Posts by OrphanCrow

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

OrphanCrow

fts: what do you think of this case?

I think the boy was fortunate to have a smart judge

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

OrphanCrow

Fulltimestudent, I just read the case you linked about the 7 year old boy.

It seems so pointless. If the JW parents know about this act, then they should know that going to court is a lost cause. So does the WTS - they know that the court will order blood transfusions for minor children

Why doesn't the WTS back off on making the parents refuse blood for minor children when they know damn well that it will just cost money and cause stress for the JW parents to go to court? And the ones who pay the price are the children and parents...not the WTS

Why do they still insist on making this issue into a media circus? Do they need the publicity that bad? What law are they trying to challenge? The right of the parent to engage in child sacrifice as a religious activity?

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

OrphanCrow

fts: I was lucky enough to get disfellowshipped last century, but back in the day all JWs in OZ are (i'm quite sure) are aware of the act.

Thanks for your feedback

That is interesting. I have a exJW friend in Australia (that left last century too) and she often expresses her concern that she wouldn't have received blood as a minor. She didn't know that as a child, she wouldn't have been allowed to bleed to death.

This is what I found out about why the act was put in place to begin with:

VICTORIA v. ALVIN LEONARD JEHU was AUSTRALIA'S FIRST CRIMINAL PROSECUTION of a Jehovah's Witness Parent for refusing to provide consent for blood transfusions needed by their child who eventually died. In January 1959, the Jehus FOURTH child needed an exchange blood transfusion due to complications from Rh factor incompatibility between the mother and child. For two days, newborn Stephen Jehu clung to life as doctors, nurses, and hospital administrators at Queen Victoria Hospital futilely begged Alvin L. Jehu, age 28, and his unidentified JW Wife, of East Preston, to give them consent to perform the required life-saving blood transfusions.
Thereafter, the State of Victoria indicted Alvin Leonard Jehu on charges of MANSLAUGHTER. In March 1960, a jury convicted Alvin Jehu of manslaughter, but also recommended "mercy" regarding his sentence. Jehu was sentenced to 5 years in prison, but that sentence was instantly probated, and Jehu was released on a 5-year "good behavior" bond.
Undoubtedly at the behest of the WatchTower Society, Jehu filed an appeal based on the alleged violation of his religious rights, and the alleged violation of his rights as a parent to choose the best medical care for his children. (During the trial, Jehu had testified that he genuinely believed that blood transfusions actually were physically "dangerous" based on the "medical evidence" presented in WatchTower Cult publications.) Appeal not found. The WatchTower Society PRAISED the Jehus in an AWAKE! magazine article published later in 1960.
The positive from this well-publicized MURDER was that Australia's hospitals became aware and were motivated to petition local courts for legal intervention in such scenarios. Prior to this case, there had been scattered instances of hospitals seeking court intervention, but such was the exception rather than the rule, and the result had been multiple deaths of children of Jehovah's Witness parents across Australia during the 1950s.
In December 1960, the State of Victoria passed the BLOOD TRANSFUSION ACT OF 1960, which amended the Medical Act of 1958, to hold that a competent medical technician who administers a blood transfusion to a person under the age of 21 was considered to have been authorized by a person capable of such authorization when such person has refused or otherwise is unavailable to do so, and when two physicians have agreed that such transfusion is medically necessary.

http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/bloode.html

The website I found this on list many, many court cases concerning blood refusal. I have to say, though...the editor/website owner's commentary leaves a little to be desired - sometimes his comments come across as racist and misogynistic. However, the website has a lot of good information...if you can ignore the commentary

9

The Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - Australia

by OrphanCrow in

australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.. i am curious as to whether this act - the blood transfusion act 1960 - is still in effect in australia.

and i would also like to know if any australian jws are aware of this act.

are australian jws still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?.

OrphanCrow

Australia passed an act in 1960 that allowed doctors to give a blood transfusion, if necessary, to minor children.

I am curious as to whether this Act - the Blood Transfusion Act 1960 - is still in effect in Australia. And I would also like to know if any Australian JWs are aware of this act. Are Australian JWs still told to resist blood transfusions for their minor children?

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/acts/1960-27.pdf

PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) ACT.
Act No. 27, 1960.
An Act relating to the immunisation of children against
certain diseases and the giving of blood transfusions
to children; for these purposes to amend
the Public Health Act, 1902-1952; and for
purposes connected therewith. [Assented to, 19th
April, 1960.]

The first past of the act concerns vaccinations and the latter part, with administrating blood transfusions to minors:

39D. (1) A legally qualified medical practitioner may
perform the operation of transfusion of human blood
upon a minor without the consent of the parents or surviving
parent of such minor or any other person legally
entitled to consent to such operation if: —
(a) such parents, parent or other person when
requested so to do have or has not consented to
such operation, or after such search and inquiry
as is reasonably practicable in the emergency
such parents, parent or other person cannot be
found; and
(b) such legally qualified medical practitioner and at
least one other legally qualified medical practitioner
have agreed—
(i) upon the condition from which the minor
is suffering; and
(ii) that such operation is a reasonable and
proper one to be performed for such
condition; and
(iii) that such operation is essential in order
to save the life of such minor; and
(c) such legally qualified medical practitioner has
had previous experience in performing the
operation of transfusion of human blood and
before commencing such operation has assured
himself that the blood to be transfused is compatible
with that of the minor.
(2) Where an operation of the nature referred to
in subsection one of this section has been performed on a
minor without the consent of the parents or surviving
parent of such minor or any other person legally entitled
to consent to such operation and in respect of such operation
the requirements and conditions of the said subsection
have been complied with such operation shall be
deemed to have been performed with the consent which
but for the provisions of this section would have been
required for the performance of such operation.
(3) The powers conferred on a legally qualified
medical practitioner by this section shall be in addition to
and not in derogation of any other powers of the legally
qualified medical practitioner in relation to the performance
of the operation of transfusion of human blood
upon a minor.

It appears as though New Zealand has also had much the same legislation in place since at least 1961:

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/haa19611961n113176.pdf

2. Blood transfusions-The principal Act is hereby amended
by inserting, after section 126A (as inserted by section 6 of
the Health Amendment Act 1960), the following section:
"126B. (1) In this section, the term 'blood transfusion',
or 'transfusion', means the injection of whole human blood,
or any constituent part or parts thereof, into the bloodstream
of any person.
"(2) Except by leave of a Judge of ,the Supreme Court,
no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be brought against any
person, in respect of the administration by any medical practitioner
of any blood transfusion to any person under the age
of twenty-one years (in this section referred to as the patient),
by reason of the lack of consent of any person whose consent
is required by law.

It is too bad that other countries, most notably, the United States, didn't follow Australia and New Zealand's example in back in the 60s. The number of courtroom dramas played out in American courts in the 60s and 70s (and later...) concerning minors and the administration of blood, would not have been necessary and, the number of JW children who died because of blood refusal would have been substantially reduced.

32

Using the term "Watchtower" when talking to a JW

by Sanchy in

jw
friends

has anyone else noticed how alarm bells go off inside a jw mind as soon as they hear someone that "is out" refer to the leaders of this org as "watchtower"?

i've chatted with a few friends now about my doubts and each and every time i've started using phrases such as "watchtower said this" or "watchtower did that", i can almost see their heads about to explode in anger, as if they've just realized they are talking to the lucifer himself.

some have even interrupted and corrected me by reminding me that it's not "watchtower", it's "god's organization".

OrphanCrow

polishclarinet: a few months ago, I was not very surprised to learn that ISIS wa also called "the organization" by its followers...

Here is a tip - don't ever walk into a police station and tell them that you used to be a member of a worldwide organization...

14

Elder Arrest Scaremongering

by jw07 in

last week there was a meeting with all the elders and ministerial servants about responsibility in the kingdom hall and blah blah blah.. one elder brought up a scenario where all the elders were arrested, and we were asked if the meeting would still go on, and how.. this is the second time within a month that i've heard that scenario posed by an elder in my congregation.. does anyone have any idea of the trash being fed to them in letters recently?.

is this a scenario that hq is putting out there, or are the fear mongering convention videos driving their imaginations wild?.

OrphanCrow

sir82: ...dude took the RC videos too seriously

Yeah...he was probably reading threads on here that speculated that very thing - that elders were going to be arrested for non-compliance with mandatory reporting laws. Their suspicions likely come from reading *gasp* apostate sites

31

Big news from Kim and Mikey, they state in thier latest video proof the WT invested in the Nazi war machine!!

by Crazyguy in

this is big!

according to what they say if i'm correct an investigation was done back in 1998 in concerning what american companies invested money in to germany.

mike and kim state that a document they have attained shows a list of american firms that had invested into germany as late as 1943. on this list is non other then watchtower !!

OrphanCrow

Finkelstein: It is true that Rutherford at the time of Hitler's control over Germany wrote a letter to him of acceptance of his regime but that was to done so to help the WTS operate without condemnation or intrusion from Hitler and his political ideology.

Well...you can color it that way. Rutherford was not against Hitler's ideology...as long it it served to benefit Rutherford.

In reality, the letter was an attempt to get the WTS printing presses in Germany released back to the WTS. When Hitler came to power in 1933, the very first thing he did was take control of ALL press, including seizing the WTS printing presses.

"...to help the WTS operate without condemnation or intrusion from Hitler and his political ideology" is not correct. Rutherford tried very hard to align himself and his new religion, the Jehovah's witnesses, with Hitler's ideology. He wanted his money maker, the WTS, to operate freely and spread whatever propaganda they wanted. Hitler didn't want that - he wanted control of ALL propaganda.

Rutherford employed the help of the US government in getting his precious printing presses released under terms of the Versailles Treaty. When the presses were seized for a second time...that was when Rutherford came out against the Nazis...if he had been allowed to keep his printing pre$$e$, the stance of the JWs in Germany would have been radically different.

182

Major congregational quake in Southern California

by Hecce in

this notice is not official yet and it should be confidential until released thru the proper channels.

a friend of mine told me about a huge elders meeting in southern california.

the subject was the relocation and dissolution of some congregations; it seems that this is the result of some project that has been going on for some time and is going to be implemented right now.. please let me know if this is happening all over the country?.

OrphanCrow

landy: Nothimg immediately apparent on Google so you'll have to forgive me for treating that as hearsay and taking it with a massive pinch of salt.

Lol! What??

Is this the new standard? Information must appear on google to be considered accurate?

Don't be ridiculous

18

I need more faith so I've been told

by hoser in

jw
friends

i attended the circus assembly last weekend and i have come to the conclusion i am lacking faith.

the opening talk on the program, the very first words that came out of the speakers mouth told me so.

he said most of us here are lacking faith even though we might not know it.

OrphanCrow

That's a good thing, Hoser.

According to Peter Boghossian, faith is "pretending to know things you don't know"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4WUFXvCFQ

9

Jehovah's Witnesses Alternatives to Blood Transfusions 1973 - pediatrics version

by OrphanCrow in

the hospital liaison committees got their start in canada in the early 70s.. 3 books/volumes were produced in 1973 and became the 'handbook' that was used by jws in negotiating the no blood care of jw patients who required blood transfusions.. james penton, in the third edition of his book apocalypse delayed, gives some background on how these 'medical' volumes came about:.

pg 430at the time of the establishment of the hospital committees, a number of large meetings were held in toronto at which numerous prominent canadian witnesses were present.

as a result of the "hospital work", three books containing photocopied articles from medical journals and the popular press were produced and bound at the society's toronto branch.

OrphanCrow

I would like to make a comment about something that Mike and Kim said in their video. Around the 8:00 mark, they claim that the Watchtower of July 1, 1951 - which is included in this bound volume - had said it was okay for Jehovah's Witnesses to use their conscience in deciding to get blood transfusions.

This is an error of interpretation. The article does not say that. That particular answer was given in response to the question as to how JWs regard other people - not them. The Watchtower did not say JWs could use their conscience.

This is the quote in full and it comes at the very end of adamant opposition to blood of any form for JWs. It is a concern as to whether JWs oppose blood transfusions for people other than themselves:

• Then are we to conclude that Jehovah's witnesses

oppose the people's use or transfusions'?

That would be a wrong conclusion, Jehovah's

witnesses do not oppose the people's use of

transfusions, but allow each 'one the right to

decide for himself what he can conscientiously

do. The Israelites felt bound to abide by Goer's

law forbidding the eating of meat with the blood

congealed in it, but still they had no objection

whatever to those outside God's organization

doing it, and even supplied unbled carcasses

to outsiders who regularly ate such things

anyway. (Deut. 14:21) Each one decides for himself,

and bears the responsibility for his course.

Jehovah's witnesses consecrate their' lives to

GOD and feel bound by his Word, arnd with these

things in view they individually decide their

personal course and bear their personal responsibility

therefore before God. So, as Joshua once

said to the Israelites, "If it seem evil unto you

to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom

ye will serve; ... as for me and my house.

we will serve Jehovah."-Josh. 24:15, AS.