Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth 77 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  defender of truth

  can you please show from the "Letter of Understanding" that it is an agreement. I do not understand.

  I'll try to explain, seeing as Marvin has probably gone to bash his head against a wall somewhere.. ;)

  From the LOU:
  (Jehovahs witness parents/guardians usually don't want their children to have blood transfusions)...

  "Knowing this, doctors will look for other ways to treat these children that do not involve blood transfusion. "

  The above sentence, *quoted directly from the LOU* shows that this form, once signed, represents an agreement on the part of the hospital to avoid giving a blood transfusion as far as possible.
  
  The part where the parent signs the LOU clearly states: "My signature is not agreement for blood transfusion".

  How you can even suggest that Marvin is trying to deliberately mislead people into thinking that signing this form represents a parent authorizing or consenting to a blood transfusion, when he has provided a perfectly clear and readable scan RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE READY TO CLICK ON.. is utterly beyond me.
  
• 

  defender of truth

  Also, Fisherman...

  
  

  If the LOU does not represent an agreement, and it makes no difference whether a parent agrees to sign it or not, how do you explain the following quotes?..

  
  

  "As institutions show more respect toward parents’ faith and try harder not to use blood, Witnesses often seem eager to avoid involving child-welfare authorities to facilitate transfusions, and more accepting that Canadian case law is firmly on the doctors’ side, some hospital officials say."

  
  David Gnam, one of the Witnesses’ lawyers who has handled many of the transfusion cases, also said there has been no official change in policy, though he is aware that some hospitals have patients sign forms.
  “I’ve been involved in cases representing Jehovah’s Witnesses patients and occasionally it’s been in everybody’s best interests to come to some sort of agreement between the parties,” he said. “But that’s just individual hospitals, doctors and patients.”
  

  Still, evidence suggests that the number of cases that end up before a judge has dropped significantly. The Canlii website, which catalogues many Canadian court decisions, includes nine separate child blood-transfusion rulings from 2000 to 2007, but just three in the five years since then.
  

  Disputes arise when parents refuse transfusions on behalf of children below the age of consent. Hospitals in the past typically approached child-welfare authorities, who asked the courts for an order giving them temporary custody so they can ensure the transfusion is administered.
  

  It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion. “What is beautiful about this [the letter of understanding] is that it’s a symbolic way of embodying respect and dignity and when we do this, we don’t need to call Children’s Aid.."

  " McMaster Children’s Hospital has a similar letter of understanding...McGill Children’s Hospital in Montreal has had such a protocol for about a decade, and found that it brought about a “real, significant drop” in conflicts, said Lori Seller, a clinical ethicist at the facility. "

  
  http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions
• 

  Fisherman

  Defender of Truth? says:
  

  The above sentence, *quoted directly from the LOU* shows that this form, once signed, represents an agreement on the part of the hospital to avoid giving a blood transfusion as far as possible.

  The "LOU" posted on this thread does not say that. I disagree!
  

  
  
• 

  defender of truth

  The form is a document showing that the two parties have come to an agreement.

  If they had not come to an agreement, they would not be signing the form. The form proves that they have come to an agreement.

  Would you agree?..
• 

  Fisherman

  DOT says: Let me try again with a new explanation.
  

  The form is a document showing that the two parties have come to an agreement.

  No it is not, the LOU posted on this thread does not say that. That is your conclusion about the LOU.

  
  If they had not come to an agreement, they would not be signing the form.

  That is your conclusion. The LOU does not say that.
  

  The form proves that they have come to an agreement.

  No it does not. The LOU posted on this thread is a Letter of Understanding containing a statement of what the hospital is going to do, to use blood alternative first before the Hospital uses blood transfusion.The LOU does not show that the JW agrees to this, and the LOU does not show that the JW previously agreed to this when he signs the LOU. The LOU does not show that the terms for the Hospital to use blood alternative first before using blood depends upon the JW agreeing to these terms, in fact, the document states that the JW does not agree to these terms.. The JW understands that the Hospital is doing this because the Hospital has the power to do it and not because JW is agreeing to it.
  What you seem to be saying about the LOU is that you have concluded about the LOU that the Hospital and the JW have met minds before and have come to an agreement and that the LOU is proof of that. That is your conclusion, the LOU does not say that.
  Case in point: A Court Order is a proclamation of the Court. The document itself may contain an element showing favor to wishes or reasonable needs, for example, an Order of Protection may allow for casual contact. The enjoined person required to sign the Order may feel that the injunction is in its entirety an outrage and does not agree to the Order, but he has no choice about it and he is also required to sign it, However, the Order is not an agreement.
  
  In the case of the unauthenticated LOU posted on this thread, the Hospital having been previously ordered (authorized) by the Court to administer BT, decided to show favor to the wishes or demands [agrees or concedes] of the JW by using blood alternatives first. Just because a Court Order contains an element favoring the enjoined, it is not an agreement, also, just because the LOU posted on this thread states that the Hospital will use alternative blood first, it is not an agreement because the JW has not agreed to the terms of using blood alternatives first, as if JW do not oppose the use of BT after, in fact, the JW clearly rejects such terms in the LOU. You have not shown from the LOU that the JW agrees to any terms whatsoever in the LOU.WT position has not changed about accepting blood transfusions. The LOU does not show any change about WT or JW accepting blood transfusions. JW do not agree to blood transfusions.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  deleted
  
• 

  defender of truth

  For anyone doubting this is a genuine document, I received this reply from Dr. Harrison when I sent marvins blog to her..

  "Dear Mr. xxxx.

  Thank you for your email. I am no longer Director of Bioethics at The Hospital for Sick Children. The document is indeed genuine, and was something that we are proud to have developed. Please contact Dr. Randi Zlotnik Shaul, who is presently the Director of the Bioethics Department (copied on this message) if you require more information.

  Christine Harrison, PhD

  [email protected]
• 

  Fisherman

  For anyone doubting this is a genuine document

  Besides your commentary, can you kindly explain , if you are asserting that you know for a fact, that Watchtower "drafted" the "Letter of Understanding" posted on this thread? Also, besides your commentary, can you please explain, if you know for a fact , that the same document is being used by the Watchtower?
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  ... can you please show from the "Letter of Understanding" that it is an agreement.

  A JW parent who signs this letter of understanding is agreeing to terms of service of the institution, one of which is that medical staff may administer blood transfusion if necessary. This is not an agreement to accept blood transfusion. It is an agreement on the terms which the institution will provide services to the patient.

  ...can you please explain, if you know for a fact , that the same document is being used by the Watchtower?

  "Used" has many connotations. The document is known by Watchtower appointees and is asked for by those appointees for sake of JW parents having the opportunity to sign it. But you should know this by now. So what is your question for? Watchtower representatives have also encouraged other medical facilities to develop/adopt similar documents.
• 

  Fisherman

  "Used" has many connotations. The document is known by Watchtower appointees and is asked for by those appointees for sake of JW parents having the opportunity to sign it. But you should know this by now. So what is your question for?

  I did not know this ever, even though you conclude that I should.
  

  The document is known by Watchtower appointees and is asked for by those appointees for sake of JW parents having the opportunity to sign it.

  Are you saying that you know for a fact that Watchtower (appointees) asks for the LOU posted on this thread in connection with medical treatment?
  

  It is an agreement on the terms which the institution will provide services to the patient.

  I disagree, the LOU does not say that.