by DannyHaszard 185 Replies latest watchtower medical
Hi mia_b
I was'nt trying to change the topic of the thread , it just seemed there is another issue of life here related to the refusal of blood. I'm glad you picked up on my thinking ,if they value life so much and yet will throw it away for the interpretations of a few old men ,why then would they get IVF done knowing they may be called on to end the life of fertilized embryos?
HUGE Transfusion confusion
Edmonton Sun, Canada - 45 minutes ago
There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to ...
| Transfusion confusion Edmonton Sun, Canada - 46 minutes ago There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to ... |
There is something decidedly perverse about the Jehovah's Witnesses's couple who embraced modern medical technology to have children, only to reject help to save those very babies. As I write this, there are four surviving infants of the sextuplets born last month in Vancouver. The family's identity hasn't been disclosed but these struggling babies have achieved instant stardom. The birth of sextuplets brings fame enough. But a little more than a week ago, the B.C. government seized custody of three of the tots and gave two of them blood transfusions, violating the religious tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses. Now it's up to a judge to sort it out, since the parents have gone to court to challenge the government's actions. The couple probably doesn't stand a chance. The law is clear on the issue of providing necessary medical care, including blood transfusions, to minors. Themedical rights of children take precedence over religious dictates. You can refuse any medical treatment based on whatever religious precepts you believe - even if it kills you. But you have no right to impose such nonsense on your kids. "The substantive law is clear," says Juliet Guichon, a medical bioethicist at the University of Calgary. "They don't have much ground to stand on." It appears the couple is arguing the government didn't give them proper notice about the blood transfusions, says Guichon, adding the problem with that argument is that they would have been warned long before the sextuplets were born that the babies would face potentially critical complications. "This could not have come as a surprise," she says of the need for blood transfusions. Coincidentally, an article on the issue co-authored by Guichon appeared in the December issue of Pediatrics and Child Health. In the piece, she argued that mature minors - teens who are deemed competent enough to make decisions about their medical care - may not be refusing treatment voluntarily. Before one can give or refuse consent to a medical procedure, the article noted, three conditions must be met: competence, adequate information and lack of coercion. A Jehovah's Witness patient may want to accept blood but refuse because of fear of being excommunicated from the religious community, Guichon wrote. "It may be difficult to accept a treatment option if that particular choice will lead to the loss of important relationships. "Coercion can be a great concern in pediatric cases involving JW families," she added. Patients may actually welcome the intervention of the courts because the law can remove a young Jehovah's Witness from "an impossible social position," she wrote. Because of the threat of religious sanctions, it's unwise for doctors to ask teen patients whether they'll accept blood products when other Jehovah's Witnesses are in the room, Guichon advised. Jehovah's Witnesses are warned to "avoid independent thinking," the article observed. Do the parents of the four surviving sextuplets really object to blood transfusions for their babies or do they feel pressured to take that stand for fear of being shunned by the JW community? Who knows? This case is surreal in so many ways. Fertility drugs, which experts assume the mother was taking, often lead to multiple pregnancies. But given the choice to abort some of the fetuses so the others would have a greater chance of living, the couple refused. Then they insisted that the sextuplets be resuscitated. Anything to keep their babies alive. Well, except blood transfusions. Meanwhile, University of Winnipeg bioethicist Arthur Schafer wonders why doctors are fighting to save babies for whom they originally suggested a do-not-resuscitate order. "It's impossible to avoid the feeling," he says, "that there are some babies who would have been lucky if their parents hadn't had access to the neonatal ICU." [email protected]
thanks Danny
Before one can give or refuse consent to a medical procedure, the article noted, three conditions must be met: competence, adequate information and lack of coercion. A Jehovah's Witness patient may want to accept blood but refuse because of fear of being excommunicated from the religious community, Guichon wrote. "It may be difficult to accept a treatment option if that particular choice will lead to the loss of important relationships. "Coercion can be a great concern in pediatric cases involving JW families," she added. Patients may actually welcome the intervention of the courts because the law can remove a young Jehovah's Witness from "an impossible social position," she wrote. Because of the threat of religious sanctions, it's unwise for doctors to ask teen patients whether they'll accept blood products when other Jehovah's Witnesses are in the room, Guichon advised. Jehovah's Witnesses are warned to "avoid independent thinking," the article observed. Do the parents of the four surviving sextuplets really object to blood transfusions for their babies or do they feel pressured to take that stand for fear of being shunned by the JW community? Who knows? Good to see that they are really getting to the heart of it. bernadette
NOW HANGS #1 ON THE NEWS WIRE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE (trumps Prince superbowl halftime)
|
Wow Danny. Great article. Thanks for posting it. Let's see how watchtower likes them apples.
Dismembered
February 5, 2007
Dear Ms. DiManno:
As an advocate for many a JWs who have been hurt by this organization, I just wish to say your article and comments in the Toronto Star were great.
You may also be interested in reading the press release by the Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood (www.ajwrb.org) - http://www.ajwrb.org/Press_Release_070202.pdf
A lot of people do not realize that JWs can take one hundred (100) percent of human or animal blood as long as it is in their leadership's defined fractionated form or under their leadership's approved medical procedures (www.ajwrb.org). In fact, if whole donated blood was 100 percent fractionated and then transfused completely back to the patient at the same time in its separate forms, the JW leadership would accept the procedure. Unfortunately the technique has not been mastered in the medical world to save Witness lives. On page 22 of the June 15, 2004 Watchtower magazine (official publication for the Witnesses), the leadership actually provides a chart of what is and what is not acceptable.
Oddly, the leadership also allows Witnesses to take in white blood cells from another human during the course of a baby breast feeding from the mother but bans certain life saving white blood cell transfusions from the donated blood supply. The JW leadership does not discuss allowing white blood cell transfers during breast feeding while banning white blood cell transfers through transfusion therapy. You may wish to quiz the JW leadership or spokesperson on the issue.
This leadership has been changing their doctrine many times (http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml#modern). In fact the leadership supported blood therapy before 1940.
Today, the leadership bases their interpretation on certain science and medicine literature. In support of its logic, the leadership sites the breakdown of blood in "Emergency Care" (a textbook for emergency medical technician students). The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood (www.ajwrb.org) indicate that scientifically, the breakdown is neither authoritative nor definitive. Alternatively, consider the list of major blood components as listed in Modern Blood Banking and Transfusion Practices (pages 237-248, 1999) by Denise M. Harmening, Ph.D. "Red blood cells, RBC Aliquots, Leukocyte-reduced red blood cells, frozen - deglycerolized red blood cells, platelet concentrate, single donor plasma, cryoprecipitated antihemophilic factor, granulocyte concentrates, factor VIII concentrate, porcine factor VIII, factor IX concentrate (Prothrombin Complex), immune serum globulin, normal serum albumin, plasma protein fraction, Rho(D) immunoglobulin, antithrombin III concentrate". It is noteworthy that of the sixteen major blood components listed in this definitive and widely respected textbook on transfusion medicine, nine are definitely permitted by Jehovah's Witnesses policy.
Just think about haemoglobin for a second. Ninety seven (97) percent by weight of a red blood cell (ie. haemoglobin) is allowed to be used by a JW in a medical procedure but add just three (3) more percent (ie. a membrane) and the product is banned.
You may wish to ask the leadership where in the Bible does it state red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets or plasma are not approved blood therapies but haemoglobin, albumin and the many other blood therapy products or blood transfusion therapies such as Intraoperative Autotransfusion (http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/what.shtml ) are allowed?
No one wants blood therapy if it can be avoided. But, there are times when this procedure helps to sustain life and prevent premature death as any medical doctor will tell you. Since the leadership is asking their members to make a life sacrifice or face harmful shunning by families and friends, it is important for the leadership to be honest and transparent on what they teach.
A lot of times the lawyers for the JW family (which in reality are from the Watchtower's Georgetown Ontario complex) will comment about how blood is very dangerous or that it is not medically necessary. A lot of people buy into the argument and I am glad you called them on it in your report. A lot of times people including the press miss the point that blood transfusions are life saving therapies that save thousands of lives every year and that the past stored blood crisis was not caused by the blood itself but by certain individuals who decided not to properly test the blood.
Hell, there is even horseshoe crab blood in our life saving Intravenous (IV) solutions (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/109245/1.ashx) but you don't hear the JW leadership freaking over the use of Intravenous (IV) Solutions!
If you would like to speak to a lawyer knowledgeable on the subject please contact Kerry Louderback-Wood at xxxxx . She has already provided information in a recent CP story and published a lengthy legal report on the issue in the United States of America.
Take care and feel free to contact me if you need something further,
ANOTHER MASTERPIECE The fight for the sextuplets
Macleans, Canada - 11 minutes ago
It is common medical knowledge that fertility treatments often result in multiple pregnancies, that multiple pregnancies often result in severely premature birth and that severely premature infants often require blood transfusions. The behaviour of the British Columbia sextuplets' parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, thus represents something of a perfect ethical, religious and medical storm. They likely employed fertility treatments: "Hellin's Law" approximates the odds of naturally born sextuplets at around one in five billion. They refused the common remedy of "multifetal pregnancy reduction" - that is, aborting selected fetuses to improve the prospects of the others. And on religious grounds, they did not consent to the blood transfusions doctors deemed necessary. Last week, it emerged that the B.C. government had temporarily taken custody of three of the four surviving sextuplets and administered transfusions to two of them. The unidentified parents, who have not spoken to the media, filed an affidavit claiming "immense sadness and grief"; meanwhile their religious group's Canadian chapter released a cryptic statement warning against "stereotypical assumptions regarding Jehovah's Witnesses." The reaction to the church's handling of the sextuplets' story, though, might have less to do with stereotypes than with perceived contradictions in its official positions. On fertility treatments, it is willing to look the other way. "The Bible doesn't comment on that subject at all and in Bible times there was no such technology," Witness spokesperson Mark Ruge told the Canadian Press in January. "On matters other than what's stipulated in the Bible, it's up to a person's conscience or their free choice." On blood transfusions, it's quite a different matter. It's not that the Witnesses claim that blood transfusions were being administered "in Bible times"; rather, their beliefs rely on an apparently unique interpretation of a number of Bible verses. Among those verses is one in Genesis in which (by the Witnesses' translation) God advises Noah that "[e]very moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat." In Leviticus, Jehovah offers the following guidelines to Moses: "As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: 'YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.'" And in Acts, James advised the apostles to "abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." At least one Biblical scholar is willing to opine that the passages have nothing to do with human blood at all. "The way the Jehovah's Witnesses read the biblical text is simply wrong," Professor Michael Duggan of Calgary's St. Mary's University College told the Canadian Press late last week. "They speak about the life being in the blood, but the blood they are talking about is the blood of animals," he said, arguing that the verses are essentially lessons in basic food hygiene. Whatever the biblical merits, the legal precedent is certainly there for the sextuplets' parents to be overruled. In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on a similar case - that of baby S.B., who was born four weeks premature and whose custody was temporarily awarded to the Toronto Children's Aid Society so that transfusions could be administered. The judges conceded that the court's actions had deprived S.B.'s parents "of their right to decide which medical treatment should be administered to their infant and in so doing… infringed upon the parental 'liberty' protected in s. 7 of the Charter." But they decided that the infringement was "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." Justices Cory, Iacobucci and Major went further. "While the right to liberty embedded in s. 7… may very well permit parents to choose among equally effective types of medical treatment for their children, it does not include a parents' [sic] right to deny a child medical treatment that has been adjudged necessary by a medical professional and for which there is no legitimate alternative," they argued. Such an alternative has emerged since, though its legitimacy is not uncontested. "Bloodless medicine" made headlines in 2005 in connection with a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness from Vernon, B.C., who had been diagnosed with bone cancer. After a B.C. court ordered that she receive blood transfusions if they became necessary as part of her chemotherapy, she and her family petitioned an Ontario court to allow them to seek treatment at a New York hospital that offers transfusion-free treatment; a deal was eventually struck to allow that treatment. With Witnesses old enough to understand the procedure often comparing blood transfusions to rape, the case of a 14-year-old arguably old enough to make up her own mind left public opinion split. But in the case of the Vancouver sextuplets, it appears to be considerably more one-sided - a recent Ipsos poll finding that 85% of British Columbians agree with the province's course of action. Not all Witnesses are on board with their church's positions. "There is not uniform acceptance of the Watch Tower's blood doctrine among Jehovah’s Witnesses," the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood argues . "The Watch Tower organization promotes a myth when it argues that all Jehovah's Witnesses hold the same conviction on this point of doctrine." With such reformers having failed to gain much of a foothold, though, it appears the church will go down fighting on the sextuplets.
Not all Witnesses are on board with their church's positions. "There is not uniform acceptance of the Watch Tower's blood doctrine among Jehovah’s Witnesses," the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood argues . "The Watch Tower organization promotes a myth when it argues that all Jehovah's Witnesses hold the same conviction on this point of doctrine." With such reformers having failed to gain much of a foothold, though, it appears the church will go down fighting on the sextuplets.
The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses come under the microscope in their battle against blood transfusions
TOP ranked news worldwide
|
