WTS Letter to Congregations re. HLC

by doinmypart 78 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  rebel8

  Yes but a good part of it is delusional. The WT literature has long claimed physicians seek out the medical advice of elders, as if the physicians don't have access to medical libraries and peers with specialized knowledge. I remember being forced to memorize the names of nonblood treatments and told all I have to do is to educate the physicians about these options because they aren't aware of them. This letter perpetuates that lie.

  It also restates the propaganda that emboldens the elders inappropriately.....reading that a JW would think signing that paper means the hospitals must immediately hand over the entire medical record to the elders, and as I explained in previous posts, that is far from the truth.
• 

  dannyboy

  Thanks DoinMyPart and Elsewhere.

  A few thoughts: [references are to the letter posting linked earlier in this threadj]

  Pg 3, point 2: Encourages Witnesses to use the Internet to find a suitable Doctor. So it's ok for Witnesses to use the Internet, but only when it's for an "important" reason?

  Pg 3, point 3: RE: Elders advising medical Doctors on procedures, etc. I have this picture in my mind of a Janitor and a lawn-mowing elder discussing surgical technique with a Doctor.......

  Pg 5, point 14: Implies all the blood-related stuff is a matter of conscience. It makes this point when explaining how the HIS and HLC and etc. are not for non-Witnesses.

  When I was an elder, the point was sometimes made [wrongly] by traveling overseers that "we operate on priniciples, not on an exhaustive set of rules".......this sure looks like more rules and regulations and BS to me. They add more and more and more rules and regulations and reminders and so on.....

  The arrogance of this letter just amazes me.

  ----Dan
• 

  proplog2

  print out a copy of the letter. Tear it in half and throw it in the rest room waste basket. Someone will fish it out.
• 

  observador

  I have to bttt this so more people can see.
  Thanks Elsewhere, doingmypart.... et all.
• 

  Neo

  bttt
• 

  willyloman

  
  Blondie posted a news story (above) about dubs using their own pre-donated blood along with new technology to eliminate the need for transfusions from outside sources. This is fascinating because, if memory serves, that's the New Jersey hospital whose signature "bloodless medicine" program was put together in close consultation with the WTS a couple of decades ago.

  I was told at the time that the RN from Bethel who served at the WTS' request as liaison on that project later accepted a job running the hospital's bloodless surgery program. If I have my facts straight, it suggests this new technique involving autologous transfusions may be sanctioned by the Society.
• 

  Balsam

  Thanks doinmypart and elsewhere your awesome.

  The letter don't seem terribly different from the 1995 letter, except for the directions for those who have appointed others as their DPA on their medical papers. It has helped me to direct those who wish to stop their JW mates from allowing any one other than their worldly spouse to make medical decisions for them. I forwarded the letter to one such man married to a JW wife. He has a couple of kids too, and I've encouraged him to let the children's doctor know he would support blood transfusions if it was ever needed.

  Even with this Tort of the Law that review concerning JW didn't change one thing of this sick cult. I hope those men of the governing body bleed to death.
• 

  dorayakii

  8. Can any doctor or hospital give complete assurance that blood or blood fractions will not be used in treatment of a minor?

  Luna2: Okay, that's confusing. I thought blood fractions were okay? Have they backtracked on that?

  The new no-blood card gives the Witness a choice, it says:

  3. Regarding minor fractions of blood (for example albumin, coagulation factors, immunoglobins): [Initial one of the three choices below.]

  (a)_____ I refuse all

  (b)_____ I accept all

  (c)_____ I want to qualify either (3a) or (3b) above and my treatment choices are as follows:

  ___________________________________________________________________________
• 

  Wasanelder Once

  New letter, same old crap.

  W.Once
• 

  belbab

  
  In the Jan 3, 2006 letter, as some of you have pointed out, it says that the Jan 3, 1995 letter should be destroyed, but I don’t know if any of you have surmised the reason why.

  First of all the Jan 3 letter is addressed to ALL CONGREGATIONS, except for the last page which contains a PS addressed to the body of elders.

  The 1995 letter, only the first page is addressed to the congregation, the rest of the letter which gives very similar information as the 2006 letter, is addressed TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS.

  The new letter is laying all the information, on the shoulders of the rank and file within the congregations. Why? I maintain that the letter of Jan 3, 1995 contains misrepresenting instructions which may in the future be used to find the elders liable.

  Here are some quotes I have typed out, which I consider threaten the elder’s position.
  First, in the opening letter addressed to the congregation, it states: Our computerized listing of cooperative doctors shows more than 19,000 in the United States. The worldwide listing from all the branches reports more than 50,000 doctors working with us.

  We all know how the Society exaggerates numbers, these are all rounded out numbers. What doctor is not cooperative, how many doctors categorically refuse to work with Jehovah’s Witnesses? If these numbers are misleading, they are misrepresentations to their flock, giving them a false sense of security with regard to the blood issue. If the doctors are for us, who can be against us? Let’s hear from the doctors themselves, how about the American Medical Association?

  The first paragraph of the rest of the letter addressed to ALL BODIES OF ELDERS, states this letter for elders only. Look through it and find any misrepresenting statements.

  For example the second to last paragraph states: If in some critical emergency situation the HLC asks you to stay with the patient in the hospital because doctors are threatening to give blood, do your best to cooperate. You may have to organize other elders and mature ones to assist you so that you always have someone present until the patient stabilizes and the threat of a blood transfusion has been eliminated.

  If the patient is encouraged to base their decision not to use blood on their own conscience, why is it necessary to have round-the-clock guards protecting her. Are they going to read a continuous litany all night long of Acts 15, abstain from blood, abstain from blood, abstain from blood? Rather are they not going to speak to doctors and patient using secular medical arguments to prevent the transfusion of blood.

  No, they have to obliterate this letter, immediately, otherwise it will be used against them.

  Hang on to this letter, girls and boys, it will come in handy down the line.

  belbab, past my bedtime.