Follow up commentary - 72 year old JW died refusing transfusion

by Gopher 7 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gopher

  Here is a follow-up for those interested. Here was the original story from last week: The elders came to make sure Margaret would die

  A former JW wrote a compelling commentary protesting the policy leading to her death: CLICK HERE

  I was brought up in the faith but despise it

  Jul 27 2007

  by Our Correspondent, South Wales Echo
  
  
  I WAS sorry to read of 72-year-old grandmother Margaret Cornelius who died after refusing a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah’s Witness.

  Both my parents were devout Jehovah’s Witnesses and throughout my childhood I was indoctrinated by the faith’s beliefs and behaviours by being excluded from normal contact with anyone outside the faith and by being made to attend the religious meetings at least three times each week.

  I have never celebrated a birthday or received a Christmas present.

  I was not allowed to compete in competitive sports and actively prevented from obtaining a normal education and career because to do so I would be rejecting the teaching and a career would make me materialistic.

  If I had needed a life-saving blood transfusion there is no question my parents would have denied this medical intervention and I would now be dead.

  I was also forced by my parents to call on people in their own homes to inform them of Jehovah Witnesses’ beliefs.

  Even while this high-pressure mind-control and manipulation was being carried out I knew their teachings and behaviours were very hypocritical and abusive.

  The question of the article was: did poor Margaret Cornelius needlessly die because she was fooled by an evil mind-control cult?

  I would reply “yes”, absolutely, and I would go as far as to say that when a person dies in these circumstances I now view this as institutional murder.

  Benn Powell

  Pilton Vale, Malpas, Newport
• 

  Fatfreek

  A former JW wrote a compelling commentary protesting the policy leading to her death:

  Something about this thread smells of a lack of credibility which lurkers will jump all over.

  First, you say that he is a former JW . I don't question that is the case but if it is why is that vital fact not mentioned in the article?

  Why is he telling the press that he was forced into this and that if, indeed, he had been a JW at one time or another -- having been, of course, baptized? Oh, I understand the topic of child baptisms since I just heard of my grandson taking the plunge at age 11. But they don't exactly hold a gun to the heads of these children.

  If he was forced during his earlier childhood to do all these things, then got baptized sometime later, his story loses its punch. That very baptism sanctioned the acts he tries to condemn.

  Please fill in some of the missing blanks.

  Len Miller
• 

  BluesBrother

  If a 72 year old dub, having been a Witness all her life, refuses blood - it is a very different situation to that involving children.

  Do we not uphold the patent's right to chose or reject any kind of treatment, for whatever reason. Suppose you had some deep seated aversion to some treatment , do you think that medics (who may not all think alike) should be able to forcibly treat you against your will?

  This lady no doubt had carried a blood card for years. I think she should be allowed to stick to that decision, even if it did shorten her life. Her doctor could not say for shore.

  Of course I would abhor coersion by the HLC, but that cannot be proven

  I just think that we have to hold on to the hard won right of an individual to be different,
• 

  skeeter1

  I would support a patient's free will right to refuse provided it was "free will" and was not entered into with misinformation. The 72 year old's should not have been allowed to choose no blood. First, her medical information given to her through the Society was flawed and full of lies. See "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation" which goes through the lies and half-truths the Watchtower spoons onto its followers about the dangers of blood transfusions and the sound medicine of bloodless surgery. The Society also believes in blood, only if it's called fractions. Since all of fractionalized blood can be used, why can't whole blood not be used? The Society is a hypocrite. This patient free will is also questioned. She faced shunning by friends and family members if she took blood. Hospital liasion workers likely scoped out her hospital room, and witnesses who came in contact with her medical records were ready to turn her in to the elders if she took the blood. Free will would be without such severe sanctions. Skeeter
• 

  Gopher

  Fatfreek -

  Although the writer did not specify whether he was baptized or not, he was raised a JW. Even before being baptized, I was viewed as that JW kid who isolated himself. The writer was addressing the effect that JW doctrines have on enforcing unorthodox behavior, treating certain commonly-accepted behaviors as evil (be it holidays, birthdays, enjoying a Saturday morning instead of canvassing the neighborhood, and accepting blood transufions when medically necessary).

  Bluesbrother -

  While an adult should definitely have a right to accept or refuse medical treatment, the point of my original post and this letter is that it's sad such unorthodox behavior is enforced upon grown people. The teachings of JW's put Margaret between a rock and a hard place, in the event that she would have chosen to accept the transfusion as Paul Gillies of headquarters publicly implied she would have been able to do.

  Skeeter1 -

  It's interesting how the WT Society convinces its members they are exercising free will, and that they actually have happiness being Witnesses. Actually they have blinded them to see the reasonableness of any other alternative.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  I think that anyone who chooses to refuse blood due to the JW doctrine should be required to view some kind of video highlighting the lies that have been perpetrated by the WT Society. Maybe a video produced by AJWRB or maybe the lawyer who wrote that legal article on blood.
  
  If after viewing this video, they still refuse blood, then that is their choice.
  
  I think this ought to be required, just as in some areas, women are required to seek counseling first before they choose abortion.
• 

  Lotus65

  i think that we should take a look at the religion when making these descicions to see if its a legitiamte religion based on some form of logic or actually a cult i know that its not anyone's right to say but when u look at the jw's they are alot more outstanding as a cult than other religions
• 

  Gopher

  i think that we should take a look at the religion when making these descicions to see if its a legitiamte religion

  Lotus -- it would be ideal, however adult patients do have the right to refuse treatment.

  What is particularly wrong about the JW's is that their elders come in the form of a committee (the Hospital Liaison Committee) to enforce religious law. If a JW patient was inclined to accept proper medical treatment this committee's presence would likely intimidate them to decline the transfusion, leading to deadly consequences.