My heart goes out to Lawrence Hughes. He is in an awkward and frustrating situation. At the very least, he can take solace in the fact that he is actively doing something positive in the fight for justice.
Some may argue that there was no guarantee that his daughter Bethany would have survived with or without blood. Who knows. (I am not a doctor or familiar with all the details.) However, it would seem that denial of blood in this case denied Bethany of a proper fighting chance of survival. For those who would support the argument that there was no guarantee one way or the other, consider this:
If any parent deliberately put a bullet in only one of the chambers of a six-shooter revolver, pointed it at their child?s head, and pulled the trigger in a ?game? of Russian roulette, how do you think such a parent would be viewed? (Not too well, I would imagine!) What if the parent simply allowed or encouraged someone else to do this to their child? Would it make a difference? The parent could say, ?Well, it?s only a bullet in one of the chambers. That?s only a one-in-six chance of harm.?
Now, I don?t know what the odds were in Bethany?s case, but let?s say (hypothetically) that there was even a 5/6 chance that she would die regardless of any decision?that would mean that flatly denying blood would have arbitrarily prevented a 1/6 chance that blood might have saved her. I?m sure that anyone would say that flatly denying a 1/6, or even 1/100 for that matter, chance of survival from a standard recommended medical procedure would be illogical. (I?m sure her odds with immediate blood therapy would have been much better than that.)
Of course, considering the very tenuous reasoning of the WT in coldly applying this directive from the ancient Jewish Mosaic Law to medical emergencies involving innocent children, it is clear that the WT demanding that parents deny their minor children of blood in any and all circumstances is not just illogical?it?s totally unacceptable!
?SAHS