AJWRB was approached early on about working together on these issues. We took a hard look and opted out for ethical and pragmatic reasons. Though the issues share a common thread (child abuse), they have to be approached in different ways. Ultimately, we felt direct linkage would detract from the work we are trying to do and that the pedophilia problem required immediate and separate action.

The process of getting the public to agree that children should not be sexually abused and that their abusers should not be sheltered is very straightforward.
The process of getting the public to agree that Jehovah's Witnesses should not have the right to refuse a blood transfusion is impractical. The necessary arguments are technical and very focused, and the right forum is the medical community.

Any attempt at hyperbole or sensationalism is quickly shot down by peer reviewed medical journals. However, through careful analysis we have been able to construct solid arguments that resulted in the WTS losing the blood debate in the medical ethics community. This was a victory for AJWRB but it will take years for this to filter down through the other medical communities.

There is something else to bear in mind as well. When we talk about the victims of the WTS blood transfusion policy, we are usually talking about dead people. There are no victims to place in front of a TV camera and interview. Additionally, how many JW parents are prepared to come forward and talk about the incredibly painful mistake they made in deciding to sacrifice their child? I know of perhaps one ex-JW woman who might consider doing something like that but to do so she must risk effectively ending her relationship with her other believing JW children. She's been through enough - I would never ask that of her.

So unlike the pedophilia issue, the blood issue by its unique nature does not lend itself well to use of the media - we will never have an Erica Garza. The identities of living JW minors cannot be used and most who need medically necessary blood transfusions go to an early grave. Sadly, we know that probably half of these kids that have died supporting the WTS irrational blood transfusion policy would have grown up and left the WTS anyway - how tragic that some court did not intervene and give them a chance to live. Here we have hundreds, perhaps thousands of permanently "Silent Lambs" in the ultimate sense - they will never roar. They were "small sacrifices" to the WTS blood transfusion policy.

As you can see from the recent "Shunned Father" story, this is an expensive issue for JW dissidents and other concerned individuals to address. Huge amounts of money are needed to take on the WTS and its mini army of volunteer attorneys. Medical communities must be lobbied, expensive and time consuming research is needed to publish articles in major medical journals like NEJM, JAMA, etc. Costly presentations must be made to medical professionals at conventions. Legal research needs to be done and cases must be won in the courts.

All of this is going to take a great deal of time and money. If I were a wealthy man, I'd happily part with those funds to make all of this happen. Unfortunately, I am not. A handful of individuals have made some significant contributions to AJWRB that enabled us to print thousands of brochures, put on two major medical conferences and open a lot of eyes, but much more can be done if the resources become available to us. Ultimately, that is up to individuals like the readers of this forum.

The WTS blood policy can be shaped by outside forces like AJWRB but it requires skill, resources and time. A common thread between the Pedophilia issue and the blood transfusion issue (child abuse) exists, but the approach to dealing with these issues is radically different. AJWRB genuinely appreciates the support that has been provided through this forum and we'll continue to do our best to educate both JWs and the medical community with the goal of insuring that all JWs have a free choice in their medical care without fear of WTS enforced sanctions that can separate them from their family members and friends.

Best regards,

Lee

I spoke with a medical doctor last month. She has JWs friends and out of respect for them believes it right to not give transfusions to JWs, yes, including JW kids! So you have not "won" the debate with all the medical community. This unbiblical (Mt 12) and dangerous anti-transfusion stand of the Watchtower Society since the 1960s has killed many, still does, and still needs publicised including outside of medical journals for example by letters to the doctors themselves. You disagree and won't take it to the public. So be it for yourself. But don't be surprised when others do.

nancee park,

This is what Lee said: He never claimed a universal victory--just one step down a long road. Also, to say he "won't take it to the public" reads things into his statement that simply are not there. Have you read the AJWRB web site?

Hmmm

Nancee:

Let me guess, you want us to start honking our horns near hospitals now too?!?! [8>]

First of all I agree whole heartedly with Lee's comments and more importantly the approach taken to the issue of blood by Lee and the AJWRB. It is well thought out and delivered in such a manner that it reaches the necessary audience.

A sensationalized media frenzy will not work in this matter. The political climate right now is severely biased towards individual rights. A person's right to chose. Any attempt to take away or belittle those rights in the media will fall flat. Now is not the right time for such measures. By this do not infer I am against such right of choice for I am not. But to encourage forced transfusions on adults will be rejected ..and should be as long as the decision is an informed one !!! edits

Formalized presentations, articles in respected medical journals carries far more weight than something appearing in the National Inquirer.

So Nancee, anewperson, all JahChristians, and such like people please do not let your zealousness lead you into doing something stupid that could jeopardize or affect the legitimacy of the AJWRB or SilentLambs efforts

I realize you do not need anyone's permission to do such things, but please think them through before you do!

Kismet

Dungbeetle wrote:
The gay ex-J.W.'s (Common Bond) just posted something about this on their web site - http://www.gayxjw.org/ped.html -

Lee, is your site down? I am trying to give a link to someone and it won't bring it up.

Lee Elder,

Thanks for your comments. This subject is a complicated one and riddled of course with difficult emotional issues.

I feel though that when some xJWs speak out about this, they forget the constitutional and legal issues involved. No one can dictate to a religion what it should or should not believe or teach (unless it is illegal) in the United States.

Sometimes there is an "evangelical" surge among some people to do away with all things they consider doctrinally wrong in the JW religion, including the blood issue. Not possible! We live in a Democracy. The same laws that allow the people on this DB to post almost whatever they please, (including sexually arousing pictures regardless of who is lurking here) also apply to religion!

They have the right to worship as they please, again, within the law. We also have the right to express our outrage and disapproval.

Thanks for the work you are doing,
IW

Thanks for your explaination. I also wanted to thank you and those associated with AJWRB for the professional and reasonable manner in which you have carried out your education on the subject.

This is quite an accomplishment in itself.

Path

LEE, I just want to thank you for your reasonable approaches to a very delicate matter. You are someone who is no fly-by-night. You do your homework and your efforts are greatly respected and appreciated.

Hi Lee.  I just want to say that you are doing a wonderful job of informing not only the Jehovah's Witness population but others as well. 

I, personally and honestly can not see how it could possibly be legal for a JW to refuse a blood transfusion for a minor.  It is one thing to refuse it for yourself, another to make that decision for a child.  It should be treated as an entirely different circumstance when a parent is likely to put a religious belief before the life or welfare of their child.  It seems to me that this should fall under the "child endangerment statute". 

Child Endangerment is found in the Penal Code and is entitled as a "Child Endangerment Statute" which is a separate felony. Titled Section 273a, it states:

273a. [a] Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care and custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.

[b] Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes of permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor . . .

*Within each state it is the legislature who decides how the child endangerment statute is applied.

*Georgia is the only state in the nation without felony child endangerment statute. (information provided: http://www.marktaylor.com/families.html).

Child abuse or neglect is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:

When a child's parent or custodian, by reason of cruelty, mental incapacity, immorality or depravity, is unfit to properly care for him or her, or neglects or refuses to provide necessary physical, affectional, medical, surgical or institutional care for him or her or is under such improper care or control as to endanger his or her morals or health.

(Information provided: http://www.madd.org/activism/0,1056,4210,00.html)

Religion aside, this is downright cruelty.  This is abuse.

If we were speaking of "consenting adults" that would be one thing...but these are kids, minors...who are trusting their parents to make the best decision for their well being.  I would feel the same way regarding ANY religion that would endanger the welfare of a child by not allowing adequate medical treatment because of the religious preferences of the parents. I think when the life of a child is involved and there is choice between the welfare of a child and the parents "right" to enforce their religious convictions, the child's life should ALWAYS take precedence. 

It's funny.  I live in Ga (notice above we are the ONLY state that has no felony child endangerment statute).  And where I live, you hear of parents who won't even allow their kids to go to the doctor because of "their" religious preferences.  Kids who die from a simple cold, or from an untreated, infected sore.   People think that is cruel.  I ask, what is the difference between what they are doing and what the witnesses do? 

It is amazing...there is a much stronger link between the subject of Pedophilia and the denial of blood transfusions to a minor than would immediately meet the eye.  BOTH are abuse, both affect the welfare and the very LIVES of millions of children in a <6 million and growing> organization.  I applaud the work of AJWRB and Silent Lambs. 

Bona

 

Edited by - Bona Dea on 25 August 2002 11:38:57.....I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THE RED OUT

Edited by - Bona Dea on 25 August 2002 11:40:35