Posts by skeeter1

53

BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW

by skyman in

the baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.

you better get a copy.

use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm

skeeter1

Eduardo Wrote:

This is the original quotation in context of the brochure:

Witnesses will also sign hospital consent forms. One used at a hospital in , has space where the physician can describe the information he gave the patient about the treatment. Then, above the signatures of the physician and the patient, this form adds: “As a member of the religious body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery. I am aware that the planned and needed procedure thus has a higher risk due to bleeding complications. After receiving thorough explanation particularly about that, I request that the needed surgery be performed without using foreign blood or blood components.”—Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.

By failing to disclose in the essay that the excerpt is actually from a German media report from 1987, the author misleadingly suggests to the reader that the present German blood card maintains the same posture and thus implies that the Blood Brochure is providing conflicting information to the Society’s present position on blood. Ms. Louderback-Wood well knows that today’s Blood Card (Advanced Medical Directive) does not use the “categorically reject” language but instead specifies which blood parts are being rejected.

Journal of Church & State’s article reads (page 809)

Blood Pamphlet’s Near Omission of Acceptance of Blood Products and Fractions

“The pamphlet’s most puzzling aspect is its scant discussion of the Society’s allowing individual Witnesses a personal decision to accept blood components, a policy in place for many years prior to its printing. The pamphlet’s “Quality Alternatives to Transfusions” section, which is located near the beginning and details medical alternatives, including non-blood expanders and heart-lung machines, is the seemingly logical place to discuss blood components. Because the pamphlet includes such a section, a court could reason that the Society thereby has a duty to disclose all or, at least, the key quality alternatives to treat blood loss. However, this section omits any discussion of blood components. Furthermore, page 18 of the pamphlet, in reference to a German consent form, reconfirms that blood components are not acceptable: “As a . . . Jehovah’s Witness, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery.” However, in one sentence on page 27 of the 31-page pamphlet, the Society contradicts itself by stating that individual Jehovah’s Witnesses may accept blood components. Thus, the pamphlet appears intentionally ambiguous, if not contradictory, as blood components are never mentioned in its medical alternatives section, banned altogether in its legal section, yet unexplicably allowed in one statement near the end.

Most legal and medical professionals are unaware that the Watchtower Society actually allows blood components, including hemoglobin. This essay will therefore examine at this point whether the Society failed to adequately represent to its followers and third parties its allowance of blood components and also examine the Society’s current policy regarding blood components. ”

Skeeter’s Comments:

Kerry Louderback-Wood was not addressing or even advancing what the German consent form CURRENTLY says or does not say. She was talking about how “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” (she disclosed that it was written in the early 1990’s in another section) disclosed just three (3) statements about blood components, and that these three statements were “intentionally ambiguous, if not contradictory as blood components are never mentioned in its medical alternative section, banned altogether in its legal section, yet unexemplicably allowed in one statement near the end.”!!!!!

If I remember my last wallet card did not allow me to pick my blood fractions/products/components (whatever you want to call them) or even indicate that I could pick blood fractions! But, the long form had that option. Same thing – contradictory! Why is this important? It causes confusion. What do other JWD members think about the contradictions in "How Can Blood Save Your Life" and in the medical cards?

53

BIG NEWS I recieved my pamphlet WOW

by skyman in

the baylor university has a potential time bomb for the society all i can say is wow i can see how now.

you better get a copy.

use this link and get you a copy http://www3.baylor.edu/church_state/ordering_publications.htm

skeeter1

Sorry, no pictures...but there is a diagram and a chart! First, the article discusses the misreprenstations that are contained in “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” I am going to type one excerpt, but I am not able to type the footnotes. Maybe all of us can type our favorite portion, and comment on it? *******Excerpt from page 794************** The pamphlet summarizes the immune system argument with the words of Dr. John S. Spratt who stated, “The cancer surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon.” The pamphlet does not, however, explain a critical distinction between Dr. Spratt’s and the Society’s definitions of “bloodless surgeon.” Dr. Spratt recommends that “cancer surgeons should consider administering only packed washed or washed frozen red cells for urgent correction of blood loss.” In other words, Dr. Spratt is not recommending withholding blood in urgent situations, but transfusing Society-banned red blood cells. The Society’s quotation of Dr. Spratt’s comment about “surgeons becoming bloodless surgeons” is a classic example of how a literally accurate quotation can create a false impression because of an equivocation, in this case what constitutes “bloodless surgery.”

**********
Wow! When I originally read “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” as a JW, I thought that Dr. Spratt was on OUR side. I thought that he did not want to give any blood to a cancer patient, and was calling for his peers to do the same. I would have NEVER guessed that he RECOMMENDED giving red blood cells! What do you think about this misrepresentation? *****

Skeeter1 (the redneck mosquito has landed)

46

What was your first Apostasy?

by Dune in

jw
friends

i'm re-reading 1984 and the similarities between the wtbs and the "party" astound me, but anyway, it made me think of the time when i started to get doubts (thoughtcrime).. i remember once at this book study a sister commented about the 1914 and was reciting it's historical accuracy.

anyway, she went on to mention that the demons were probably learning everything about biblical prophecies from the wtbs.

i was 13 at the time but the comment made me cringe, i was thinking "why would superior beings need humans to interpret the bible for them?

skeeter1

On or around 1979, I learned that a respected JW had molested his adopted daughter over the years. He had also drugged and raped his wife's relative. His wife told my family that it was up to Jehovah to disfellowship him, that the elders would not do anything. He later ended up raping his grandson. He was finally disfellowshipped for other reasons, but reinstated when he said he was sorry. Never any news about this in the KH. He died a few years back - left the car running in his garage and went back inside the house & forgot (old age apparantly). Unfortunatley, his wife died with him.

On or around 1985, I leared that my schoolhood friend was molested by her uncle, an elder. The elders made my friend look like she enticed the uncle (and nothing was further from that truth), and did nothing to the uncle. My schoolhood friend is an active JW, and pretty much sticks up for the brood.

My first apostacy happened when I saw Barbara on Dateline.

28

BLOOD ISSUE=PROBLEM=CAN HOSPITAL BE SUED?

by jack w in

hi friends, .

a good "fader" friend of mines wife was recently at the hospital.

she used to be a staunch witness but has since gotten fed up with the whole charade.

skeeter1

Tort of Undue Coercion? While this typically comes up in "donations" .... undue coercion has to do with unfettered will. If the lady feels coerced and changes her blood decision back to "no blood" based on the knowledge/ fear that her nurse friend would report back to the elders and this would lead to disassociation/ (loss of family relations, loss of business), then her "choice" to not get blood is no longer her free will....but would be "coerced."

Just a thought. see http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/hominik_david_cultsi_in_american_society.htm for more details on the legal argument.

Skeeter1

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

Topic #1 Eduardo wrote: “Skeeter, just as an aside can you please tell us whether you are female or male?” Eduardo later wrote “Skeeter: didn't quite answer my question did ye?”
My answer: Eduardo, you are hell bent on trying to figure out if I am a male or a female! I do not see why that matters. I've not asked you for a date, have I? But, if you are looking for a female date, I must disappoint you. What happened to your girlfriend that gave you that great bj. Did she get food poisoning? Was she an independent contractor or an employee or an unpaid volunteer? Did she file a workchick's compensation claim when you two split up? Ok, I'll stop...but I am having some amusing fun writing this...

In any event, your question about my genetilia inside my boxers (or panties) has nothing to do with the current discussion or the merit of my arguments. So, let's keep gender out of this...lest you want to look like a moron to the rest of JWD.
Topic #2 Skeeter1 wrote: “But, this is all conjecture until we see the final ruling or the transcripts, if those are even available in this case.”
Eduardo later wrote: Again you misunderstand, by the way are you reading the actual transcript or just going off what is reported and your knowledge of law. I haven't read the actual transcript so I am just doing the latter also. Again you misunderstand, by the way are you reading the actual transcript or just going off what is reported and your knowledge of law. I haven't read the actual transcript so I am just doing the latter also.
My answer: Eduardo, I am glad you agree with me. None of us have read the judge’s opinion.

Topic #3 Skeeter1 wrote: "When you read a judge's opinion, you are likely reading alot of what the winning side argued as well as, occasionally, a refuting of the losing argument. So, the statement that Ms. Upton was a secular worker probably means that the judge looked at the other side.”
Eduardo later wrote "The fundamental question is whether the religious org, the WTS, is subject to WC requirements or exempt from them. To answer that question, which is the first question that must be answered, the status or activity of the workers is immaterial.”
West70 said it best (and I concur) “The Witnesses vowed to appeal the ruling, saying Upton and the other 5,800 Witnesses who live and work in the church's sounds to me as if 's "status" as an employee was the basis of this Judge's ruling”

Topic #4 (need a Bethelite here to help) It’s my understanding (and I am speaking without any personal knowledge) that Bethelites take a vow of poverty?, and accept minimal compensation, if any?. They do get living quarters and food, and depending on their job status, these “perks” (i.e. their apartment) can be nicer than the other drones.

In my personal opinion, the Society would not be far fetched in arguing that these Bethelites are volunteers, based on their vow of poverty. Likewise, this NY judge is not far fetched at saying that Bethelites are actual employees. We all “work” for the mortgage companies, the grocery store, and the children’s shoe stores . If my “boss” was to pay my expenses directly and give me my $20/week stipend, I really would not care. I “get” $20/week either way. Gerard posted: “definition of Volunteers as Employees for the purpose of Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Volunteer – Any non-compensated natural person while that person is subject to your (church) direction and control while performing essential employment functions/duties otherwise performed by paid staff or regular employees.”

Here, the status of the worker’s is the issue for appeal (are they religious volunteers who took a vow of poverty similar to a monk? Or are they paid workers who write & print magazines and get an apartment/food/living expenses if they do a “good” job?)

The Society’s lawyers are going to argue that they were religious workers. The Society could win, they could lose on appeal.

But, the point here is that Ms. Upton WON at this level. Let us celebrate. Her “win” is another straw in the camel’s back. I salute Ms. Upton. But, I’m sure she’d rather be healthy than have to deal with the Society. In any event, I do not think that $400/week is enough.

skeeter1 (that's for Eduardo!)

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

First of all, I'd hope the claimant finds better health.

I agree with Auldsoul, and I agree with Eduardo. Eduardo is right about whether or not the journalist got it right. Journalists make mistakes too. We will not know what was said until we see a ruling or the court documents. However, Auldsoul is right about the fact that the judge probably considered both sides. When you read a judge's opinion, you are likely reading alot of what the winning side argued as well as, ocassionally, a refuting of the losing argument. So, the statement that Ms. Upton was a secular worker probably means that the judge looked at the other side. You have the read the statement, and read between the lines to determine what both sides probably argued. But, this is all conjecture until we see the final ruling or the transcripts, if those are even available in this case.

I found the following legal information on the New York's web page. In lieu to monthly payments, the ex-worker may select a lump sum payment representing their lifelong injuries and damages. Even this lump sum payment can be reexamined if the situation changes. Here, Ms. Upton had spinal damage. I'm no medical expert, but "spinal" damage sounds permanent. It's not a pimple!

http://www.wcb.state.ny.us/content/main/Small_Business/employer_handbook.pdf

Lump Sum Settlement:

(WCB) A negotiated and Board-approved agreement, termed a "non-schedule adjustment," between a claimant with a non-schedule permanent partial disability and the insurer(s). As a result of the agreement the claimant receives a sum of money representing all future compensation for his/her disability, and the case is considered closed. Under WCL Section 15(5-b), granting of a settlement by the Board requires that (a) the right to compensation has been established and compensation has been paidfor at least three months, (b) the continuance of disability and of future earning capacity cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty, (c) there has been a physical examination of the claimant prior to approval, and (d) the Board considers the settlement "fair and in the best interest of the claimant." In practice, lump sum settlements are usually final, but the law provides for reopenings if the Board finds that there has been a change in condition or degree of disability not contemplated at the time of the settlement.

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

Sorry, I did not spell check and typed fast. My mistake.

I did not "brag" about oral sex. Eduardo did. See his post under "law school."

Skeeter

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

Eduardo wrote:

Skeeter, just as an aside can you please tell us whether you are female or male. You have female icon on your profile but your early posts suggest male? Am I confused or are you?

I am not confused on my identity, and do not need to flount how my girlfriend gave me oral sex before the LSAT. Strange post, Eduardo. Too much information,

Anyway, 1) the Judge did not "dismiss the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers" since there is nothing in the news article that said that the Society made such a determination and there wouldn't be since 1) the Society doesn't determine the status of the workers in WC situation and 2) such a determination is meaningless as all that is relevant is whether work was being performed at the time of the injury.

I do not have a copy of the court documents. If you do, please send them to me.

People posted NY law that said that certain church officials were not covered by wc claims. It seems reasonable to me that the judge would have had to determine if these folks were covered or not covered under the law. It would be very helpful to speak with Bethelites to find out if the Society regularly told them that they were not covered by workman's comp. My hunch is that the Society has sent JW Bethel workers home with a feelign that they had no wc claim....speculation of course.

And again Skeeter, the lawyer, the $400/week award is for a limited time only, not "for life" as you say.

I do not know the specifics on NY law, but by "for life" depends on whether the injury is permanent or temporary. People can take a lump sum award that would cover estimated damages for life. In that case, they do not get for life.

Eduardo, try to have a nice weekend. Smile for a bit, before you blow a gasket.

Skeeter1

210

Real 'BIG' news WTS sued biggie worker compensation

by DannyHaszard in

jehovah's loses comp case

church may be forced to pay millions

by jess wisloski.

skeeter1

"I'm finding they were not religious volunteers," Goldstein said. "They were engaged, particularly Dr. Brenda Upton, in a number of work-like activities."

In other words, this judge dismissed the Society's determination that these were religious volunteers, and judged the Society's actions on a secular (non-religious) basis. Let me make this plain & simple. Lawyers (including judges) are good with words and arguments. If you cast the argument as a religious one (i.e. she was a religious volunteer), she doesn't win. If you cas the argument as a secular one (i.e. she did alot of regular job-like duties), you have $400/week award for life.

Similar, if you say "Blood is strictly religious", you have no case. If you convince the court that the WTS should not deceive its followers about blood, you have a case.

It's two sides of the same coin. Play it the secular way, it's "head's up"

I quote the BIG NEWS of earlier this month (the Journal of Church & State article on blood), " Today, most courts are still unwilling to settle intra-church disputes, but some are willing to allow tort suits for seriously injured victims of negligence by church officials or where the church’s “fraud, breach of contract, and statutory violation” that is purely secular. These courts invoke a neutrality principal that opens the church to litigation [e.g. employment law] despite the fact that the court will need to examine “religious documents or practices.” Likewise, in the context of the Witnesses’ blood policy, the state’s compelling interest, preventing needless deaths, would pave the way when the religion misrepresents secular facts on blood abstinence in its recruiting and teaching material "

Chip, Chip, Away goes the absolute protection the Society thought they had under the 1st Amendment.

Skeeter1