JWs relieved when judges decree their kids must have a blood transfusion

by MrMonroe 28 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • leavingwt

    The danger for the child is the time it takes to get custody transfered.

    This is a very good point. We can only hope that hospital personnel will follow their conscience and give the lifesaving treatments, even before a court order is established.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    Amen! I was a teenager when my mom had to take my much younger sister to the er. We were not attending KH. She only discussed the Witnesses as our history, never our present. She told the triage nurse no blood for my sister. I screamed that I would telephone a lawyer to call a judge so my sister would get necessary blood before the doctors could. Her statement made no sense b/c she had no power to make that call. She relented.

    I knew a brother who was disfellowshipped at my aunt and uncle's KH for accepting blood during serious surgery. When it was announced, there were audible gasps and one "no" screamed out loud. People slumped forward. I thought he was smart. He returned to the KH and was reinstated in about a year. Life itself vs.a one month gamble on A. coming in that time frame. Also, he was a long-term brother so he knew of predictions that utterly failed.

    I don't understand how any parent can deny their child blood. People do. Maternal instincts are so very strong yet a cult triumphs over this biological/cultural instinct. Merely thinking about it has my heart pounding.

  • Nabeena

    When my cousin was dying from leukemia, there was a very quiet suit brought by the hospital to give him blood and they did not even put up a fight. It didn't make the papers. They did what they had to do and the hospital did what they had to do. Unfortunately, by the time the hospital used their muscle, the little guy was too far gone (and it may not have helped in any case-who knows, leukemia is harsh).

    My mom didn't tell me til years later. As it was, my cousin died, his parents divorced, his dad went nuts (he was well on his way already) and left the org and joined some quasi religious/multilevel marketing scheme before he fell off a roof and died, sadly. His mom is now selling everything under the sun from insurance to the latest, greatest get rich quick scheme (which has long been what she was into) and is living with her boyfriend, so I assume she is well and truly out. None of the children are in still except a step daughter from several marriages ago. All of the kids (and that uncle had a LOT) are messed up basket cases and living in physical abuse, substance abuse or extreme mental illness (the kind they send you away for-and I know of 3 at least who have suffered that fate for various issues, not related to substance abuse. A few more for substance abuse)

    The org can really screw people up. I almost think that my little cousin got the best deal out of all of them. He got out.

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    One gets the sense that the GB wishes the whole blood ban mess would just go away, and are wracking their brains for a face-saving way to extricate themselves without triggering an avalanche of law suits.

  • baltar447

    You may be right Room 215. It disgusts me to think about the lives that hang in the balance just so they can save face or avoid lawsuits. Bastards.

  • garyneal
    One gets the sense that the GB wishes the whole blood ban mess would just go away, and are wracking their brains for a face-saving way to extricate themselves without triggering an avalanche of law suits.

    That is what it seems like. Sadly though you still have 7 million adherents who find themselves in a conundrum (like Brother Hero) when faced with the contradictions of their policies regarding the use of blood. I guess they just don't want to admit to themselves that the real reason is because they are trying to avoid lawsuits.

    I wonder if the GB will ever get brave enough to remove that prohibition?

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    This legal procedure is sanctioned and recommended by the HLC. I am not on the HLC but someone close to me is. When I talked to him about my 'doubts' he told me that this is how the HLC handles it now so I don't have to worry if a loved one needs blood in a medical procedure and I won't get DF'ed if that is the case.

    The real cause is of course the very tangible liability and even if they're not, defending lawsuits is equally expensive.

  • flipper

    Personally- I think this world would be better served if all JW parents were required to give up custody of their children to the state. What with the blood transfusion ridiculousness, child abuse dangers, and who knows what ELSE going on in JW's homes - it might assist children to think for themselves.

    Hey , here's a thought- maybe a raid on Kingdom hall's like the Texas authorities raided the Mormon's a few years ago to rescue children. Of course I'm stretching this a bit and exaggerating - but I might be closer to the truth than you think. Children's lives truly are in danger of being stolen away from them in this dangerous cult

  • Quendi

    Not to sound immodest, but I think the suggestion I made earlier in this discussion is a "way out" for the Governing Body if it really wants to lift the blood transfusion ban.

    My suggestion was to examine once more what the Bible says about blood. The only time it was shed was when an animal was sacrificed, slaughtered for meat, or killed in the course of a hunt. In all such cases, the blood was either put on the altar or poured onto the ground in recognition of Jehovah as the Life-giver.

    Drawing blood to use in saving a life should not be confused with shedding it to end one. The way out of the dilemma the WTS finds itself in is to recognize this basic but extremely important difference. There is no need to pour blood onto the ground if the person from whom it has been drawn has volunteered it to save a life. The donor is not asking for his life to be sacrificed, nor is he the quarry in some kind of hunt. So there is no reason to dispose of his blood in the way the Bible prescribes.

    Making this distinction would get everyone off the hook. Blood transfusion, whether the source is an anonymous donor or the patient himself, can be permitted if one will look at the whole context where the issue of blood is raised. The problem is that the WTS has never really looked at the Bible exegetically or hermeneutically. It prefers to slap it with an interpretation that suits itself. That is not uncommon with fundamentalist sects and cults and in this case the WTS is doing what others of like persuasion have done in the past.

    What it comes down to is does the WTS and its Governing Body want to relinquish even the smallest bit of control it currently exercises over its membership. Because I think this is the real issue. If the Governing Body were to give way on something as monumental as this, where else will it find itself forced to yield ground? I don't doubt that question is part and parcel of the discussions that arise whenever the Governing Body visits the issue. Anyway, what do you think of my suggestion? Comment is invited.

    One last point. I must respectfully disagree with our friend flipper and his idea that the State should make children of Jehovah's Witnesses its wards. That would put them in the cross-hairs of dangers greater than any Witness parents would.


  • flipper

    QUENDI- If you read my statement I wasn't being serious. I was exaggerating. I qualified what I stated. I have a dark sense of humor

Share this