So the dub lawyers are looking forward to this case? I guess to create more orphans or something. You know how much some elders love those "fatherless boys"....
In Ireland, JW's may sue over blood transfusion
The thing is, there were so many lies told by the woman that I can not blame the hospital for going along with the court order. Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT exactly family oriented, particularly not child oriented and no one in that cong. was likely to care for that child. If the mother was French speaking from the Congo, I doubt that many JWs would have felt close enough to her(as she didn't yet even speak english) to feel like they had a tie to the child. This sweet new baby would be orphaned, of a different race than the majority of the country and without a natural caretaker if the mum died. The court does need to have the best interest of the child in mind, and a mother who is so willing to die after giving birth to a gift from God just makes me sad. I am not sure that she IS in the best interest of that baby. What a hell of a choice to make? The same organization would disfellowship mom if she killed her baby, but are probably guilting her out right now because she is alive (and it wasn't even her choice)! That makes me mad.
I hope they look into the immigration issues going on with that case. Though I doubt trying to mitigate it for the couple would be encouraged by the org. so long as they got to challenge the whole thing in court. Arrrrgggghhh!
Does anyone know if she was given Whole Blood, Half Blood, or this part or that part of Blood?
If the Witness branch wants members dead, why don't they just send their lawyers into Kingdom Halls to murder the people there? At least that way they aren't messing with the medical treatment people.
You know how much some elders love those "fatherless boys"....
dark...very dark but totally true
This could be very interesting.
In my humble (and layman's) opinion:
1. WTBTS/the dubs could not be a party to the litigation - it would have to be the woman concerned as sole plaintiff
2. The medical authorities would have an unassailable defence against a suit for assault because they were acting in accordance with a court order
3. Possible suit against the medical authorities for misrepresentation/negligence in collecting and presenting the evidence to the court when applying for the order? Difficult to prove, i would have thought.
4. If the legal position in Eire is the same as in UK, individual judges etc. cannot be sued for their judicial decisions
5. Possibly an action in a higher court (or Eurpean Court) for breach of the woman's human rights under ECHR? Possible, but on what basis could she ask for damages/compensation? And the breach has now finished if it existed at all so she couldn't sue for an order to desist (ceriatori?)
6. I don't know anything about the Legal Aid system in Eire, but suspect she may have difficulty in getting funding.
7. I can't see that WTBTS would fund her. The publicity surrounding this case could, I suspect, be enough to outweigh the JW's efforts in door-to-door work for years to come.
1) the branch could support her though...although i do wonder if as she is a member, it could be taken as an organisation-i will ask...
2) yes, but they sought the court order, and are therefore ultimatly responsible
3) this is where the sister may have not presented the facts, and therefore the hospital and courts did not have the full facts and were therefore working off the facts at hand.
4a) it is ireland, not eire-no one here ever refers to it as such :-)
4b) yes it is the same, but judges are seen as part of the political appartus and therefore any lawsuit would be against "the state"
5) the case would be on assault, and the taking away of her human rights, breach of religious freedom, breach of freedom of medical treatment and authority over her own body.
6a) ireland, not eire
6b) legal aid is quite easy to get, all refugee's are afforded legal aid, however i suspect the society are going to get a HR lawyer involved in this and therefore the "world wide work" will probably be paying-although because it is such a constitutional issue, most lawyers do this work "pro-bono" as it will make a name for themselves
7) see #6- the constitutional implications of the case are far more public than the fact she is a witness.
Apologies for Eire/Ireland!
The constitutional issue, as I understand it, would be in relation to the woman's human rights, i.e. that she had a medical treatment imposed upon her by the state against her will.
A couple of thoughts arise. First, the court ruling as I understand it was to protect the child's interests because at the time it was made it was considered that it would have been an orphan with no support network whatsoever should the mother die.
Second, as I understand it under Irish law, the child became an Irish citizen (or at least entitled to citizenship) at birth, so the state had an obligation to protect the child.
Third, if the law in Ireland is the same as in E&W, one can sue to obtain reparation/compensation for a wrong already done, or to force somebody to do something (madamus) or cease doing something (ceriatori). I can see how the woman might sue for an arbitrary figure for damages for assault, etc. Is there a possibility that the state may appoint someone to act on behalf of the child?
In E&W there is a procedure - rarely used - where the Attorney-General will take a case to the High Court/House of Lords where the issue is so important that a definitive ruling is required. Presumably the same could apply here.
I entirely accept your point about the constitutional issues. I can't help feeling, however, that the more 'sensational' media would make a hell of a meal of this in the 'Crazy Cult Woman Wanted To Die' type mode (let alone issues re being an immigrant) and that any savvy PR guy for WTBTS would be weighing this up (divine light/guidance notwithstanding).
But I speak as an outsider (not now, never have been, a JW etc.) and not as an Irish citizen or resident (although a fellow Celt), and I bow to your knowledge of the feelings re the issues involved.
what will happen is that the supreme court will "clarify" the issue, constituionally speaking and then either a) leave it to the "high court" (the court below supreme) to judge on the issue based on their "clarification" or b) judge on the issue themselves. Option A is the most likely.
The child is not likely an irish citizen. Before 31/12/04 ANYONE born on the island of Ireland, North or South, was considered an Irish citizen. This law was put in place as part of the "good-friday" agreement. The purpose of the law was to allow subjects of Northern Ireland become citizens of Southern Ireland, while still being resident in the north. This was to pacify the catholic, soon to be majority of the North, to get them to agree to the peace accord. However there was a loophole that many economic refugee's found, and would come to ireland, have their kids who were automatically Irish and would therefore become Irish themselves. The government sought to have this changed as this would present many problems in the future for the country which has as developed a "social" system as ireland (ie the goverment payout for things ad nauseum for its citizens). so the child will only be a citizen if the mother has lived in Ireland for four years prior to the birth, which i think is unlikely. The child is considered a resident, not a citizen. a technical difference, the judge however treated the child as someone who was under the care and responsibility of the state.
As for the sensationalist newspapers, i wouldn't know- i don't read the red tops :) I persume you are Cymry so Iechyd da!
Thanks for the clarification. I understand better now.
And yes, I am Welsh but now living in Cyprus where there is more sunshine and less rain! Slainte