Posts by MikeMusto

Because of my history as one of Jehovahs Witnesses and my research into issues pertaining to the authority structure of the Watchtower Society and its unique policies and teachings (in particular, their blood doctrine), I was asked to appear as a witness for the applicant, Lawrence Hughes. Lawrence is the father of Bethany Hughes, a 16 year old girl who suffers from leukemia which requires chemotherapy, a procedure that destroys healthy red blood cells that can be replaced by a red cell transfusion.

Bethanys father, though at one time opposed to blood transfusions due to what he had been taught as one of Jehovahs Witnesses, ultimately determined through a re-reading of Bible verses and accounts dealing with the use of blood that the Bible did not forbid the blood transfusions. Bethanys mother and daughters, together with members of their congregation and representatives of the Watchtower Society, opposed the transfusion of red cells and platelets which led to court battle after court battle.

Several witnesses, including Jim Penton, Dr. Sam Muramoto, and myself, were called as witnesses to testify on the question of whether or not Bethany was in a position, as a 16 year old Jehovahs Witness, to make an informed decision about blood transfusions, or in this case transfusions of red cells and platelets. This list of witnesses was declared in court at least a week prior to the scheduled dates for our testimony (June 21 and 24, 2002). At that time Bethanys attorney (a Jehovahs Witness) and the attorneys for the Watchtower Society, objected and asked the court to prevent the aforementioned witnesses from testifying. The court denied this request (see Disgruntled Jehovah's Witnesses can testify at Calgary trial, judge rules, Canadian Press, Canadian.com News, Tuesday, June 18, 2002).

I was later informed that shortly after the judge denied the Watchtower lawyers request to prevent the witnesses from testifying, Child Welfare offered the Witness/Watchtower attorneys a deal: Allow Bethany to complete her treatments (which were to extend about another three weeks at the time) and the witnesses would not testify. The Watchtower attorneys and Bethanys attorney rejected this offer as it would mean continued transfusions for Bethany.

On Monday, June 24, 2002, I was scheduled to testify along with Dr. Muramoto. However, on Sunday, June 23, 2002, the attorneys for Bethany and the Watchtower Society contacted Lawrences attorney and offered to accept their previous offer in order to prevent Lawrences witnesses from testifying. This meant, of course, that Bethany would get the rest of her treatments (transfusions included) and that the lawyers would not fight the treatments until the case resumes later this year, in October, long after Bethanys treatments have been completed.

THE DAY OF TESTIMONY

I entered the hallway leading to the courtroom and noted that about 50 or more Jehovahs Witnesses were present. None of these spoke with Lawrence at any time during the time preceding the trial, and none spoke with him after the trial. I noticed that Lawrence attempted to speak with one of his daughters after the trial, but he received only a brief remark before she simply turned away from him. Lawrence did have several people there to offer some support: Jim Penton and his son, Dr. Muramoto, Richard and Francis Rawe, Chris Christenson, myself, and one other lady whose name escapes me. (Remember, Lawrence is at this time neither disfellowshiped nor disassociated from Jehovahs Witnesses.)

After entering the courtroom Lawrence and the attorneys for all parties were gathered together for a conference with the judge, and after some time they returned. The judge entered and the proceedings began. The attorneys for Child Welfare outlined their proposal for adjourning the trial until later this year, in October, since with the appearance of witnesses for Lawrence would extend the trial beyond the period of Bethanys treatments. In other words, by the time the trial had finished, Bethany would already have received the needed treatments. The judge asked Bethanys attorney and the Watchtower lawyers if they agreed to the adjournment (though this had already been worked out in conference), and they stated the following: We oppose the adjournment as to do otherwise would be to accept further transfusions. However, we appreciate the reasons for the adjournment as stated by [the attorneys for Child Welfare]. The judge then asked if they would agree to the adjournment, and the Witness lawyers said they would agree to it but that they are opposed to its consequences. Lawrence was asked if he agreed to the adjournment and he stated that he did agree to it.

Then the Child Welfare attorneys provided the details of the adjournment and the judge agreed to allow it. Part of the Witness lawyers acceptance of the offer (the offer they initially declined but later initiated themselves [see below]), was that Mrs. Hughes be allowed to make a statement to the court. Mrs. Hughes took the stand and Bethanys lawyer asked her a series of questions, one of which was: What decision would you like to see this court make with respect to your daughters situation? Mrs. Hughes replied: I would like this court to decide in favor of my daughters right to make her own informed decision about whether or not to accept a blood transfusion. Mrs. Hughes went on to state that she did not at any time attempt to remove the IV from her daughter, but that Bethany herself had attempted to remove the IV, and that Bethany has not been the same since the transfusions have been forced upon her. Then the Witness lawyer asked her the following question: What would you do if Bethany decided on her own to accept a blood transfusion? Mrs. Hughes responded: Although I would not agree with her decision, I would support her throughout the entire time she decided to receive the transfusions. Mrs. Hughes appeared to be sincere and genuinely concerned for her daughter. Her responses were coupled with displays of emotion, which is certainly understandable.

PUTTING THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

While I do not doubt that Mrs. Hughes would support her daughter if she decided to accept a blood transfusion or a transfusion of red cells or platelets (there is a difference between a blood transfusion and a transfusion of red cells, etc., namely, blood is blood and red cells are a component of blood). However, the question that was not raised by the Witness lawyer (Child Welfare declined to cross examine Mrs. Hughes, reserving the right to do so at a later time), is whether or not he or any other Jehovahs Witness would also support Bethanys decision to accept a transfusion. We can imagine the strain that a mother would feel if she did not support her child under such circumstances, even if she disagreed with her childs decision. But it is a fact that if Bethany made a conscientious decision to accept transfusions, multiple transfusions over a period of weeks or months (as in this particular case), she would be disfellowshiped from the congregation. How might such knowledge affect a 16 girl? How might the prospect of losing your immediate friends and larger social circle/religious community affect her? It seems to me that the implication of the lawyers question and the mothers response was that Bethany would receive support from the entire Witness community, for if her mother would support her, being one of Jehovahs Witnesses, then other Witnesses would support her, too.

Mrs. Hughes has a right to speak up for her daughters right to make her own informed decision. Bethany has a right to make her own informed decision, and one of the lingering ethical dilemmas of this trial will revolve around the question of the extent to which a person should be expected to consider information that truly allows someone to make an informed decision, should they decide they do not want to be exposed to information that would be essential to making an informed decision. If, for example, we support a persons right to make their own informed decision, what is our responsibility for making sure that they have informed themselves about the particular issue(s) in question so that their decision can truly be considered informed?

In any event, what clearly is not apparent to Mrs. Hughes, and understandably so, is that Lawrence, her husband, Bethanys father, is seeking the very thing for which she asked: Let Bethany make an informed decision, a decision not forced upon her by information that lacks balance, information that does not provide an analysis or explanation of all the relevant issues. Does Bethany, or her mother, or any of the other Witnesses in attendance at trial for that matter, know why the Watchtower condemns red cell transfusions but does not condemn the use of hemoglobin? Consider: According to the Watchtower Society, red cells (and platelets, plasma, and white cells) should not be transfused because they are considered major components of blood. Yet, if we use that same logic, then since red cells are basically hemoglobin with a cellular membrane, making hemoglobin a major component of red cells, why isnt hemoglobin condemned on the same basis, namely, being a major component of a prohibited substance (a red cell)?

It might also be asked whether or not Bethany is aware that appointed elders in various congregations of Jehovahs Witnesses disagree with the Societys blood doctrine, but are in some cases hesitant to make their concerns public for fear of what might happen to them? Can we say that Bethany might also be pressured by these same or similar fears, so that she would not expose herself to questions about the Watchtower blood policy as presented by others, Witnesses and non-Witnesses, who have studied the issues at length?

Suppose Bethany was able to read enough material and study the issues to such an extent that she could rightly say that she is familiar with the arguments for and against the Societys blood policy, and the result is that she is uncertain about what the Bible actually prohibits. What pressure would there be in the Watchtower organization that might sway her uncertain view to one side or the other? Perhaps something like this:

Do we doubt that a faithful and discreet slave has been appointed to give Jehovahs people their food at the proper time? (Matthew 24:45-47) Why deprive ourselves of godly joy because not everything is completely understood? Remember, Jehovah decides when and how to reveal his confidential matters.Amos 3:7. [Show A Waiting Attitude, The Watchtower, September 1, 2000, page 13].

Or something like this:

[A] mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does not advocate or insist on personal opinions *OR* harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and the faithful and discreet slave. [Make Your Advancement Manifest, The Watchtower, August 1, 2001, page 14.]

The only way Bethany could obtain a sufficient knowledge of the issues so that it could truthfully be said that she is able to make an informed decision is if she is exposed to writings on the subject outside of what is provided by the Society. What is the likelihood that this is the case for a 16 year old? Its possible, of course, but if she has had such exposure then she or anyone else who claims to have made an informed decision about such matters should be able to articulate the arguments having to do with accepting or not accepting a red cell transfusion. It might also be expected that such persons could explain where and how the Bible provides a basis for excluding red cells but not hemoglobin. In any event, when one looks at the environment in the Watchtower Society that instructs persons about the blood policy, it is fair to say that it is unlikely that most Witnesses have a full appreciation for the arguments against the Societys blood policy. It is even reasonable to suspect that most Witnesses do not have a healthy understanding of the particulars of the Societys own arguments!

One final note: As noted earlier, on the day of testimony, June 24, 2002, the Watchtower lawyers verbally opposed the adjournment of the trial on the grounds that accepting the adjournment would be tantamount to accepting further blood transfusions. However, what the 50 plus Witnesses in attendance do not know, and likely will never know, is that it was the Societys and Bethanys lawyers who initiated the offer between the parties legal representatives the day before they verbally opposed it in court. This they were able to do because the offer they initiated had been first advanced by Child Welfare. Again, it was originally rejected but, as noted above, it was later initiated by the Watchtowers and Bethanys lawyers one day before the testimony of Lawrences Witnesses, apparently to prevent the witnesses from testifying.

True, they likely realized that Bethany would receive the scheduled treatments anyway, and that to continue the trial would provide an opportunity to examine the question of whether or not Bethany has been unduly influenced to refuse transfusions of needed blood components, or if she has truly been able to reach an informed decision on the matter. It can only be concluded from their offer to accept the settlement previously proposed by Child Welfare that they did not want to have this question examined.

Edited by - mikemusto on 26 June 2002 8:54:39

Edited by - mikemusto on 26 June 2002 8:56:46

13

"seven stars" of Revelation 1:20 - JW...

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

.

according to the march 15, 2002 wt page 14 the "seven stars" of revelation 1:20 in christ's righ hand apply exclusively to appointed jw elders today and since they and the governing body are under christ's direction we should submit to their leadership etc.. .

at the kingdom hall last week i heard a talk in wich the speaker intimated that since the congregations in asia minor all received letters they were organized in much the same way as the wt is today.. what is your take on this matter?

MikeMusto

Francois:

Not all white stuff that comes out off poo is poo....ask a Chelsea boy

11

Will the ROCKS cry out for the JWs???

by LDH in

jw
friends

the km of november 1996 states:

"a failure to contribute enough to cover costs will ultimately restrict what the organization may otherwise be able to accomplish in furthering the worldwide work.

so wtf happened to their "rocks would cry out" theory?

MikeMusto

Yes..the WTS is using "rocks" now....here is a pic from the latest District Convention...it was quite "arousing"

Edited by - mikemusto on 25 June 2002 8:51:14

Edited by - mikemusto on 25 June 2002 8:52:35

19

Hello Bethel! Are You Listening? Wake Up!

by Room 215 in

jw
friends

hello bethel,.

by now it's clear to all observers that the organization is running out of steam, especially in the developned nations, and no amount of hyped-up propaganda about ``quick-build'' kingdom halls, standing up to the nazis, lifetime experiences of pioneers, etc., etc.

can rectify.. what's needed urgently:.

MikeMusto

Its good to see a post with NYT..that dude was funny..

what did i miss..2014?

45

Giving thanks in restaurants!

by Beck_Melbourne in

jw
friends

when i was in dub-dom....i used to hate eating out....my ex always made us bow our heads and close our eyes tight shut while he gave thanks out loud.

did you do that in public??

or did you do it discreetly with your head bowed but eyes not shut....or.....head in hand...hoping people would think u were in deep thought?

MikeMusto

Br. Sydlik says "even a dog thanks and barks at his master before he is given food.....are we less

than a dog?"

82

Name some must have rock records

by Leander in

jw
friends

i've spent a lot of time on allmusic.com and it amazes me how much nirvana is mentioned when the reviewers rate other albums.

so its a no brainer that nirvana's work should probably have a place in every rock collection, but what are some other albums every rock fan should listen to if not own.

.

MikeMusto

any Tool album

fyi: Poison isnt rock

45

Giving thanks in restaurants!

by Beck_Melbourne in

jw
friends

when i was in dub-dom....i used to hate eating out....my ex always made us bow our heads and close our eyes tight shut while he gave thanks out loud.

did you do that in public??

or did you do it discreetly with your head bowed but eyes not shut....or.....head in hand...hoping people would think u were in deep thought?

MikeMusto

My father, an elder, said this looked pompous. He said it caused a scene and was unnecessary.

We could say a prayer with our eyes open and withoug lowering our heads. Another family

I knew would all hold hands and lower their heads--dear god that was the most painful thing to

sit through--i of course refrained--pulling rank that my father said I didnt have to --and it was

up to Jehovah and I...Later on--when i joined the family again, at a restaurant--they said their

own prayers...They still insisted on loweing their heads though.

I have seen other pray with their hand on their head..Like they got a bad headache.

6

MikeMusto- BILL BLASS HAS DIED!!!

by Mister 8iggs in

can you please provide us with your commentary on this story and do you have any kind words to the blass family?.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/showbiz/news/06/13/obit.blass.ap/index.html.

new york (ap) -- bill blass, who dressed the likes of nancy reagan and barbara walters while shattering the paris-centric fashion world with youthful creations that mixed-and-matched chic with casual, has died.

MikeMusto

yes dubla..NYT ..grew tired of flame wars...they often left little room for a middle ground...

Xenu was quite interesting...as flame wars were started when Xenu said nothing....

My true i.d. of MikeMust had to be revealed..Like coming out of the closet..it was liberating...

Knowing I can now prance around this board with an orchid in one hand and a Cosmopolitan in another.

Edited by - mikemusto on 13 June 2002 17:4:59