Where in god's name does the Society get these IDIOT lawyers from? First Shane Brady, then Brumley and now this bimbo.
Ummm Mary? You forgot to mention David Gnam.
To answer your question, though, the WTS grows their own idiots.
Quebec: the superior court autorize the transfusion of two prematures
by chasson 36 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Scully
-
Mary
Geeze Scully, I'm embarassed.....never heard of David Gnam.....is he at the Canadian Bethel? The only one I know is Glenn Howe. I think Brother Brady should have my picture of him on all his business cards, don't you?
-
Scully
Gnam was the lead attorney in the Bethany Hughes case. Brady assisted. It was actually David Gnam (according to Lawrence Hughes) who promised Bethany that she would be featured in an Awake! article if she kept the faith and refused blood transfusions. Can we say "undue influence"?? He works with W. Glen How & Associates at the Canadian Branch.
BTW... that pic of Brady is quite fetching. It should be in all his advertising.
Let's think up a slogan for him.... "Shane Brady, Cooking Up Legal Stuff"
"Shane Brady: His cinnamon buns are so good they should be illegal. Good thing he's a lawyer too."
-
Mary
Shane Brady: His cinnamon buns are so good they should be illegal. Good thing he's a lawyer too."
ROFLMAO!!! Hmmm......this would make a great Awake cover!
-
DannyHaszard
First appearance of Canadian Knocking promotion (how timely) HIGHLIGHT: INDEPENDENT LENS: KNOCKING
Globe and Mail, Canada - 16 minutes ago
We know Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for their door-to-door proselytizing and for their refusal to accept blood transfusions. But for a controversial faith [email protected] news editor http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/help/contact-web more contacts this paper TELEVISION: DOCS & TALKHIGHLIGHT: INDEPENDENT LENS: KNOCKING
HENRIETTA WALMARK May 25, 2007 We know Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for their door-to-door proselytizing and for their refusal to accept blood transfusions. But for a controversial faith that was founded in the United States in the 1870s, very little else is generally known about the worshippers who attend its Kingdom Halls. In this utterly fascinating documentary co-produced and directed by Joel P. Engardio - who was raised as a Witness, although he never joined the religion - it's clear the conservative faith, which has been much maligned, has had a dramatic impact on civil rights and freedoms in both the U.S. and Europe. There are dramatic individual stories of a young Dallas man who is denied a life-saving liver transplant because of his faith and a Jewish concentration-camp survivor who was so impressed by voluntary Jehovah's Witness prisoners that he converted to their faith. Yet it's the religion's long history of fighting for civil liberties that provides the most surprising material here. In defending their own rights, Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for expanding and cementing freedoms for all Americans. The religion has gone before the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other group, winning 50 of their 62 cases; cases that set precedents in most every area of the U.S. Bill of Rights. That staggering record alone makes this film vital viewing for anyone who cares about civil justice. Sunday, 11 p.m., PBS
-
DannyHaszard
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070525.JEHOVAH25/TPStory/TPNational/?page=rss&id=GAM.20070525.JEHOVAH25 Doctor defends 'bloodless surgery' for babies 2 hrs ago | Globe and Mail Jehovah's Witnesses prefer technique that requires no transfusions, overcomes ethical concerns VANCOUVER -- One of the leading practitioners of "bloodless surgery" says that when Jehovah's Witnesses demand to RELIGIOUS BELIEFS: PUSHING MEDICAL BOUNDARIES
Doctor defends 'bloodless surgery' for babies
Jehovah's Witnesses prefer technique that requires no transfusions, overcomes ethical concerns
MARK HUME With a report from Canadian Press
[email protected] May 25, 2007 VANCOUVER -- One of the leading practitioners of "bloodless surgery" says that when Jehovah's Witnesses demand to be treated without transfusions - as parents of premature babies in Quebec City and Vancouver have done recently - they are not relying on junk science. Rather, they are pushing the medical establishment to provide them with a form of treatment that is increasingly available, but still relatively obscure, in the United States and Canada , says Aryeh Shander, chief of anesthesiology and critical care medicine at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey . Dr. Shander, interviewed yesterday in the wake of a Quebec court decision that ordered transfusions for premature twins despite objections from their Jehovah's Witnesses parents, said that even tiny babies can be treated safely with techniques commonly called bloodless surgery, or more correctly, blood conservation. "Bloodless is sort of a misnomer because essentially what we do is we treat patients without the use of banked blood products," said Dr. Shander, who is also a professor at Mount Sinai school of medicine in New York . He was recently profiled by Time magazine in a report titled Heroes of Medicine, because of his pioneering work in bloodless surgery. "What we do is try to approach the patient from a different scenario. ... we will make sure that their blood level is brought up before surgery," he said. "We will collect every drop of blood during surgery ... and we can return all the products back to them later on." Machines that recycle a patient's own blood and drugs that reduce the need for transfusions are among the techniques used. Dr. Shander said he's used the approach on a wide variety of patients - including premature babies born to parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses, a religion that forbids blood transfusions. "To date, everything that has been performed from a surgical point of view ... on patients who take blood, can be performed on bloodless patients, or Jehovah's Witnesses," he said. jehovahs3 Dr. Shander has been at the forefront of bloodless surgery since the 1980s when AIDS and hepatitis C epidemics made him question the risks of transfusions. He said his questioning of traditional methods was controversial at first, just as the questioning by Jehovah's Witnesses is now. "There were arguments, no doubt about that ... I don't know if people actually viewed [what I was doing] as heresy, but this is how people view the Witnesses now, as heretics in the cathedral of medicine, because they are questioning even more than I did. They are questioning medicine to be able to deliver the same standard of care that everyone else gets - but without the use of blood." Quebec Superior Court ruled on Wednesday that a Quebec City hospital caring for premature twins should proceed with blood transfusions after doctors treating the babies were able to demonstrate the severity of the situation. Two doctors told the court blood transfusions were necessary to keep the twins alive and avoid brain damage. A doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness testified on the parents' behalf that alternatives to transfusion were available for the twins, who were born by cesarean section May 17 at 25 weeks. In January, the B.C . government briefly seized four babies who had survived Canada's first sextuplet birth, and ordered transfusions, despite the objections of the parents, who are also Jehovah's Witnesses. The parents have since taken the B.C . government to court, seeking a ruling that they should have had an opportunity to go before a judge and make an argument for bloodless treatment. That case is expected to be heard in July. Dr. Shander said every case is different and he doesn't have medical details on the recent births in B.C . and Quebec . But he said in most instances, there is a good medical case to be made for bloodless treatment. "We've had plenty of patients from all over the world who have come to our hospital to be treated without blood. All went home, yet they were refused by many, including Canada , to be cared for," he said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/help/contact-paper#reporters CONTACT PAGE ------------------------------------------------ 2 First appearance of Canadian promotion of Knocking HIGHLIGHT: INDEPENDENT LENS: KNOCKING
Globe and Mail, Canada - 16 minutes ago
We know Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for their door-to-door proselytizing and for their refusal to accept blood transfusions. But for a controversial faith [email protected] news editor http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/help/contact-web more contacts this paper TELEVISION: DOCS & TALKHIGHLIGHT: INDEPENDENT LENS: KNOCKING
HENRIETTA WALMARK May 25, 2007 We know Jehovah's Witnesses primarily for their door-to-door proselytizing and for their refusal to accept blood transfusions. But for a controversial faith that was founded in the United States in the 1870s, very little else is generally known about the worshippers who attend its Kingdom Halls. In this utterly fascinating documentary co-produced and directed by Joel P. Engardio - who was raised as a Witness, although he never joined the religion - it's clear the conservative faith, which has been much maligned, has had a dramatic impact on civil rights and freedoms in both the U.S. and Europe . There are dramatic individual stories of a young Dallas man who is denied a life-saving liver transplant because of his faith and a Jewish concentration-camp survivor who was so impressed by voluntary Jehovah's Witness prisoners that he converted to their faith. Yet it's the religion's long history of fighting for civil liberties that provides the most surprising material here. In defending their own rights, Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for expanding and cementing freedoms for all Americans. The religion has gone before the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other group, winning 50 of their 62 cases; cases that set precedents in most every area of the U.S. Bill of Rights. That staggering record alone makes this film vital viewing for anyone who cares about civil justice. Sunday, 11 p.m., PBS
-
Scully
Jehovah's Witnesses are responsible for expanding and cementing freedoms for all Americans. The religion has gone before the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other group, winning 50 of their 62 cases; cases that set precedents in most every area of the U.S. Bill of Rights. That staggering record alone makes this film vital viewing for anyone who cares about civil justice.
The irony in this statement is that the religion expects those who follow it to give up all those freedoms or else they get kicked out of the group. In other words, the freedoms belong to the organization, but not to the people who are members.
-
johnny cip
bttt
-
chasson
Scully you cited, concerning EPO:
Benzyl alcohol has been reported to be associated with an increased incidence of neurological and other complications in premature infants which are sometimes fatal.
Now take a look at this study published in 2005 that i have found in a discussion with a jw's apologist on fr.soc.sectes:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/6/1685
Randomized Trial of Liberal Versus Restrictive Guidelines for Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Preterm Infants
And the conclusion:
Results. Infants in the liberal-transfusion group received moreRBC transfusions (5.2 ± 4.5 [mean ± SD] vs 3.3± 2.9 in the restrictive-transfusion group). However,the number of donors to whom the infants were exposed was notsignificantly different (2.8 ± 2.5 vs 2.2 ± 2.0).
There was no difference between the groups in the percentageof infants who avoided transfusions altogether (12% in the liberal-transfusiongroup versus 10% in the restrictive-transfusion group). Infantsin the restrictive-transfusion group were more likely to haveintraparenchymal brain hemorrhage or periventricular leukomalacia,and they had more frequent episodes of apnea, including bothmild and severe episodes.
Conclusions. Although both transfusion programs were well tolerated,our finding of more frequent major adverse neurologic eventsin the restrictive RBC-transfusion group suggests that the practiceof restrictive transfusions may be harmful to preterm infants.
Three things:
1/Yes, the infants in the restrictive group have receveid less blood transfusions but were exposed at the same number of donor (less don't mean NO transfusion)
2/Concerning babies who have avoided transfusion, this is the same ratio
3/the babies in the restrictive group "were more likely to haveintraparenchymal brain hemorrhage or periventricular leukomalacia,and they had more frequent episodes of apnea, including bothmild and severe episodes", if we add neurological complication with EPO, we now know why doctors want to make transfusion on prematures and not give EPO.
Bye
Charles
-
hawkaw
Who the hell was the doctor that testified? Was he a doctor of cooking?
BTW, it was nice of the rag people call the Globe and Mail to put that garbage in their paper without the other side being told. It was also nice of that rag to not mention that the Doctor from NJ had no idea about the kids' state until late in the article.
I guess I will write Mark Hume and give him a piece of my mind.
