IT HAS BEGUN "BIG" NEWS ON AP NEWS WIRE

by DannyHaszard 402 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  lisaBObeesa

  In my opinion the article doesn't actually convey any real news

  It also suggests to me that the writer is working awfully hard to create some sense of "controversy" when actually there really isn't any. That strikes me as biased and poor journalism but that is just MHO.

  LOL!!! You are hilarious, Eduardo! You should work for the Watchtower in the damage control department!

  We can all read the article for ourselves. But thanks anyway for all those huge posts trying to get us to NOT see what we can clearly see is there.

  -Lisa, of the " I might not be a lawyer, but I do have my own set of eyeballs thank you very much" class.
• 

  Oroborus21

  Seven006:

  yeah it is so damn hard being right all the time :-)

  after reading the BOE letter, I am glad that my guesses/speculation turned out to be 100% accurate.....

  and FYI, when I am wrong about something, I am the first to admit it. I have no ego regarding being wrong.

  regarding your later question, I just got PHotoshop CS2 which I am learning for the first time. Once I have learned it fairly well, I will start working on my friend's site (ok, one is just cute, my friend's friend, but my friend is pretty hot). I am doing it for the experience and since I am still doing all the other stuff, including yes, law, it is low priority for me. I never said I was a great webdesigner or extremely experienced in web design - though I have had one website since 1999 that is very popular in its niche and have done all my own sites. Hey got to start somewhere, I will get better in time.

  And by the way, no, neither your last post nor the other post regarding "Jack of All trades, master of none" "went over my head" - I just tend to ignore the obnoxious parts of your posts and give you the benefit of the doubt and attempt to engage you in fair and respectful dialogue.

  If your only interest is in insults and put-downs, i will note that and leave you to other more sensitive forum participants who you would be more successful at annoying or perhaps, impressing.

  My interest here is not in fighting with anyone but rather it is on issues, enjoying conversation/dialogue and fellowship with intelligent folks, and just sharing something with others who have been as affected by being a Witness as I have been.

  -Eduardo
• 

  Oroborus21

  Devon: was the article in the actual newspaper or just on the online version?

  Honesty: You must have missed where I stated that I expect that most smaller newspapers would run the article and the reasons why. And no, I am not a WT apologist, unless you consider holding a "balanced" view of Jehovah's Witnesses and the religion an "apologist". I would say that some of my views and writings are quite polemical and others might be deemed apologist, but usually they would be positive apologist and not negative apologist - if you understand the distinction.

  though even this latter assessment might not be correct. Sometimes, I am only pointing out what I believe to be flaws or errors in the attacks upon Jehovah's Witnesses or on some particular issue, belief or situation, without actually trying to defend or justify the JW view or side. Does this make such an apology?
• 

  Bryan

  I just contacted 7 media outlets (2 of them national) whom I have a working relationship. We'll see what happens... more tomorrow.

  Edwardo... obviously a jw plant.

  Bryan

  Have You Seen My Mother
• 

  Big Tex

  By their actions, this sect has shown it is taking its legal vulnerabilities seriously. These may be despicable human beings but they are smart about money. Look at what they do, not what they say.

  They created several shell corporations, thereby spreading out liability and hiding any potential assets. (The first rule in litigation is go after the deepest pockets). They are selling assets, cutting costs in places that were previously sacrosanct.

  The Catholic Church has paid out multi-multi millions of dollars in judgments the past decade. All it will take is one judgment, either on the blood issue, or the sex abuse issue and then this sect will be tremendously vulnerable to further tort action. Their actions the past few years show they are afraid of just such an occurrence. Law moves slowly, it will take several years for this particular issue to be tried out in court, and then upheld or struck down on appeal. 10 years from now will show how legally valid this argument is. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, the idea that the Catholic Church knowingly hid pedophile priests was considered absurd. It took a decade but now the reality of their practices for decades came to light. So it could easily be for Jehovah's Witnesses.

  This issue, as well as the sex abuse issue, are not the open-and-shut matters some would have us believe.
• 

  DevonMcBride

  Devon: was the article in the actual newspaper or just on the online version?

  It was actually in the New York Times.
• 

  Axelspeed

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

  Eduardo

  If I were someone who never had contact with the Witnesses.... or even someone who is currently a Witness, but totally confused about the Society's current stand on fractions I would take (by implication from the above question) that all fractions are bad.

  I dont know how much more could have been done to be more confusing/misleading.

  I can understand, and so forgive the fact that the AP writer may not be aware of all the nuances of Witness sub-culture and how it translates to there written and spoken word...and in many cases the unwritten word i.e. unwritten rules.

  But I will also state that sometimes you appear to be just as lost in understanding the JW culture, and therefore how the above question is intended to come across and the conclusion that Witnesses are expected to read into or come to as a result of that question. If I may ask, just how long were you a Witness?

  I will not speak as having all the facts, but it appears that they are caught in a vise of their own doing. They are trying to find there way out of a very big mess by cloaking there words in ways that cause confusion and remain vague. Finding their way out wont be easy. It may take a bit, but I believe the ball is rolling.

  I believe the article will stir more to think about the issues involved as the article is being printed in mainstream sources. This article explains the current JW position more clearly than all 5 pages of the HLC letter.

  Axel
• 

  garybuss

  The Jan 3 2006 letter calls to these articles. I'll post them for convenience.

  **********

  OUR KINGDOM MINISTRY NOVEMBER 1990 p. 4 Are You Ready to Face a Faith-Challenging Medical Situation?
  15 ANESTHESIOLOGIST: Of all on the medical team that you need to talk to before surgery, YOU MUST NOT FAIL TO SPEAK TO THIS DOCTOR. Charged with keeping you alive while the surgeon operates, the anesthesiologist is the one who makes decisions about such matters as the use of blood. So you are not fully protected by just talking to the surgeon. Hence, you must speak with and convince the anesthesiologist as to your position, determining whether it will be respected or not.—Compare Luke 18:3-5.
  16 The usual practice, it seems, is for the anesthesiologist to visit the patient briefly rather late on the night before surgery—too late if he is opposed to your stand on blood. Insist that the surgeon preselect a cooperative anesthesiologist that you can talk to well in advance of elective surgery. Then there will be time to locate another one if the first one is unwilling to abide by your wishes. Do not let anyone try to talk you out of this right to be satisfied with the anesthesiologist for your surgery.
  
  OUR KINGDOM MINISTRY SEPTEMBER 1992 p. 3 Safeguarding Your Children From Misuse of Blood
  5 Finding a Cooperative Doctor: Physicians have many concerns in treating patients, and when you ask them to treat your child without blood, this increases the challenge. Some physicians will agree to treat adults while respecting their wishes on blood as long as an acceptable release is filled out. Some may similarly agree to treat minors who have demonstrated they are mature minors, since some courts have recognized that mature minors have the right to make their own medical choices. (See The Watchtower, June 15, 1991, pages 16-17, for discussion of what constitutes a mature minor.) However, physicians may refuse to treat young children, especially infants, unless they have permission to give blood. In fact, very few physicians will give 100-percent assurance that they will not use blood under any circumstances when treating a child. For medical and legal reasons, most doctors feel that they cannot give such a guarantee. Nevertheless, an increasing number want to provide care for the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses while going as far as they feel they can in respecting our wishes on blood.
  
  
• 

  gumby

  Biggest Tex....very well put!

  Gumbuddy
• 

  Oroborus21

  Axel,

  you raise some interesting points but in reading the paragraph and question together I don't see how one would take it as "meaning that all blood fractions are bad" at all since that isn't even the topic or issue of the paragraph. The issue of the paragraph is whether minors can have blood transfusions forced upon them against their parent's wishes and NOT blood fractions at all!!!

  fyi, my parents have been Witnesses since 1948 and very active, somewhat locally prominent, especially among Spanish congregations. Thus I was raised as a JW. I refrained out of choice from getting baptized until after freshman year in college at University of Southern California in 1990, I was active JW (so to speak) until my DF'ing in 2001.

  Regarding the Question #8 from the letter I am not saying that I understand it fully, only that I don't see how it truly presents the type of contradictory position or information that the AP writer suggests in his piece.

  I am a little puzzled by the question and would be interested to hear/read what other's take on it is?

  It seems to me that one could read the question and paragraph in a "positive" way so that the question is meant to be asking can any doctor or hospital GUARANTEE that blood fractions will not be used in accord with the patient's or parent's wishes?

  That interpretation would seem to jive with the legal info which follows the question.

  On the other hand, it could be read in a "warning or scary way" that is negatively, to mean or imply that doctors cannot guarantee that blood fractions will not be used on minors against the parent's wishes (and thus by implication, the "assistance of HLC members or Legal dept" might be necessary to head off the obtainment of any court order that contravene's the parent's wishes?

  Either way, again, the question as quoted in the AP article doesn't seem to create any controversy or conflict with the acceptance of blood fractions as related in the 2000 WT or the video on alternative treatments.

  -Eduardo

  here is the question and paragraph from the BOE letter:

  8.

  Can any doctor or hospital give complete assurance that blood or blood fractions

  will not be used in treatment of a minor? The legal reality is that the law requires blood transfusions

  to be given, if in the medical judgment of the physician, no other modality or medical procedure exists to conserve the life of the child. This can be accomplished by using "emergency privilege" or a court order. However, there are a growing number of hospitals and doctors known

  to the HLC who will attempt to care for minors without resorting to blood. Treating the pediatric population without blood presents many challenges for the medical profession, but this field has seen significant progress in alternatives to blood transfusion in recent years. While Witness parents

  do not consent to blood transfusions for their children, they do seek the best medical attention available, seeking the cooperation of the doctors they select. With the assistance of the HLC and the Legal Department, court orders can often be avoided.-km 9/92 p. 3 par. 5.