WT BLOOD GUILT EXPOSED TO THE WORLD

by DannyHaszard 185 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard
    Child welfare vs. religion
    Toronto Sun, Canada - 1 1 minutes ago
    ...seizure of their children by the state to give them lifesaving blood transfusions, which the parents believe violate their Jehovah's Witness beliefs. ...
    Should parents' beliefs interfere with lifesaving treatment for their kids?


    By MARIANNE MEED WARD

    meed.ward@sympatico.ca Whose values are supreme when there is a conflict: the state's, or your personal religious views? That's what is on the table in British Columbia , as the parents of sextuplets fight the seizure of their children by the state to give them lifesaving blood transfusions, which the parents believe violate their Jehovah's Witness beliefs. The babies were born at a gestational age of 25 weeks, and two have already died. The first way to tackle this question is to debate whether, in fact, JW creeds actually forbid blood transfusions. That's a helpful conversation, but a long term battle. Telling women that Sharia law, or the Koran, does not require female genital circumcision doesn't stop women from agreeing to the practice on religious grounds. However, over time, and with a lot of education, it may be possible to persuade women that they can keep both their faith and their genitals intact. The same may be possible with blood transfusions among JWs. A professor from Calgary's St. Mary's University College has gotten the ball rolling by arguing that JW's are misinterpreting the scripture in banning transfusions. JW's base their objection on verses in the biblical books of Genesis, Leviticus and Acts that forbid eating blood. The JWs are unique among religious people in interpreting that verse to include blood transfusions. Other Christian denominations do not ban blood transfusions, nor do Jews, for whom Genesis and Leviticus form part of the Torah. They interpret the verses as lessons in food hygiene -- take the blood out of an animal before you eat it. That's the correct interpretation, argues the professor. In the short term, though, being right isn't likely to persuade. The JW's are likely to dig in their heels and become more entrenched. Sociologist Peter Berger calls this a coping mechanism for " cognitive deviance ." When your views are in the minority, you tend to become more fundamentalist. So, we have to tackle this issue another way in the short term. We can start by discussing the rights of minors. That gets us off the very contentious plane of religious rights altogether. Here we have four minors who cannot make medical decisions for themselves, and we have two guardians (their parents) who are refusing to seek medical care. Whether their reasons are religious or secular is irrelevant here. We have already given the state authority to override parental wishes when a minor's wellbeing is at stake. That principle is at the heart of B.C .'s Child, Family and Community Services Act which allowed the director of child services to apprehend the children to force medical treatment, which he did two weeks ago to provide blood transfusions. After the procedure was done, the children were returned to the custody of their parents. This tactic makes the issue about child welfare, not religion. But the government will not get off so lightly. The parents filed papers Jan. 30 to fight for their religious rights, and have been granted a court hearing Feb. 23. They will argue against future seizures of their children, and argue for their religious right to refuse treatment for them. IMPORTANT DEBATE So at some point, even if it's only over the water cooler, we as a society must debate whether religion trumps child welfare. At the proverbial water cooler in my neighbourhood, the answer is an emphatic no. The topic of the sextuplets came up over conversation with three other mothers last week, two of us the parents of twins, and all of us Christians who believe in the importance of the Bible as a guide for living. Without hesitation, we all supported the state seizing the children. It's one thing to make an informed medical decision to refuse lifesaving treatment for yourself, as an adult. It's quite another to impose that on a minor, who may or may not grow up to share those religious views. And here we see the real clash of values, not between the state and religious folk, but between two competing religious edicts: protecting life on one hand and following the laws of religion on the other. In my reading of the various holy books, life always trumps law. Consider food restrictions, which exist among Jews, Muslims and some Christians, and are similar in spirit to the JW's ban on blood transfusions. All faiths allow the food restrictions to be broken to save life. It makes sense to apply that same principle to blood transfusions.

  • Gill
    Gill

    Perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but at present only 1 in 10 JWs children remain JW.

    Therefore, if a parent decides to allow their child to die rather than accept a blood transfusion, the likelihood is that this child would not have remained a JW themselves and therefore would not have chosen that fate.

    The child becomes a parental gift offering on the Watchtower's alter to its false Blood doctrine.

    I think this is also known as murder.

    Never belittleing the fact that there are risks involved in blood treatment, just as there is risk involved in ALL medical treatment, a child who is not given blood when push comes to shove, is killed by a bizarre apolcalyptic cult's obsession with its ever changing blood doctrine.

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard
    Perhaps someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but at present only 1 in 10 JWs children remain JW.

    Compelling it's no better that 1 in 8 at best

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    You wrote: "The child becomes a parental gift offering on the Watchtower's alter to its false Blood doctrine."

    Exactly! This whole Watch Tower Society blood medical treatment issue is really about property rights. The Witness people are the "property" of the Watch Tower Society. The children of the Jehovah's Witness parents are seen by the parents as "their property".

    The Watch Tower Corporation paid attorneys are not in Vancouver and Winnipeg defending religion and worship, they are there defending their property, the Witness people.

    The media reports I have read are looking at the Witnesses and the Watch Tower Corporation as one. They are not. The media is also looking at the issue through a wide angle lens. They need to narrow it down to understand what's going on. The media asks good questions, such as the article:
    *****
    Child welfare vs. religion
    Should parents' beliefs interfere with lifesaving treatment for their kids?
    By MARIANNE MEED WARD
    http://torontosun.com/Lifestyle/2007/02/11/3587153-sun.html"The first way to tackle this question is to debate whether, in fact, JW creeds actually forbid blood transfusions."
    *****
    This article stops here and goes on to a great discussion of the ethics of transfusions and religion.

    If the topic is narrowed down, the topic needs to be: does "JW creed actually forbid blood" medical treatment? Is there a difference between the printed creed and the treatment the Watch Tower Publishing Corporation's lawyers are going to court over?

    The other ethics discussion needs to be on the topic of the property called "children". Are children "property"?





  • Gayle
    Gayle

    How does the government allow a group an acceptable "RELIGION" status, that teaches parents to sacrifice their children's life for their belief?

    If the government relinquished this status of a "RELIGION" for JWs, only unless WTS would quit teaching parents to refuse blood for their children, and otherwise require them to pay taxes on their book publishing corporation. I think, absolutely, JWs would stop teaching no blood for children in a heartbeat.. (I think many JWs would consider it such a relief)

    The government has the power to do that. The government had a power like that with Mormons, and then the Mormons all of sudden had "new light" or "vision" (samantics) and then finally taught husbands could only have one wife.

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/128983/1.ashx associated thread up this weekend major Canadian paper on Watchtower lawyers blood conflict of interest

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    "I've taken my barrister's oath"

    Sayeth Mr. Shane Brady.

    The Watchtower Society sayeth that you should break the barrister's oath, as Jehovah's Law is Supreme.

    *** Watchtower 9/1/1987 pages 14-15 "A Time to Speak"-When? *** Thinking Ahead Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ‘exhibit good fidelity to the full,’ including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar’s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah’s law is supreme. Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God’s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another’s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we should forgive “up to seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the “time to keep quiet.” But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the “time to speak.”

    It is clear to see that Shane Brady serves the Society first and foremost.

    Skeeter

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard
    The Future is in Our Past
    Beacon, Canada - 8 minutes ago
    Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their ...

    THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE?
    Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?

    Audrey Manning
    The Beacon info@beaconnl.cacontact
    The first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents.

    The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.

    The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.

    Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?

    Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.

    The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights. There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?

    The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents. Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.

    That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.

    As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.

    They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.

    Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931). Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.Major religions including Catholism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967). In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.

    Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.

    There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time? Danny Haszard latest on the news wire Jehovah's Witnesses BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
    Scripps News, DC -
    The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system. They thought that the "end of the world" ... Jehovah’s Witnesses Blood Transfusions
    Hutchinson Leader, MN -
    The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses "end of the world" ...

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw
    Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?

    That leaves a mark! The only thing I would add is ... Is it reasonable to let Shane Brady, as an elder and lawyer, have the power over the parents and children in an ever changing blood doctrine?

  • Mary
    Mary

    Does anyone know if these parents were willing to allow the "blood fractions" to save the babies, or if blood fractions would have been enough to save them?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit