Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth 77 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I was reading about the case you mentioned above from the newspaper article (I googled it) and also from your blog. In your blog comments I noticed a commenter referred to an elders only form S-55-E dating from 9/2010.
  Do you happen to know where I could read that letter or what the gist of it is

  You can see the whole S-55-E document HERE.

  I wrote a short blog article about this document titled “No Copies Should Be Made”

  Edited to add: For some reason the link I keep trying to embed to the S-55-E document reverts to plain text after a few moments. Don't know why, but after multiple attempts I've given up. If you check my blog article linked above--which link does remain live for some reason--you'll find where the document is linked for viewing.
• 

  defender of truth

  Here you go Marvin:
  www.ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KM_School_Handout_on_Blood_2010.pdf
  (Only links starting with www. are recognised I think)
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Where did I say that the Watchtower is consenting to anyone having blood transfusions?

  You have posted volumes of links, fiction, and commentary. What are you saying? Make your point.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  What are you saying?

  Fisherman,

  Saying?

  You made an assertion of defender of truth. Of defender of truth you asserted "you advertize that the WT is secretly consenting to blood transfusions".

  The result is defender of truth asked "Where did I say that the Watchtower is consenting to anyone having blood transfusions?"

  I'd say defender of truth is saying, please prove your assertion.
• 

  Fisherman

  I finally received the form document with a lame explanation about why I was plied with questions about my request.
  
  Whether the document at issue is authentic or fake is as easy as checking with the indicated source, which is not me.
  

  1)You talk a lot. I am not persuaded. What is your specific point about this document.

  2) What is your specific point(s) about WT and their position on BT

  Fact: The posted "Letter of Understanding" is not a WT agreement consenting BT. I have shown that.

  Fact: As it is written, the LOU when executed by JW is not an authorization for hospital to administer BT. I have shown that.
  

  
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  1)You talk a lot. I am not persuaded. What is your specific point about this document.
  2) What is your specific point(s) about WT and their position on BT

  My specific point is as my blog article states:

  "Completing this document requires no knowledge that 1) a treating physician has record of good cooperation with Jehovah’s Witness patients, 2) a past record of performing a particular “bloodless” procedure along with 3) sentiment that the same procedure will be “no problem” this time. This is a change from Watchtower's published policy dating to 1992.[2]

  "The Letter of Understanding document is a written and signed record that parents of a Witness child have been informed their child will be given the best medical treatment available, including transfusion of blood products forbidden under Watchtower doctrine if treating physicians deem it necessary."

  Is there something about that you don't understand?

  Fact: The posted "Letter of Understanding" is not a WT agreement consenting BT. I have shown that.

  I've not asserted that. So what is your point saying this to me?
  
  

  Fact: As it is written, the LOU when executed by JW is not an authorization for hospital to administer BT. I have shown that.

  I've not asserted that. So what is your point saying this to me?

  A further point of my blog article addressing the letter of understanding is this:

  "Every parent among Jehovah's Witnesses worried about how local Watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this Letter of Understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them. Then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the child's best interests."

  Is there anything about that you don't understand?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  2) What is your specific point(s) about WT and their position on BT

  I do have more to say in response to that very broad question.

  1. Watchtower's position on blood transfusion is irrational.

  2. Watchtower's position on blood transfusion is dishonest.

  3. Watchtower's position on blood transfusion has led to tens of thousands of premature deaths.

  Questions?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  1)You talk a lot. I am not persuaded.

  I have more to say in response to that, too.

  1. I don't care if you are persuaded, or not.

  Questions?
• 

  Fisherman

  My specific point is as my blog article states:

  I read your blog before, nothing remarkable, only commentary.
  

  Using the term agreement referring to the document on this thread led me to believe that you were referring to the document as an agreement. Since you did not clarify what you meant but made remarks about the WT not advertizing it, It seemed to me that you meant that it was a secret agreement. Your remarks on this thread about the document also led me to believe that it was a covert document, secretly allowing blood transfusions. I wonder how many people believed that too until I showed that it was not. I see that now that you deny asserting it.
  

  3. Watchtower's position on blood transfusion has led to tens of thousands of premature deaths.

  explain
  
• 

  defender of truth

  "Using the term agreement referring to the document on this thread led me to believe that you were referring to the document as an agreement."

  Perhaps that's because, funnily enough, it is an agreement.
  The form represents an agreement on the part of the hospital, that the hospital will only administer a blood transfusion if they have to.
  
  As you said yourself:
  

  "In fact, such document is a concession from the hospital to use medical alternatives first before exercising their power to administer blood."
  "The hospital, having agreed to use the ABP first.."

  
  

  "Since you did not clarify what you meant"

  If you don't understand what someone has said, or what they meant by a word, why not just ask them rather than making assertions?
  
  Ah, this must be what you are meaning, what you said on page 2:
  

  "So, the parents are not agreeing that the hospital give blood to their child by signing the document.."

  The document states that. Do you think that Marvin, having acquired and posted the letter, had not read it and thought that it was a consent form? Why did you think that the above point needed to be made? We can all read..
  
  

  "Your remarks on this thread about the document also led me to believe that it was a covert document, secretly allowing blood transfusions."

  Where did he say that?
  
  

  "It seemed to me that you meant that it was a secret agreement."

  Where did he say that?
  Not advertising something is not the same as keeping it secret.
  
  

  "I wonder how many people believed that too until I showed that it was not."

  Everyone here is free to interpret, or misinterpret, what other people write. That is not always the fault of the writer.