Blood transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by Marvin Shilmer 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  Blood transfusion: Letter of Understanding

  Today I added a new article to my blog that to the best of my knowledge is the first publication of a document put together for Jehovah’s Witnesses by medical ethicists in cooperation with Watchtower appointed Hospital Liaison Committee members.

  This document is very helpful in medical terms yet very explosive in theological terms for Jehovah’s Witnesses who’ve been taught to resist blood transfusion as rape.

  My article is titled Blood transfusion: Letter of Understanding and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/12/blood-transfusion-letter-of.html

  It took no little effort to finally obtain this documentation.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  rip van winkle

  Thank you!
• 

  Band on the Run

  Does this have the endorsement of the WTBTS? It is certainly not clear. Nothing on the face of it states it is in accord with JW policy. I recall several years ago that a fourteen year old boy was permitted to avoid transfusion by a judge. The judge ruled he was mature enough to make his own decision. It led me to wonder how I know very different fourteen years old than the judge.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Does this have the endorsement of the WTBTS?”

  Yes. Watchtower appointed Hospital Liaison Committee members are urging hospitals to adopt this as an option for parents among Jehovah’s Witnesses with children in need of care:

  “The JW Hospital Liaison Committee members supporting this couple inquired whether an option existed for them to sign a letter of understanding (LOU) indicating their acknowledgment that their child will receive necessary transfusions, without requiring either their explicit consent or [Child Protective Services] involvement to temporarily apprehend the child.”—( Frolic et al, Opening the Black Box of Ethics Policy Work: Evaluating a Covert Practice, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 12, No. 11, November 2012, pp. 3–15. Underlining added)

  And:

  “It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees”—(National Post, Without fanfare, Jehovah’s Witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusions, by Tom Blackwell, available at: http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions/

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  jgnat

  I gotta print this out for use with my JW husband.
• 

  l p

  what is the point in having this. Parents should know that they can't refuse emergency/urgent medical treatment of a child that will lead to detrimental harm to the child (FULL STOP!)

  having a nother peice of paper that shows that they allow the hospital to do this is a waste of time on the medical personnell to arrange a meeting discuss with social workers, nursing unit manager and parents - this is a huge waste of resources for something that is not changing how the system works. All the money spent on these high paying jobs for the hour or so meeting is unjustifiable not to mention that this is precious time taken out of reviewing other patients and keeping the flow of the hospital going as this impacts on all the other patients outcomes in the hospital the longer they are in the ED (increase in risk of death) and the wards (increase risk of infection and blood clots).

  completely ridiculous

  if i was a hospital administrator id tell them to stick it
• 

  ScenicViewer

  If a physican gave a JW child a transfusion, would the parents know about it, or are the parents agreeing to 'look the other way' while the Dr does what he needs to do to save a child?

  If the latter, Watchtower is agreeing to a 'do what you need to do, just don't tell me about it' approach.
• 

  jgnat

  On the contrary lp, the bioethicist community has been working very hard to find ways to accommodate JW views without risking medical care. Hospital administrators take this very seriously.
• 

  l p

  Ignat: I work in the healthcare system as a senior nurse and care does not get compromised because the doctors can have a court order within an hour to give a child a blood transfusion if the parents were going to fight it. All the doctors need to do in Australian healthcare systems is get a second specialist doctors opinion that the child will founder without a transfusion and they can give the transfusion against the parents wishes - this is australian law.

  my previous comment still stands bec all this process does is try to appease these religious zealots and takes valuable medical time away from the jobs they need to be doing that they already don't have time and resources for. This letter is not a change in care ...its just another time consuming and resource wasting step

  Lp
• 

  l p

  Ignat: when i was 'in' i knew a jw mother and father that had a child that needed a liver transplant. This was before this letter.

  The child had platelet transfusion and albumin transfusions. The parents didn't kick up a stink and make it hard for the doctors because they knew the doctors can override the parents very swiftly. And the mother told me that.

  So it is a complete waste of time. The community needs to know and does know that doctors are obliged to save a minors life regardless of whether the parents want certain treatment or not

  Lp