood policy, but there is no guarantee that she would have lived even if blood had been transfused early on. Murder is a strong word and if you accuse them of that you have to make sure you can back that up.

    I know I'll probably catch some heat for this post, but I stand by it. Even though I hate the WTS, I also believe in understanding the facts on a case before jumping on anyone's bandwagon in trying to defame the WTS.

  • defd
    defd

    Thank you valis for those links. I have read the story and I do apologize for dismissing it before i evn knew if it were true. I do apologize to larry for making this a heated discussion, all the while he has lost a child.The two aticles i read was the lawsuit over the Blood issue. In his original post today he mentioned that the WTBTS were poisoning her. I didnt read that anywhere. I agree with the blood issue. I would not except a blood transfusion. It appears from the article that his daughter didnt want to either. I read that even despit GETTING many blood transfusions it did not help her.

  • Billygoat
    Billygoat
    Thank you valis for those links. I have read the story and I do apologize for dismissing it before i evn knew if it were true. I do apologize to larry for making this a heated discussion, all the while he has lost a child.

    The two aticles i read was the lawsuit over the Blood issue. In his original post today he mentioned that the WTBTS were poisoning her. I didnt read that anywhere.

    That was the "palliative care" that is mentioned that ultimately ended up killing her.

    I agree with the blood issue. I would not except a blood transfusion. It appears from the article that his daughter didnt want to either. I read that even despit GETTING many blood transfusions it did not help her.

    How do you explain the blood issue now that it's changed again? The blood fractions? Don't you think to the average JW it's confusing that it's okay to take fractions, but not whole? What happens to all those JWs (like Bethany) that died because of wrong teachings? Don't you think someone ought to be responsible for those deaths???

  • stevenyc
    stevenyc


    It is a posible treatment to use arsnec trioxide. The doctors decide if this is the best treatment given the circumstances.

    .

  • defd
    defd

    is it OK for a parent TEACHING their child it is OK to go and fight in a War and then ship him off at the age of 18 just to die. Lets sue some of those parents!

  • Billygoat
    Billygoat

    defd, that doesn't even make sense. When a child is under the age of 18, it is still a child. A parents MUST, morally and lawfully, make decisions for them. A parent whose child is 18 and joins the military, has decided on his own adult accord to do so. If you're gonna compare, at least compare apples to apples. This isn't even the same thing.

  • undercover
    undercover
    That was the "palliative care" that is mentioned that ultimately ended up killing her.

    Did she die from arsenic poisoning or from the leukemia?

    Thanks, steve, for the link on the treatment.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    defd wrote:

    : is it OK for a parent TEACHING their child it is OK to go and fight in a War and then ship him off at the age of 18 just to die. Lets sue some of those parents!

    You're making a ridiculous argument. Whether there's justification to go to war, or to teach young adults to go to war, or for parents to ship such young adults off to war, has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether blood transfusions are prohibited by the Bible. You obviously have no defense about the blood issue, and so drag in this red herring.

    The fact is that the Bible has no prohibition against blood transfusions. The fact is that God explicitly told the Jews (Deut. 14:21) that it was ok for Gentiles to eat blood. The fact is that God's command to Noah about blood in Genesis 9 simply said that whenever people kill animals for food, they should pour out its blood as a token of respect for the creator of life. The fact is that Acts says nothing about blood transfusions. The fact is that the Society's prohibition against blood transfusions is based on precisely the same argument they used until about 1950 to prohibit vaccinations -- and which argument was abandoned when the Society's officers found they couldn't travel internationally unless they could certify that they had the appropriate vaccinations. The fact is that the Society will abandon the prohibition on blood transfusions not long after the present old guard of mentally ossified leaders dies off. The fact is that Watchtower leaders have much blood on their hands for teaching false, death-dealing dotrines in the name of God.

    AlanF

  • Dustin
    Dustin

    Shunned Father - I am so truly sorry for your loss. What that cult did to your daughter is disgusting and inhumane. I hope all those lunatics involved experience similar pain on their way out of this life.

    If I was availible to come to the protesting I would gladly do so. But you have my deepest thoughts and sympathies in your families time of need.

  • defd
    defd

    To the contrary alan

    My point is this: It is said we are taught(brainwashed) Into believing by the WT, that God says NO blood. We are taught that from baptism on. Kids are TAUGHT by their parents to FIGHT in war from early ages.

    Whats the difference? In both cases a death may occur. One for God and one for Country. I agree with God. His command is clearly seen in the book of acts. ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit