Draft Letter to Hospital Association over Kerry's Blood Article-Need Help!

by hawkaw 14 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • hawkaw

    Well I am hoping to send this draft letter (or a better one) to the Ontario Hospital Association next week and if a I get a good response from the Association I will send it with enclosures to a few other places. I am going to be signing it. A copy will be going to CP as well as hook. Feel free to edit it. Do any of you want to sign it? If you PM me, then next Monday I will contact you with my Email addy or if you know my Email address or you know a friend who knows my Email address please send me an Email and give me a jpg image of your signature. Also provide your City but not your address unlesss you want a reply. I will be using my home address and phone number at the top of the letter for a contact. I am using a questioning format and getting them to look at the issue. hawk

    xxxxxxxxx DRAFT


    Attention: Hillary Short, President

    Dear Ms. Short

    Re: Blood Therapies for Jehovah’s Witnesses Patients in Your Member Hospitals and Apparent Misrepresentations _

    We have been concerned over the unknown but likely countless deaths of Jehovah Witnesses who refused and continue to refuse life saving blood therapies in your member hospitals since 1945.

    This past week the Jehovah’s Witnesses leadership (known as the and Bible Tract Society of Canada and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah Witnesses) released a letter to all of its Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations in regarding its Hospital Liaison Committees (enclosed).

    The letter suggests that special Jehovah’s Witnesses called Hospital Liaison Committee (HLC) members advocate on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) who may be in need of possible medical attention involving blood therapy. JWs scheduled for serious surgery or who have trauma should contact and use the HLC member when dealing with medical staff.

    I have recently reviewed a December 2005 article by Ms. published in a law journal (enclosed). The article details an ever changing Jehovah’s Witnesses blood therapy ban and its apparent misrepresentations of secular medical, scientific and historical facts. I have also reviewed an article by the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform of Blood (AJWRB) on a JW publication that addresses the medical use of blood, and, an article by Dr. Osamu (Sam) Muramoto M.D. who recognized that the Jehovah’s Witnesses leadership redefined guidelines for the use of blood products (both enclosed). The articles were featured in an Associated Press story last week that ran in the New York Times, Washington Post, Forbes Magazine et. al. (http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/feeds/ap/2006/01/26/ap2479474.html).



    The articles detail many misrepresentations of an ever changing blood ban policy. There is a possibly legal action could be taken against the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses for misrepresenting secular facts or failing to disclose changes when the leadership or its agents should have known or should ought to have known about the changes. Further, the articles show Jehovah’s Witnesses apparently do not abstain from blood therapies and can accept many blood therapies without the fear of expulsion and shunning of family and friends.

    This should lead one to asking many questions such as but not limited to the following:

    - Why are the historical and medical publications being apparently misquoted?

    - Why are the rates of risks on infectious diseases being misquoted as high when they are rare?

    - Why are the rates of death from low blood counts being misquoted as unlikely when the medical information shows the likelihood is death or serous injury?

    - Why is there a suggestion that Erythopoietin (used to develop red blood cells) will work quickly when it takes many weeks to produce any difference?

    - Why are the rates of recovery from complicated surgery without blood therapy suggested to be higher than they actually are?

    - Why does literature tell JWs to abstain from donor blood but in reality they are allowed to take one hundred percent donor blood in a fractionated form without the fear of excommunication, shunning and loss of salvation?

    - Why allow so-called minute fractions of blood when in fact some of the approved fractions such as haemoglobin and albumin make up more of blood by weight than banned platelets?

    - Why allow albumin on the basis that it transfers between two humans but not allow red blood cell therapies which also have been shown to transfer between two humans?

    - Why forbid a patient's own stored blood yet permit components derived from large amounts of donated and stored blood?

    - Why encourage vaccinations and serums that are made from blood fractions and a matter of conscience but not promote and discourage other blood therapies?

    - Why allow organ transplants, which introduce far more foreign white blood cells than transfusions?



    - Why allow the drinking of milk from mother to baby or of cow’s milk since there are foreign banned white blood cells in the milk?

    - Why forbid plasma, which is mostly water, but allow the components in it that provide therapy? So what's the point of banning plasma?

    - Why change an apparent abstention from blood at least some twenty times in the past few decades including the most recent change in 2000 with the allowance of haemoglobin?

    Under the Canadian Charter, people can exercise a free conscience and religion as long as the belief is a honest belief and in good faith. As I have read through the documented apparent misrepresentations, policy changes and tort actions, I wonder if the organization’s belief to abstain from blood is a belief that is truly held and what the implications would be to the hospital if medical staff and the patient were relying on the organization’s HLC member for complicated blood therapy choices.

    Ontarians must make informed choices as to what type of therapy is needed in consultation with their medical professionals. If an organization is teaching a belief that is not truly held and possibly misrepresenting secular facts regarding the belief, then there appears to be a concern Jehovah’s Witnesses may not make informed choices regarding their health when Hospital Liaison Committee members and other related Jehovah’s Witnesses are present at the hospital.

    The question becomes can a Jehovah’s Witness truly make an informed choice when their leadership and their agents may be misrepresenting or withholding medical facts from your members and the patients?

    Based on the apparent misrepresentation and omission concerns of Ms. Louderback-Wood and the AJWRB, are you willing to recommend to your member hospitals that they should ban identified Jehovah’s Witnesses who are Hospital Liaison Members, who may act as health care advocates over family members or who are part of a Patient Visitation Group when a Jehovah’s Witness patient is in hospital?

    Some Jehovah’s Witnesses carry signed Duel Power of Attorney Cards that sometimes explain what blood therapies Jehovah’s Witnesses are willing to accept. Are you willing to recommend to your member hospitals not to accept these cards based on the information provided by AJWRB and Ms. Louderback-Wood?



    Will your Association provide the attached documents and the internet site of AJWRB ( http://www.ajwrb.org ) to your hospitals or take other steps to ensure the hospitals’ medical staff has the knowledge necessary to be kept up to date on the Jehovah’s Witnesses ever changing practices over blood therapies so that patients can make informed choices?

    I look forward to your response in the near future.

    Yours truly,


  • AuldSoul

    What help do you need? Improving it? Shortening it? Including more details? Editing?


  • AuldSoul

    (deleted) Looks like you got it.

  • hawkaw

    I am having some serious trouble formating this damn thing but hopfully you guys get the jist of this.

  • hawkaw

    Due to formatting headaches, Kerry Louderback-Wood should go between Ms. and published in the fourth paragraph, line 1.

    I have no idea why but I can't seem to edit it.

    In any event I look forward to your comments.

  • inbyathread

    Are the questions you raise retorical? The hospital cannot answer them nor could they provide a reasonable response to those questions. I don't understand them being in the letter. Better they be left out. Your opening paragraph is fine as it describes the concern of the possibility of wrongful deaths due to the refusal of transfusions.

    Advising them of the new HLC letter is good and I assume you are providing them with a copy of the Tort essay. List one or two misrepresentations and ask them to look into these listed and note that the essay lists many more. Request that they advise their physicians as to these misrepresentations. When the HLC's are there then the doctors can bring these misquotes and misrepresentations out and show those HLC members that they don't know what they're talking about. That should send them running to Mother and another life just might be saved.

    Keep it short and simple.

    We are not going to win this in a short battle. This will take time and effort. Many will lose their lives over this blood issue before we're through because of the forced approach from the elders. This is not a fighting match. Let's just get one doctor at a time. Let's not worry so much about the ones we lose as be glad about the ones we can provide proper knowledge to. This knowledge will spread throughout the medical community in their continuing education with each other.

  • hawkaw

    Okay I will drop it to a couple of points.


  • ezra

    i was there when it was read.i guess next you will be saying that im not really on a computer .im just falsifying that im on a computer.dont waste your time the brothers wouldnt waste their time on lying they just tell the truth.

  • Gregor


    We may not agree, but admire your command of the English language.

  • beksbks

    I believe he is a relative of PMJ

Share this