YOU'RE WELCOME!!!
Thank you, West70, this is a great find at a very opportune time.
Rabbit
NOW ONLINE - PEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH - DEC 2006 MAG ARTICLE ON BLOOD
by West70 19 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Rabbit
-
Scully
Skeeter1
You will probably find what you need here: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/regulation/a/profconduct/
-
Scully
Here's something in the "Commentary" section:
A person who is vulnerable or who has suffered a traumatic experience and has not yet had a chance to recover may need the professional assistance of a lawyer, and this rule does not prevent a lawyer from offering his or her assistance to such a person. Rather, the rule prohibits the lawyer from using unconscionable or exploitive means that bring the profession or the administration of justice into disrepute.
A person (including a husband and/or wife) who has 1) just experienced the birth of six babies 2) two of whom have died already and 3) the remaining four are still in critical care in hospital, having been 4) been born 15 weeks premature, following 5) infertility treatments would certainly qualify as having "suffered a traumatic experience and has not yet had a chance to recover".
The question is, are the WTS lawyers using exploitive means in offering assistance to these people? IMO the offering of free legal services which promote the WTS's ideology first and foremost, without regard for likely negative outcomes to the children involved, qualifies as "exploitive".
-
skeeter1
I am absolutely no expert on Canada's legal ethics. It appears that a lawyer can not lie to the court in Canada either. Skeeter
4.01 (2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not:
(a) abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party;
(b) knowingly assist or permit the client to do anything that the lawyer considers to be dishonest or dishonourable;
(c) appear before a judicial officer when the lawyer, the lawyer's associates or the client have business or personal relationships with the officer that give rise to or might reasonably appear to give rise to pressure, influence, or inducement affecting the impartiality of the officer;
(d) endeavour or allow anyone else to endeavour, directly or indirectly, to influence the decision or action of a tribunal or any of its officials in any case or matter by any means other than open persuasion as an advocate;
(e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct;
(f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statute or like authority;
(g) knowingly assert as true a fact when its truth cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence or as a matter of which notice may be taken by the tribunal;
(h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent;
(i) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent;
(j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another;
(k) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness;
(l) when representing a complainant or potential complainant, attempt to gain a benefit for the complainant by threatening the laying of a criminal charge or by offering to seek or to procure the withdrawal of a criminal charge; and
(m) needlessly inconvenience a witness.Commentary
A lawyer representing an accused or potential accused may communicate with a complainant or potential complainant, for example, to obtain factual information, to arrange for restitution or an apology from the accused, or to defend or settle any civil claims between the accused and the complainant. However, where the complainant or potential complaint is vulnerable, the lawyer must take care not to take unfair or improper advantage of the circumstances. Where the complainant or potential complainant is unrepresented, the lawyer should be governed by the rules about unrepresented persons and make it clear that the lawyer is acting exclusively in the interests of the accused or potential accused and, accordingly, the lawyer's comments may be partisan. When communicating with an unrepresented complainant or potential complainant, it is prudent to have a witness present.
-
Justitia Themis
I do not support the JW blood doctrine, but unless I missed something in my reading of the article, it didn't say the lawyer lied. It said he was "spinning" and "saying something the doctor didn't say." The game is that lawyers take things as far as they can (spinning) until the judge says stop!
Justitia
-
johnny cip
it's a good article. and it seems the blood policy is getting more main stream notice. this is what we been waiting for YES? give a year or 2 more . the wts is sweating already, from the hot lights. i feel HEAT STROKE COMING ON. JOHN
-
skeeter1
It says "attempting to give false information."
We don't know what happened until we see the transcripts on this. But, hmmmm. Anyone know of JW lawyers lying in court. It's bad. Once you're caught and word gets around, no one trusts you.
Skeeter
-
SirNose586
Great find! One more condemnation certainly never hurts.
-
skeeter1
What do you think of this regarding children? This usually applies in divorce, where parents who are fighting are told to keep the child's best interest in mind. But, it is not worded that way. How can a Watchtower attorney honestly comply with this ethic's rule? I do not see how he can.
4.01 THE LAWYER AS ADVOCATE
Advocacy
4.01 (1) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.Commentary
The lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which the lawyer thinks will help the client's case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy and defence authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner that is consistent with the lawyer's duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties' right to a fair hearing where justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum, and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.
This rule applies to the lawyer as advocate, and therefore extends not only to court proceedings but also to appearances and proceedings before boards, administrative tribunals, arbitrators, mediators, and others who resolve disputes, regardless of their function or the informality of their procedures.
Role in Adversary Proceedings - In adversary proceedings the lawyer's function as advocate is openly and necessarily partisan. Accordingly, the lawyer is not obliged (save as required by law or under these rules and subject to the duties of a prosecutor set out below) to assist an adversary or advance matters derogatory to the client's case.
In adversary proceedings that will likely affect the health, welfare, or security of a child, a lawyer should advise the client to take into account the best interests of the child, where this can be done without prejudicing the legitimate interests of the client.
When acting as an advocate, a lawyer should refrain from expressing the lawyer's personal opinions on the merits of a client's case.
When opposing interests are not represented, for example, in without notice or uncontested matters or in other situations where the full proof and argument inherent in the adversary system cannot be achieved, the lawyer must take particular care to be accurate, candid, and comprehensive in presenting the client's case so as to ensure that the tribunal is not misled.
-
happilyout
JWs, of all people, really wouldn't have any qualms about lying in court because:
(a) They are engaged in "theocratic warfare" against enemies of all sorts, especially "wordly" courts and institutions
(b) They have openly admitted in their publications that they need not tell the truth to those "not entitled" to it, especially in matters which would affect "Jehovah's interests", protecting "Jehovah's Good Name".
So all of this lying done by "Jehovah's Utensils" ... does not surprise me that people such as Shane Brady and J.R. Brown would spin (read: LIE) to gain good PR.