by bjc2read 10 Replies latest watchtower medical
Hi,
For those among us here who find the current JW blood policy inconsistent, namely which allows for the use of blood fractions for members, but not the use of whole blood in transfusions, the following article presents I believe, an excellent argument examining the current situation facing rank and file members today.
Here is the link: Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOW Taking Blood!
bjc2read
link?
great arguement, as long as you break blood up to its components and then separate these components to it's components, it is no longer a issue (red blood cells = cell membrane + hemoglobin) (Plasma = it components) etc... You could even drink the stuff and it is alright (gross but I said it to make a point)
Great link, the argumentation is very clear and logical.
since June of the year 2000, Questions From Readers pages 29-31 (and re-emphasized with the release of the June 15, 2004 Watchtower magazine), Jehovah's witnesses are now allowed to take 100% of Red Cell fractions, 100% of White Cell fractions, 100% of Platelet fractions, and finally 100% of Plasma fractions -- namely 100% of all four of the components of blood itself? ... Therefore, if Jehovah's Witnesses can now take 100% of the four components of blood, doesn't this mean Jehovah's Witnesses are now currently allowed to take 100% of whole blood, in its entirety?
Just a little comment on blood transfusions and children of jws.
Legally speaking would it not make sense if parents who knowingly by action, cause injury or death to their children should be charged with child abuse or neglect !
For example, lets say a religious cult started and did not beleive in modern medical practises and a sick child within the group died due to not getting medical attention. It would seem to me
that legal authorities should go after these parents, regardless of any religious beliefs that the parents may have had. A thousand years ago the Incas sacrificed a child to appease I suppose
their god, this of course was their religion. If this was to happen today wouldn't you think the athorities would take legal action against this group..... to use an analogy. I think they would !
In essence parents today have a legal responsibility with the government to look after the health and welfare of their children at least until the child becomes a age of adult consent .
Personally I think some of these parents that don't approve blood transfusion when necessary should have their children taken away and given a jail sentence or in case of death a long jail
sentence. It would certainly give a good kick in the balls to the WTS. legal department and really give notice to the public what a backward stupid religion this is !
thetrueone:
You are correct and I believe there is a famous Supreme Court case in Canada that discusses this. I believed it involved parents who refused to give insulin to their kid. I forget the name of the case off the top of my head and I am way too busy to go look it up. In a nut shell the health of a minor trumps the parent's religion or article 2a of Canada's charter.
The Criminal Code of Canada just like the penal codes in the various states have sections of this stuff.
Later.
hawk
Here is one person's blog entry on the topic:
http://children.safepassagefoundation.org/archives/2007/01/dont_martyr_the.html
Calgary Herald
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/
news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=
d2588646-bb3b-4f9b-b9ed-b573a4439c28
Parents' objections shouldn't stop transfusions for sextuplets
Thursday, January 11, 2007
If the sextuplets born severely prematurely at B.C. Women's Hospital need blood transfusions, they should be made wards of the province and transfused over the objections of their Jehovah's Witness parents.
Jehovah's Witnesses base their objection to transfusions on Acts 15:29, with its command to "abstain from blood." As much as they are entitled to hold such a belief, when it conflicts with human rights, the latter must prevail. The sextuplets may require an infusion of red cells that their own immature organs may not be able to provide. Declining to do so could lead to the infants' deaths, and this is where the state has a moral duty to step in.
Adult Jehovah's Witnesses have every right to refuse transfusions for themselves. They do not have a right to deny health care to others. While parents are entitled to make decisions for their children, the line must be drawn when those decisions endanger the children's lives.
Most recently, this precept was tested in the case of Calgary's Bethany Hughes, a 16-year-old Jehovah's Witness suffering from acute myeloid leukemia. She was transfused against her and her mother's wishes, after her father asked a court to intervene. Sadly, Bethany died because her overall treatment, including chemotherapy, failed to halt the cancer.
According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, acute myeloid leukemia causes a reduction in red blood cells, hence the need for transfusions as part of a treatment protocol.
The battleground between religion and health care is strewn with bitter court cases. In 1993, a Minnesota court ruled the Christian Science church had to pay $9 million US in damages after an 11-year-old boy died from untreated diabetes, after his parents had chosen prayer over medical care. In a similar case, The Lancet reports that British Rastafarian parents were found guilty of manslaughter after refusing insulin for their diabetic daughter.
In a 1998 report on child fatalities from religion-motivated medical neglect, Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, quoted a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the matter: "The right to practise religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death. . . . Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion."
Nor are Jehovah's Witnesses in agreement about the blood taboo. A group called Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, notes that the Watchtower Society permits use of fractions of plasma, platelets, red and white cells, but not the whole product itself.
In June 2000, the Society declared that fractionated blood components were permitted and left it up to the individual to decide if a particular procedure violated the taboo. The AJWRB also says Witnesses who do accept transfusions won't be disfellowshipped.
A 1995 article in the Cancer Control Journal reports that "most Jehovah's Witness parents permitted transfusions for their minor children." Parents must never be allowed to risk their children's lives. The sextuplets need intensive care and intervention if they are to survive. If that includes transfusions, the province should ensure they get them.
Posted by Perry at January 11, 2007 02:00 PM
The pronouncements of the WTB&TS and the resulting actions of Jehovah's Witnesses demonstrate that they adhere to the prehistoric notions that a man's wife and children were his property. Because they are only property, a faithful JW can impose his will on them, even if he wills them to die.
The issue is obvious enough, the FDS wants to get rid of the blood policy but they can't do it at once it would be too explosive to do so, therefore they are doing it in stages to release the immense tension inherent to the issue gradually (in small steps spread over a long period of time) and hopefully harmlessly. Logically their arguments make absolutely no sense whether one takes whole blood or parts of it, it makes no difference versus their long held idea that receiving donated blood is wrong. They want to change it fast but they can not, it will destroy their moral authority and possibly their finances depending on how sharp their lawyers are. Meanwhile many dubs continue to die as the policy slowly shifts.
Smart cookies all of you......I guess that's the reason were not jws anymore.........
