Posts by OrphanCrow

12

Article: Duke makes organ transplants possible for Jehovah's Witnesses, others

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.wral.com/duke-makes-organ-transplants-possible-for-jehovah-s-witnesses-others/16587988/.

duke makes organ transplants possible for jehovah's witnesses, others.

march 16, 2017. durham, n.c. — according to the organ procurement and transplantation network, only about 2,600 donor hearts become available each year.

OrphanCrow

Sorry sir82, I meant to answer your question:

"Who exactly were these representatives?"

Besides the JWs work at the center itself, those "representatives" would be the Hospital Liaison Committee .

12

Article: Duke makes organ transplants possible for Jehovah's Witnesses, others

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.wral.com/duke-makes-organ-transplants-possible-for-jehovah-s-witnesses-others/16587988/.

duke makes organ transplants possible for jehovah's witnesses, others.

march 16, 2017. durham, n.c. — according to the organ procurement and transplantation network, only about 2,600 donor hearts become available each year.

OrphanCrow

The ‎Blood Conservation Specialist at Duke University Medical Center, Bob Broomer, is a Jehovah's Witness.

There are likely more JWs who work at that center.

This article reads like a fluff piece - it is my guess that it is based on a WT generated press release. Probably.

The article gives very little information other than to say - oh, look! we can transplant hearts into JWs. This isn't big news. The first published case of a heart transplant in a JW happened over 30 years ago - 1986 in Los Angeles.

What is interesting, though, about JWs and transplants, is that ethical considerations concerning the stewardship of the transplanted organ can be problematic. As the article that was posted says, doing a bloodless transplant is possible, but the care of that organ after transplantation is what the article doesn't talk about.

What happens when a JW receives an organ but, later, that patient requires a "rescue transfusion"? Is it fair to other patients, who are waiting for an organ, to have a JW get one but then, because of their refusal to receive blood to maintain that organ's health, that organ becomes non-viable? Is it ethical to bypass people who will do all they can to keep that organ alive, including a blood transfusion and then, give a good organ to a JW only to lose that organ when blood is required?

This following paper, published in 2006, addresses the concerns that a medical team has when considering a JW for a transplant and the author of this paper proposes that "Jehovah's Witnesses should be required to sign transfusion contracts in order to be eligible for transplant."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2565779/

Human donor organs (living and cadaveric) continue to be in short supply, and many potential transplant recipients die while waiting for an allograft to become available.1 Because the organ supply is so limited and the offering of organs is based on the generosity of patients and families, proper stewardship of these organs is an ethical obligation for transplant teams, as well as organ recipients. Preventable graft loss must be protected against, and factors that foster preventable graft loss—for example, non‐compliance must be proactively contemplated when patients are reviewed as potential transplant candidates. Post‐transplant treatment refusal is one example of behaviour that can compromise transplant success.

The author describes how they approach an alcoholic patient, for example, who needs a liver transplant. The patient is required to sign a contract that their behavior will not put their new organ at risk - they agree not to drink. This is a more complicated process than I describe and the paper at the link goes into a lot of detail concerning why a transfusion contract would make good sense when giving an organ to a JW.

Basically, transplant teams have told patients that they must sign a transfusion contract before they can accept an organ - the transfusion may be necessary to keep that organ alive - without a transfusion, the organ can end up being wasted.

In tackling the dilemma of Jehovah's Witnesses as transplant candidates, the concept of rescue transfusion (clinically urgent and essential blood transfusion) has been posed. At the University of Pisa (Italy), transfusion contracts are required for patients receiving kidney and/or pancreas transplants.

(good article at link...worth the read for those interested)

It is quite likely that this problem has been encountered at several institutions over the past 30 years - the difficulty encountered in acquiring organs for patients who will not consent to a procedure that may be needed to save that organ.

Organs are in high demand and there is a short supply of them - transplanting an organ into a patient who refuses to take care of it is problematic.

I think that is part of the reason behind this article about Duke Medical Center (which was one of the early bloodless centers to be established by Jehovah's Witnesses). It wouldn't surprise me if the ethical problem of stewardship of the transplanted organ has come up many times with JWs. They need this article to convince the people waiting on an organ, who have been bypassed by JWs, that the organ they didn't get is going to survive the procedure. Nothing in the Duke article about what happens to that organ after surgery though. Nothing about what happens when that JW patient with a brand new donated heart requires a rescue transfusion.

10

Why I Refused To Go To Gay Son's Wedding EXCLUSIVE

by darkspilver in

jw
friends

front page of the sunshine coast daily, friday 17 march 2017. yvonne, the mother of chris on bride and prejudice, has for the first time explained why she couldn't attend her gay son's wedding.

https://m.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/bride-and-prejudice-mum-denies-sons-church-control/3155773/.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5714189639221248/_post/5672317399072768.

OrphanCrow

The "Truth behind Buderim mum's rejection of gay son"

Who do you go to to get the "truth"? Well, naturally...the truth only comes from one source.

Another opportunity for the great Rodney Spinks to share his WT wisdom with the world:

(from article at link)

Jehovah's Witness Australia spokesman Rodney Spinks said Yvonne was not speaking on behalf of the church.
"I can categorically confirm what she has done was in private," Mr Spinks said.
"The only thing we know is what we have seen on television. The organisation has no involvement and no view on it.
"No one from within the organisation is giving her advice. All the decisions are matters for her personally."
Mr Spinks said many Jehovah's Witnesses had family members who weren't part of the faith, he himself did, and there was nothing to stop them remaining close and attending special ceremonies.
"You can still have a close relationship with your children if they are not Jehovah Witnesses," Mr Spinks said.
"Most of my family are not Jehovah's Witnesses.
"Most of us have relatives and friends (outside the church) and we would go to their weddings."
Mr Spinks said it was for Yvonne to decide personally whether she wanted to attend her son's wedding.
"To my knowledge, she never asked anyone about it," Mr Spinks said.
"We have no interest in intervening in the personal decisions people make within the family."
As for homosexuality, Mr Spinks said Jehovah's Witnesses would not "try to dictate to other people what's appropriate".
"That is with regard to religions, sexuality or beliefs," he said.
"We have a great respect for other people We are not suggesting we say everyone else has to change or be different."
However, within the church itself, Mr Spinks said the stance on homosexuality was pretty clear from the Bible.
"We believe the Bible does not condone homosexuality, we very much believe every individual's right to determine those things for themselves."
He said many people had a misguided view of the church.
"We will never step away from the fact we try to live by high moral standards, we live by the Bible," he said.
"But we are not so naive to think other people haven't got every right to live differently.
"We have the greatest respect for whatever decision people make."

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: Thank you orphan crow for that wonderful back and forth. Now where in the letter to the body of elders does it say you will contact the service department first? Or does it state that the legal department will be contacted first to give legal advice based on the law. That advice would be dependent on applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense took place. Following legal advice the caller would be transfered to the service department to answer any spiritual or congregational issues. So again this is a two step call, first legal advice to ensure all laws are followed then legal advice.

Good morning, RO. You are welcome.

Damn, I guess I was a confused elder after all. thank you for correcting me. So, I guess the first phone call I was supposed to make is to the legal department.

For what? To ensure all laws are followed? So that means that a WT lawyer is going to ask the elder to determine if the images found on Brother Wewee's computer are actually images of child abuse so it can be determined if any laws have been broken first.

Okay. How does that work? Oh! I think Fisherman has nailed it!

Fisherman: "A sexual image of a child is ‘abuse’ or ‘exploitation’
Who can argue with that! (Actually evidence of abuse.)

Evidence! The elders will have to investigate and examine that evidence in order to get the correct legal advice from headquarters, right? And how is that done? Hmmm....BOE meetings called, elders gather and bring Brother Wewee's laptop with the offensive images on it, the elders distribute those images among themselves, discuss them and evaluate them. You know, so they can pass all those details on to some lawyer to evaluate. Just so that it can be determined how offensive and/or illegal those images are.

And then, after the lawyer goes through descriptions provided to him (detailed, 'cause the WT is nothing but meticulous!) of those images of children being raped, then, they can proceed to get instructions from the service desk. The instructions that say that "viewing" child pornography is not child abuse. The instructions that say that the frequency and extent of the "viewing" must be determined. Now the elders can ask Brother Wewee those additional details.

Like Fisherman said - good thing there is evidence to examine and provide! Actual photos of children being raped. Now, that is evidence that the elders can use! After every image is carefully examined, of course. So they can be told whether to call the police or not. "Frequency and extent" must be determined too. You know, because those elders know exactly how to examine photographs of children being abused, what to look for, decide if the children are "mature minors" and may be mistaken for almost adult, what exactly is going on in the images. And determine how often Brother Wewee was using those images.

I think Berrygerry has grasped the enormity of the situation:

Every time your perv elders look at these images to decide another perv JW's degree of guilt, those elders are also committing a criminal offense.

Fisherman: "should never be described as ‘pornography’."
Why then does US code 18 use the term?

The phrase you are highlighting comes from the Interpol website. I am sure they would appreciate you contacting them and asking them that question. Interpol is global - the same way that the WT claims to be. RO had pointed out that some of the documents provided as exhibits for the ARC are designed to address world wide concerns. Coincidentally, Interpol does the same thing. It may be wise for the WT to take that into consideration - global laws on the distribution of child sex abuse material.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: I have acknowledged all of that and agree with you on all of that. And I understand that you may not see it as carrying the same weight or any weight, but do you acknowledge that the BOE Dated August 1, 2016, that it does state that child pornography is child abuse.

So. Child pornography is child abuse - according to what you say the BOE August 1, 2016 letter says. I am not going to argue that, even though it is arguable. I will concede that point.

The problem, though, is the position that the WT Branch has on viewing child sex abuse material.

Let's walk this one through, Richard. You be the Branch and I will be the confused elder who doesn't know what to do and I have phoned you for direction.

Me: Hello, I need some advice on what to do about Brother Wewee. His wife phoned me and told me that she saw images of child porn on his computer. What do I do?

RO: Thank you for calling. I will consult the CHILD PROTECTION GUIDELINES FOR BRANCH OFFICE SERVICE DESKS that Jehovah has so lovingly provided for us to follow. Have you read the August 2016 letter that we sent out to all BOEs?

Me: Oh yes. I am familiar with that letter - we all are - and I am just doing the very first step - calling the Branch as instructed. We have read the letter and have noted what paragraph "2" says about child pornography - that "Depending on the circumstances of the case, it may include involvement with child pornography" so we do realize that it might have something to do with child abuse but we need more clarity on this. And, of course, we want Jehovah's loving direction as put forth in the Branch manual received from the WTS.

RO: In the Branch guidelines it says this on page 3 concerning child pornography: "Showing pornography to a minor is considered to be child sexual abuse." Did Brother Wewee show pornography to a minor?

Me: No, not that we have been aware of. Mind you, he may have. All we know is that his wife said she found lots of pictures of naked children on her husband's laptop.

RO: Oh. Well, in that case,you will have to find that out through a judicial investigation. Let's look at the next sentence. " Although viewing child pornography is not considered to be child sexual abuse, it is still a serious violation of Jehovah’s standards." So you say that Brother Wewee was just viewing those images?

Me: From what we know so far, that is all he has done.

RO: Okay then. Well, that would not be child abuse, according to our loving directions from Jehovah. However, Jehovah still needs you and the other elders to look into this. Because it isn't considered to be child abuse, no need to call the police. However, Jehovah's standards may have been violated. You will have to conduct a judicial inquiry to decide if Brother Wewee has sinned against Jehovah.

Me: And how should we do that?

RO: Is Brother Wewee wife able to allow you access to his laptop where she said she found the images?

Me: Oh, yes! Sister Weewee does her best to please Jehovah and she has said she will give us the laptop. What do we do next?

RO: It is important to determine first, that the images do show children being abused. You will have to look at them - all of the elders will have to examine them. And then, if you find that those images are against Jehovah's standards, you will have to hold a JC and confront Brother Wewee with the images.....

Me: But, but, should we be looking at those images? That would be awful to see if it were true....I feel like I am hurting those kids just by looking at photos of them...

RO: It's okay...just viewing images of naked children is not child abuse. Don't worry about that. Jehovah's directions say that it is okay - just looking isn't child abuse.

And so on and so on...it doesn't matter what that BOE letter said because the BOEs get their instructions from the Branch. Does that letter carry any weight? No. None whatsoever. That letter is just a "face" for the world to see. The Branch guidelines trump the elder guidelines. You know that.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

You are babbling now, Richard.

I do not plan on letting the lipstick rule the pig on this issue.

The WT states that viewing child pornography (child sex abuse material) is not considered child abuse. I refuse to look at any of the legalese surrounding that until the statement changes to - "viewing child pornography IS child abuse".

There are a couple reasons why I am stuck on this point and they are important reasons.

First. This effects all children in the world, not just JW children. The WT institutional policy on this point has an impact on all children everywhere. Worldwide. Viewing child sex abuse images is part and parcel of child sex abuse. The WT must acknowledge this and they must change the wording of that sentence before it causes any more damage to vulnerable children everywhere. Attitudes have to change and those attitudes are shaped by institutions like the WT.

Second. This point is really important to active elders. Really important. Listen carefully.

If a body of elders is made aware that a congregant is viewing child sex abuse material, and they follow the WT's direction on forming a judicial committee, etc, without contacting the proper authorities to report the possible viewing of child sex abuse material, then it will be up to the elders to determine if the images that were being viewed actually are child sex abuse material.

If you are responsible for determining if a congregant has looked at images of child sex abuse, how can you do that without looking at the images yourself? And do you know what happens the moment you look at those images, and they do, indeed, prove to be images of child sex abuse? You, JW elder, you will have broken the law BIG time.

If you follow the directives in the WT Branch Manual, it will turn out that the WT has asked you to break the law. And it is a pretty ugly law to break. Tell me, if you are an elder, do you want to be put in the position of determining if the images on JW Joe's computer are images of child sex abuse? Do you want to look at that? Or would you rather let the police determine that, with people trained to deal with the trauma of looking at images of children getting raped?

If all you active JW elders are okay with the WT telling you that you have to sit on a judicial committee, and gather all the evidence for a hearing into whether a person has looked a child sex abuse material, then all of you, every one of you that will do that, are child sex abusers. You are laypersons. You do not have the legal authority to examine child sex abuse images. If you do, you are guilty of viewing child sex abuse material. Interpol wants you.

Yes. It is just one tiny little phrase. A person would miss it if they didn't read carefully enough. A tiny little phrase that puts all JW elders into the position of having to break the law.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: OC you just want to ignore everything else and focus on that one sentence

Yes, I do.

That one sentence reveals the fundamental flaw in the WT's thinking. Fundamental.

In the same way as if I was building a house and I saw a fatal crack in the foundation before the rest of the house was built, I would stop what I was doing and fix the fatal flaw. Without fixing that, the whole house will tumble down.

That one single sentence is the statement that puts all of the rest of the WT's policies on child abuse into question.

If they cannot grasp that simple concept, that viewing images of child abuse is child abuse, then there is no hope whatsoever for them.

That has to be fixed before the rest of the house is built.

It is a fatal flaw in thinking and in policy. It looks small, but it is really, really big. The WT does not define child abuse correctly. How can they design policies about it until they understand what it means?

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: So Orphan Crow. I showed you that Watchtower does acknowledge that Child Abuse can include that of child pornography

Right. That would be what the WT means when they say this:

"viewing child pornography is not considered to be child abuse"

You are putting lipstick on a pig, Richard...either that or building straw men, I am not sure which.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: So in similar fashion, yes the Watchtower policy does not state that those that watch Child Pornography must be reported to the police in that section, you have to look at the full policy together.

Bullshit.

The WT has stated that viewing child pornography is not considered child abuse. That statement precludes anything else that the document states. If they will not acknowledge that salient point, that the viewer is engaging in the abuse of a child, the viewing of child abuse material falls flat in the water and never gets out of the gate.

347

ARC - Case Study 54 - All Exhibits have been released

by jwleaks in

all exhibits for case study 54, jehovah's witnesses and watchtower, have been released by the arc.. http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/exhibits/10908a67-70c5-4103-94cc-dac096fdb585/case-study-54,-march-2017,-sydney.

exhibit list.

joint statement of o'brien and spinks.

OrphanCrow

RO: What is the answer that you gave, that you don't care about the grey areas.

There is no grey area in my response.

The Royal Commission is investigating institutions to examine how the institution responds to child sex abuse. How the WT responds to the viewing of child abuse material falls within the commission's mandate.