I must admit to taking a long time to read and re-read this document. At first I was thinking CRAP she changed the verbal reasons and softened the stance, but as I read more I couldn't believe the gems that came out of the written orders.
What a HUGE success. I may be mistaken but isn't this the ruling that was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and thrown out? If so, that means the Supreme Court is in basic agreement with the case and saw no need to review it or that they have already considered the principles involved and will not re-hear another case. That makes this law!!
Removing W. Glen How & Associates:
This was interesting to read and I believe it gives future trials the angle necessary to show the inability of the Bethel Lawyers to both represent the church, the parent and the child. The judge stated:
The second arm of the argument was that the particular lawyers who are members of the firm are not only lawyers for B.H. but also lawyers for the Watch Tower Society who act only in cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses, are elders in the Jehovah's Witness congregation, and, by definition, are Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. The argument was that, for those reasons, the lawyers are unable to give objective advice to B.H. with respect to the matters in issue in this case. It was alleged that information given by them to B.H. about her treatment is wrong (for example, that the treatment being undertaken at the hospital is experimental or for research purposes), that they recommended that she start physically resisting the transfusions and that they informed her that she would be honoured by the Church if she refused transfusions. In the end result, the lawyers are unable to differentiate their roles as counsel for B.H., as counsel for the Church and as members of the Church themselves.
I accept the proposition that to remove counsel from a case should only be done in the clearest of circumstances: I also accept the proposition that there should be a presumption that a lawyer will carry out his or her duties in accordance with the Oath of Office and the Codes of Professional Conduct. There have been a great number of allegations made throughout this litigation. I am not prepared at this stage to lose track of the primary focus--the care and treatment of B.H.--to embark on a long investigation to determine if that presumption should be overturned. The application to remove counsel is denied.
This presumption needs to be questioned from the onset of the matter, making it a separate motion so that it need not detract from the actual trial itself. Hawk - this lends itself to my idea regarding the use of Law Societies.
JW's & Mature Minors:
The judge made very good observations regarding the legal aspect of mature minors and did in fact say that BH was intelligent and bright and by definition (under common law) she was a mature minor HOWEVER the Alberta Child Welfare legislation is the basis of law not the common law and under that legislation lifesaving medical treatment is grounds for superceding the mature minor clause.
So this means that any JW living in Alberta under the age of 18 can have a blood transfusion forced on them if it is deemed to be a life saving medical technique.
But the best part is her concluding comments about the conduct of WT Lawyer David Gnam, the JW mother and the JW community. Also included below are her paraphrased comments regarding the Society's constant argument that forcing blood is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment. She blasted them!!!
I was struck by the overwhelming compassion and care that is being shown and given to B.H. and her family by the doctors and staff at the hospital...This case presents special challenges. ...All of the doctors and staff at the hospital have attempted to provide the best treatment available while respecting the rights of B.H., her mother, her father and other family members,
So much for evil wicked doctors. These people were saints and didn't deserve to be abused by the HLC and WT Lawyers labeling them as if they were Nazi's
...I note that there are two classes of "cruel and unusual" treatment: "(1) those that are barbaric in themselves, and (2) those that are grossly disproportionate to the offence ... I have no hesitation in finding that the treatment given to B.H. under the appealed orders cannot be so characterized. The restraint, sedation and restricted visitation have been measured responses to B.H.'s expressions of resistance and otherwise, all necessary to effect safely the essential medical treatment.
Okay now here is the good part ...
I grew increasingly concerned about B.H.'s present ability to make informed decisions about her health. Counsel for the Appellants argue that B.H. has now looked death in the face and continues to choose her religious convictions over blood transfusions. Is that the case?
The affidavits of A.H. {note the JW Mother} .. is one of the most intemperate statements I have seen in evidence. She says
" I have reflected on the atrocities thousands of innocent persons endured during Nazi rule, many of whom were mistreated because they would not violate their conscience. I have reviewed The Nuremberg Code. The "treatment" therein described, bears a chilling resemblance to what is happening to B. and then goes on to quote from The Nuremberg Code."
First, I had thought that we as a society had come to understand that what occurred under Nazi rule was a singular event because it was so horrible. It is not something that should be lightly used as a comparator. Second, if A.H. truly believes what she says, then it is a very strong indication that she has no perspective on her child's current medical situation. She cannot make decisions for her or advise her.
Now when it can be demonstrontrated in future trials that the exact same quote has been offered up before it shows that the Society is the one feeding this stuff to the JW's and thus proving that any under the influence of the JW's should be viewed similiarly. The judge lets her and the JW's have it again:
It is troubling to hear that B.H.'s mother would risk harm to her child by tampering with medical equipment during a procedure. I am not talking about the long-term issues of whether or not to receive blood transfusions. I am talking about the immediate physical harm to B.H. if the lines were removed improperly.
... pt's mother asked to leave room for plts transfusion. Pt offered sedation, she refused. Pt fought - but not very hard with transfuse.
.. According to her affidavits, A.H. is also telling B.H. that she has the right to withdraw from the treatment protocol that she is receiving, which is simply wrong given the treatment order that is in place. A.H. appears to believe that the treatment is experimental, which I have said above is wrong.
... I understand that L.H. {Lawrence}is very close to the issues in this case, and I must weigh anything that he says carefully. There is, however, a letter attached written by Mr. Gnam to Mr. Calvert dated March 1, 2002; in it, Mr. Gnam {idiot WT Lawyer} also talks about the treatment as experimental. I have said above that it is not.
And this is by far the most damning comment IMO
Initially the Child co-operated with medical staff but voiced her objections to the transfusions in a way that did not place herself or others at harm. She has informed me that she had been instructed to "fight" by both the Mother and Mr. Gnam, counsel for the Child and she was confused how passive resistance would not be accepted as "fighting".
... Even if B.H. was in law entitled to refuse medical treatment, the undue influence put upon her in the last few weeks has taken away her ability to make an informed choice.
... The consequence is that B.H. is perhaps receiving more transfusions than would be necessary if she confined her resistance to verbal resistance.
(Therefore Bethel's instrcution resulted in more blood needing to be given) [quote] Can I now or could I, if she did testify, rely on the evidence coming from a free, informed will? I could not, not after the pressures and influences that have been brought to bear on her in the last few weeks to maintain her position on blood transfusions. In view of the above, I really think Lawrence should be very proud. He protected his daughter, seeing that she received the best medical treatment and at the same time managed to get some amazing language into the law books.
Uzzah
"Don't mind me, I am just trying to steady the ark"
