Lee, is your site down? I am trying to give a link to someone and it won't bring it up.
Blood Transfusions and Pedophilia
by Lee Elder 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Lee Elder
Island Woman wrote:
<The Bible does speak of avoiding the eating of blood, JWs extend that application to transfusions; a religious decision. IMO, the current practice in the medical community to take each case individually; at times forcing a transfusion on some children and at other times allowing a "mature" young person to decide what they will or will not accept, is about as good as it will get or should get.>
When children are involved, including "mature minors" it is our position that physicians should make every effort to provide necessary medical care. The issues involved are very complex, the children have been fed incorrect information regarding blood by their parents and the Watchtower Society and they are under coercion and duress. Many of them, perhaps a majority, will eventually leave the WTS anyway.
<Medicine is not an exact science, at times it has injured almost as many as it has helped. People must have the right to refuse any treatment they do not want, and religion must be allowed the right to practice as it sees fit, within the law.>
No one in AJWRB wants to force blood on adult Jehovah's Witnesses. We do want physicians to take reasonable steps to insure that they are making an informed choice. We want physicians to question the validity of the WTS wallet sized advanced directive because some JWs sign them under duress and in an emergency actually would prefer to receive blood if their doctors assure them confidentiality.
Additionally, the legal issues are not as clear as some may believe. Remember that we have a religious organization passing out what amounts to very specific medical advice about which parts of blood may and may not be used. We have at least one country (Bulgaria) with a different standard for its JW members (no wallet sized advance directives for minors and no controls or sanctions for members who accept blood), and finally we have wholesale dismantling of the policy in process. I believe there are any number of JW leaders who know the WTS is systematically disentangling itself from the blood policy. It may be just a matter of time before a smoking gun appears in the form of internal documents or memos. Should that become available, I believe we could very well see some folks in the organization facing criminal charges - and rightly so. At some level, this is reckless, gross disregard for human life.
<The answer is education, education, education, which is what you and others are doing and I thank you very much for that!>
Education is the single most important thing we can do. When we started five years ago, I was amazed at how many former JWs still hung on to the WTS blood policy. Today it is a rare case to find such an opinion. Additionally, we have opened many eyes in the medical community and among active JWs.
The trend is clear and when the hemoglobin solutions hit the market many lives will be saved and many questions will have to be answered by WTS leaders.
Change is in the air.
Lee
-
IslandWoman
Lee Elder,
Thanks for your comments. This subject is a complicated one and riddled of course with difficult emotional issues.
I feel though that when some xJWs speak out about this, they forget the constitutional and legal issues involved. No one can dictate to a religion what it should or should not believe or teach (unless it is illegal) in the United States.
Sometimes there is an "evangelical" surge among some people to do away with all things they consider doctrinally wrong in the JW religion, including the blood issue. Not possible! We live in a Democracy. The same laws that allow the people on this DB to post almost whatever they please, (including sexually arousing pictures regardless of who is lurking here) also apply to religion!
They have the right to worship as they please, again, within the law. We also have the right to express our outrage and disapproval.
Thanks for the work you are doing,
IW -
jst2laws
Kismet,
Very good!
________________________________
Lee Elder,
You and your associates seem to have considered the pros and cons and have found the approach that brings the best results at this time. Good work.
Jst2laws
-
Pathofthorns
Thanks for your explaination. I also wanted to thank you and those associated with AJWRB for the professional and reasonable manner in which you have carried out your education on the subject.
Education is the single most important thing we can do. When we started five years ago, I was amazed at how many former JWs still hung on to the WTS blood policy. Today it is a rare case to find such an opinion. Additionally, we have opened many eyes in the medical community and among active JWs.
This is quite an accomplishment in itself.Path
-
cellomould
Hi Lee,
I have online access to many journals through my university, and I just stumbled across something interesting:
Journal of Medical Ethics
Volume 26, Issue 5, October 2000, Pages 375-380
ISSN: 0306-6800Why some Jehovah's
Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy Wow! I am surprised to say the least.
A couple of years ago I was considering working with a JW who is a local hospital employee. He oversees blood management issues. You may know him, but I will inquire further in private e-mail. Things were changing even back then, and I had no clue!
cellmould
-
minimus
LEE, I just want to thank you for your reasonable approaches to a very delicate matter. You are someone who is no fly-by-night. You do your homework and your efforts are greatly respected and appreciated.
-
COMF
Lello, Lee,
that Jehovah's Witnesses should not have the right to refuse a blood transfusion
I was disturbed when I read this statement in your opening post. I have followed and supported your work since you started it--I was one of those you mention who still clung to the JW belief on blood after leaving, until your research enlightened me--and the statement above is not in harmony with the reasonable stance I have come to expect from you.
This subsequent quote presents an altogether different position:
No one in AJWRB wants to force blood on adult Jehovah's Witnesses. We do want physicians to take reasonable steps to insure that they are making an informed choice. We want physicians to question the validity of the WTS wallet sized advanced directive because some JWs sign them under duress and in an emergency actually would prefer to receive blood if their doctors assure them confidentiality.
I believe I'm safe in assuming that the latter is what you meant by the former. Please correct me, and elaborate, if I'm wrong. Because Jehovah's Witnesses--adult witnesses--should absolutely have the right to refuse blood transfusion, just as they should have the right to refuse prescriptions, surgery, and anything else proposed to be done to their bodies.
It's good to hear from you. Long time now see.
-
Bona Dea
Hi Lee. I just want to say that you are doing a wonderful job of informing not only the Jehovah's Witness population but others as well.
I, personally and honestly can not see how it could possibly be legal for a JW to refuse a blood transfusion for a minor. It is one thing to refuse it for yourself, another to make that decision for a child. It should be treated as an entirely different circumstance when a parent is likely to put a religious belief before the life or welfare of their child. It seems to me that this should fall under the "child endangerment statute".
Child Endangerment is found in the Penal Code and is entitled as a "Child Endangerment Statute" which is a separate felony. Titled Section 273a, it states:
273a. [a] Any person who, under circumstances or conditions likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care and custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes or permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
[b] Any person who, under circumstances or conditions other than those likely to produce great bodily harm or death, willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, or having the care or custody of any child, willfully causes or permits the person or health of that child to be injured, or willfully causes of permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health may be endangered, is guilty of a misdemeanor . . .
*Within each state it is the legislature who decides how the child endangerment statute is applied.
*Georgia is the only state in the nation without felony child endangerment statute. (information provided: http://www.marktaylor.com/families.html ).
Child abuse or neglect is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as:
When a child's parent or custodian, by reason of cruelty, mental incapacity, immorality or depravity, is unfit to properly care for him or her, or neglects or refuses to provide necessary physical, affectional, medical, surgical or institutional care for him or her or is under such improper care or control as to endanger his or her morals or health.
(Information provided: http://www.madd.org/activism/0,1056,4210,00.html)
Religion aside, this is downright cruelty. This is abuse.
If we were speaking of "consenting adults" that would be one thing...but these are kids, minors...who are trusting their parents to make the best decision for their well being. I would feel the same way regarding ANY religion that would endanger the welfare of a child by not allowing adequate medical treatment because of the religious preferences of the parents. I think when the life of a child is involved and there is choice between the welfare of a child and the parents "right" to enforce their religious convictions, the child's life should ALWAYS take precedence.
It's funny. I live in Ga (notice above we are the ONLY state that has no felony child endangerment statute). And where I live, you hear of parents who won't even allow their kids to go to the doctor because of "their" religious preferences. Kids who die from a simple cold, or from an untreated, infected sore. People think that is cruel. I ask, what is the difference between what they are doing and what the witnesses do?
It is amazing...there is a much stronger link between the subject of Pedophilia and the denial of blood transfusions to a minor than would immediately meet the eye. BOTH are abuse, both affect the welfare and the very LIVES of millions of children in a <6 million and growing> organization. I applaud the work of AJWRB and Silent Lambs.
Bona
Edited by - Bona Dea on 25 August 2002 11:38:57.....I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THE RED OUT
Edited by - Bona Dea on 25 August 2002 11:40:35
-
Nowfree
I agree that we do live in a democratic world and people do have the right to choose treatment for themselves. However, when an individual is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO RECEIVE A BLOOD TRANSFUSION OF ONE OF THE FOUR PRIMARY COMPONENTS WITHOUT LIVE CHANGING RAMIFICATIONS FROM THE RELIGION.
The JW Public Affairs Office issued a Statement to the Media on 14th June 2000, it states "If a baptized member of the faith wilfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating the step. This represents a procedural change insitituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same, the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith."
That statement was issued following the case that went to the European Court of Human Rights (Application no 28626/95 "Christian Association Jehovah's Witnesses v Bulgaria). The applicant (WT Society) "undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association".
That effectively meant that they could no longer DISFELLOWSHIP an individual for accepting a blood transfusion. But the WT Society publicly announced that if an individual accepted a blood transfusion, he would "revoke his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating the step". So the end result is the same. The individual would be shunned, cut off from the congregation, from family, from friends.
The Watchtower Society lied to the European Court of Human Rights because THERE IS NO FREE CHOICE IN THE MATTER, THERE ARE CONTROLS AND SANCTIONS. Hypocrites!
Any Jehovah's Witness from the age of 10 and upwards would understand the ramifications of accepting a blood transfusion. They would be cut off from the congregation, if they are not a minor then they may lose their family, home and friends. The pressure to REFUSE a blood transfusion because of such threats would be strong.
In this situation any decision made by a patient would not be made without fear of such ramifications.
Medical staff would have to get the consent of any adult and "older child" before the procedure is carried out.
The following is an interesting point based on Case Law (UK Mental Health Act 1983) which highlights were "consent given by a child" for refusal or treatment may not accurately reflect the INDIVIDUALS TRUE WISHES:
Section 55 (Part IV of the MHA 83) 1-629
(4) For a child to be able to give informed consent, they have to be deemed to be "Gillick competent" - if the treating doctor concludes that the child has reached an age where she has sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable her to understand fully what is proposed and to be capable of making up her mind on the matter. The child must be able to understand the nature of the proposed treatment, its side effects and the consequences of not receiving it. IT is therefore possible for a child to be found to be competent to make a decision in respect of a treatment that may have minor consequences, but not to be competent to make a decision in respect of a treatment that may have major consequences.
(5) The clinician needs to consider whether the decision is really that of the child. "The real question in each case is. "Does the patient really mean what he says or is he merely saying it for a quiet life, to satisfy someone else or because the advice and persuasion to which he has been subjected is such that he can no longer think and decide for himself?" IN other words, "is it a decision expressed in form only ,not in reality?" (per Lord Donaldson M.R in Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) 1992 All ER 649,662. His Lordship further stated that when considering the effect of outside influences, two aspects can be of "crucial importance". The are "the strenght of will of the patient" and the "relationship of the 'persuader' to the patient". With regard to the latter his Lordship said that the "influence of parents on their children can be, but is by no means necessarily, much stronger than would be the case in other relationships".
(9) There have been a number of occsions when the court has used this jurisdiction to override the wishes of parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses who have refused consent to life-saving blood transfusion for their children; see for example, ReE (A Minor)(Wardship: Medical Treatment) (1993) 1FLR 386. Per Ward J at 394 : The court, exercising its prerogative of protection should be very slow to allow an infant to martyr itself".
I thought it fascinating that Jehovah's Witnesses are specifically mentioned in this Section. It highlighted to me how aware the authorities are of the real dangers posed to children by this cult.
Nowfree
