Want to remain secular and win this? You will have to convince a Civil Court Judge that the WT's medical opinion and credentials supersede the medical opinion and credentials of a qualified physician.The WT has no medical credentials and no medical opinion to sue over. They just quote others with medical credentials and opinions, and they quote them incorrectly and intentionally. THAT is what they can be sued for.
All right cut the crap.... why are we fighting over the Big News?
You might not think that is possible, and I understand that you don't. But you can't say that the 'Big News' is saying a court should be asked to rule on religious doctrine, beliefs or practices, when that is not what the paper is saying at all.
I see your point, and I believe that is is nearly impossible for a Judge to separate WT's religion from its secular publications and conclude that detrimental medical choices made by the patient, were fault of the WT.
The WT has no medical credentials and no medical opinion to sue over. They just quote others with medical credentials and opinions, and they quote them incorrectly and intentionally. THAT is what they can be sued for.
And you can sue them for that. (And how relevant will that be? ) But you can not sue the WT for detrimental medical care chosen by a patient, because the WT is not a health care provider.......even if they forgot to include a disclaimer in their literature.
Gerard, the burden of proof is not nearly as severe as you suggest. All that has to be established is that there was rational basis for believing the information communicated by the booklet. That is easily acheived.
There is no basis for a claim of misrepresentation under this narrow focus unless it can be found that the recipient had reason to believe the information on secular grounds. The sources cited in the brochure would be more than sufficient to meet that fairly low burden of proof.
Under a narrow focus is the only way this will ever see the inside of a courtroom. That is how Molko WAS HEARD, not how it was decided, a material fact that Eduardo apparently missed completely. I'm not sure what you know of the law, but if you were weighting what Eduardo said heavily you might want to check your source.
I think I know the source of your statement, "You will have to convince a Civil Court Judge that the WT's medical opinion and credentials supersede the medical opinion and credentials of a qualified physician." I'll be happy to mail you a tube of ointment to treat the raw, irritated source you pulled it from. I know of NO precedent in law to claim what you just claimed. As far as I can find out, it simply isn't true.
If you have precedent for that statement, please submit them here.
I think I know the source of your statement
Want to win such "secular" law suit? You will have to convince a Civil Court Judge that the medical opinion of this religious cult, supersedes the medical opinion of a qualified physician. >Gerard
I know of NO precedent in law to claim what you just claimed. >AuldSoul
No shit!?!? Are you sure!?!?
Hell, I stand corrected! SHAME ON ME!!! Of course, It can't be done! Silly me!!!! Me bad!!!!
Then howcome you are going to atempt it by using the Exceedingly Optimistic Theory (a.k.a: THE BIG NEWS!) ?
I'm not sure if "supersedes" is the best/right word. I know that when you're writing on any medical topic whatsoever, you have to be exceedingly careful.
One size does not fit all when it comes to issues of health and medicine. People are all different. Advocate any position, no matter how benign, and somebody, somewhere will come to harm because of it.
Therefore even if all you're doing is writing a short fluffy little article about the latest diet/exercise program for a trendy health magazine, you always, always, always have to disclaim responsibility. e.g. You must consult with your physician before considering any _______ regimen (Fill in the blank) Flip through the pages of any magazine in this genre and you'll see this advice repeated over and over.
Credentials are not an issue. You may not have any at all. If someone comes to harm, you could be held liable and saying, "They should have known to consult with their physician rather than listening to me, his authority supersedes mine!" is no defense.
Write on a more serious medical topic and even this might not be enough. Writers here refrain from advocating any position at all and usually confine themselves to facts alone.
The JW organization is not held to this standard because they are a religion and their speech is protected as long as they confine that speech to matters of doctrine and faith
..., you always, always, always have to disclaim responsibility.
Does the blood brochure have a disclaimer? Lack of it could help stablish your "secular" case.
The entire brochure is online.
I just scanned it again, there is no disclaimer. On the contrary, under "You have the right to choose" the brochure goes on at some length how the patient has the ultimate authority to authorize or decline treatment. This particular section is offensive, also, in suggesting that hospitals enforce transfusions to avoid liability. On the contrary, the hippocratic oath binds doctors to do everything possible to save a life. It's not just about money, it's about saving lives.
Each competent physician likely considered risks and benefits, but now you have to weigh the risks and possible benefits, as well as other factors that you best know. (You are in the best position to consider such aspects as your emotional or spiritual strength, family finances, effect on the family, and your own ethics.) Then you make a choice. Possibly you give informed consent for one therapy but decline the other.
Where in that paragraph does it talk about the religious reasons for refusing blood?
Thanks, jgnat and TD.
Add to jgnat's post the following quote from this page of the article:
Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood.
Not only does it fail to disclaim liability, it calls into question the advice of Doctors at the outset and purports to answer the question, "How wise or unwise is this medically?" It puts forward an assertion that it is a resouce to be relied on for helping to make an "informed choice about blood."
In other words, it presents itself as PRIMARILY a source for valid medical information.
Without disclaimer of any kind.