by Stealth453 42 Replies latest watchtower scandals
When I knew him at the Canadian Bethel he was one of the bread makers in the kitchen staff!
LMAO... it never fails to bring a smile to my face, the number of people here who know Shane for his mad baking skillz.
I wonder if he giggles when you poke his tummy.
Here's to hoping the court will find in favor of the BC government and the doctors. If I recall correctly, the parents were trying to present evidence that the babies did not need transfusions, but the doctors got a court order to transfuse a few of them (after two had died) because the situation was critical? I need to look at those articles again...
The parents, who have never spoken to the media, are Jehovah's Witnesses whose religion forbids blood transfusions under any circumstance.
What I don't understand with all of this is, what about the new way of thinking about JW's being able to receive blood fractions? If I were a parent concerned about my children I would latch onto that and see if there is a way that this could work into my favor. This statement above straight out says no blood under any circumstance.
Also, isn't there something in writing that states that taking blood is a congregants (sp) choice and if they chose to take blood no action would be taken because it is between Jehoober and them?
The WTS is shooting themselves in the foot over this. The ideal situation is for children to be taken off the parents as it absolves the WTS of any legal responsibility, and the parents of scriptural responsibility. Taking this to court is nothing but unnecessary, bad publicity.
The WTS has admitted as much to parliament that blood transfusions can be necessary at times and recommended that the law take Witness children off their parents in such cases. In the Hansard Committee Vin Toole, representing the legal department of the Australian Branch of the Watchtower Society makes such an admission.
“Senator SCHACHT—I see. I just want to turn now to the well-documented case from your point of view about children and the complaint that we have laws in Australia in all states giving medical practitioners the right to overrule the parents. …
Mr Toole— … We are not saying in our recommendation that the law should not exist. What we have said is that there may well be circumstances arise where it does become an absolute life and death issue. We have said that in those circumstances that is the way the law should be framed. In its present form, the law is not framed that way and it allows an invasion of the family and an overruling of the principles of that family in circumstances that really do not call for that at all.”
When I new him at the Canadian Bethel he was one of the bread makers in the kitchen staff!
When I was at Vicki's case in court I went up to him & said ""better than waiting on tables eh ??? That is what he used to do, he asked "were you at Bethel?" I replied YES!!!!! well I visited it a few times so I wasnt lying was I? Glen helped him become a Lawyer. he kept passing him peices of paper through out the whole case. SO added "I bet you wish that was money old Glens passes you ? "
So clearly as Jehovah's Witnesses the couple believed that life begins at conception, and the discarding of embryos is essentially the termination of a human life. The couple was clearly educated with 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 Ontario-based director of public information for the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Bible Society, Mark Ruge said "that while the Bible obviously says nothing about high-tech fertility treatments -- a form of which was likely used to produce the sextuplets -- it is clear on blood transfusions." 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."
What I cannot understand is how the couple educated on in vitro fertilization (IVF) made the decision to follow through with IVF being aware that multifetal pregnancy reduction may be required along with blood transfusions?? When their pregnancy was confirmed for sextuplets the parents were aware that the odds were against the delivery of six healthy babies. Hellins Law approximates the odds of naturally born sextuplets at around one in five billion. Half of babies born at 24 or 25 weeks will die in hospital, and many of the survivors will have severe lifelong handicaps. Doctors said the mother had the choice to abort some of the fetuses at 12 weeks to give the remainder a better chance of life and health. She was offered the option again at 18 weeks. Later, she was given the opportunity not to have the babies resuscitated at birth. Each time she refused.
According to Timothy Rowe, head of the infertility division at the University of British Columbia, "all but two babies are usually aborted when infertility treatments result in three or more fetuses. This is done to safeguard the health and survival of the two remaining fetuses. The procedure is called a multifetal pregnancy reduction, and it is usually carried out at about 10 or 11 weeks."
"As Jehovah's Witnesses," said the father, "we believe that to have aborted any of our sextuplets would be a profound disregard for life and violation of God's law."
The number of embryos to be transferred- Some countries have legislation with limit to the maximum number of embryos to be transferred such as United Kingdom, France, Australia and Germany. Some countries have guidelines specify limit but no enforcement mechanism such as Egypt, USA and Japan. Whereas, some countries have neither legislation nor guidelines such as Greece and Canada.
The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to in vitro fertilisation in all instances and advocates that infertility is a call from God to adopt children. It "infringe[s] the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage."Also, embryos are discarded in the process, causing them to die. Catholics and many people of other faiths see embryos as human lives with the same rights as all others and, therefore, view this procedure as always unacceptable.
Three of the babies are now home with their parents
I feel sorry for them and their futures. I wonder how they'll react if and when they find out about how their parents wanted to kill them when they were born.
"As Jehovah's Witnesses," said the father, "we believe that to have aborted any of our sextuplets would be a profound disregard for life and violation of God's law."
Am I the only one who finds it odd that the father refers to the babies as "our sextuplets" rather than "our children" or "our babies"?
It seems to me that a bit of dissonance going on in his mind - knowing the possible negative outcomes and not wanting to become too emotionally attached maybe? Or he's thinking of the possibility of recognition for the family?
freefly, you're not the only one who is baffled by the ethical, logical and doctrinal leapfrogging these folks are doing.
The Roman Catholic Church is opposed to in vitro fertilisation in all instances
Anyone else think the WTS will go this route as well to avoid big problems such as this one?
Instant retirement money, me thinks they want.
