Yes - but many cases have ended up in court with deaths of JW children and I don't have to like nor respect what the WT has caused. I do respect the justice system and, thankfully, the DIF/family service is involved.
Mexico News Daily: Blood transfusion case before Supreme Court
"The Rarámuri woman has charged that in overruling her to make medical decisions on behalf of her child, she has been discriminated against on grounds of her ethnic origin and religious beliefs."
Note "ethnic origin " ....J W lawyer pulling the race card.
Yes - but many cases have ended up in court with deaths of JW children
Court rulings sometimes results in the death or harming of people. -But they have the power and authority and enjoy immunity and have the final say. --And the rule is to transfuse. What do you want to do, use violence to overturn Roe vs Wade? ( So much concern about JW children!)
The WTS/JWorg likes to convey the impression publicly that they are law abiding citizens who obey the law. This is a fallacy - they only obey the law if and when that law agrees with their objectives. And only then.
The org issued a letter to elders that gave advice on "how parents can protect their children from the misuse of blood". The letter concludes with this advice to parents:
If a court order is issued despite one's best efforts, continue to ask the physician not to transfuse and to urge that no blood alternative treatments be utilized.
In other words, use the law to demand that no blood alternatives be used, but if things don't go your way in court, continue to defy the law and do things the way that the WTS/Org tells you to behave. Demand no blood alternatives. Always. Stand your ground. Disobey court orders. Demand alternatives.
This court case in Mexico is entirely scripted and directed by the WTS/Org. The JW parent and child are only pawns in the WTS' deadly game. They are only following the WTS directives to demand no blood alternatives.
It's the encouragement of this almost fanatical approach to preventing certain blood transfusions taking place that makes it so hard for the WTS to back down on the doctrine. It's not just life and death from a physical perspective - they have made it life and death in terms of the stakes with God. Do EVERYTHING you can to resist. RIP out the needle. Having blood is analogous to RAPE. There is NO COMPROMISE. If a Witness does not do this then they risk ruining their relationship with God.
I listened to a PT yesterday on blood - full of logical inconsistencies and outright lies. The indoctrination continues regardless of the fact it is an horrendous policy with more holes that sieve. They cannot back down completely and so the circus continues.
konceptual: it is an horrendous policy with more holes that sieve
Yes, it is a horrendous policy. But, it is a policy that delivers guinea pigs to a niche market of noblood alternatives.
The world of bloodless medicine, AKA noblood alternatives, owes its existence to the private investment of JWs.*
*reference available...need more coffee to go look for it. If anyone wants this reference, let me know - I have posted it before
Sorry for the typo. I meant more holes than a sieve.
The feed into the world of bloodless medicine is interesting and there is no doubt that somewhere along the line there are Witnesses making money. I've no idea if the WT corporation has a financial interest in the technology and is profiting from such an inestment, if so then the exposure of this would constitute a scandal in my opinion.
I don't think that anyone would deny that medical advances that improve outcomes and reduce risk are valuable but the whole point of the WT doctrine is that certain blood transfusions are prohibited purely for doctrinal reasons and the relative safety of a procedure is irrelevant.
continue to ask the physician not to transfuse and to urge that no blood alternative treatments be utilized.
How does doing this: "continue to defy the law " and "Disobey court orders."
This court case in Mexico is entirely scripted and directed by the WTS/Org.
Are you accusing the Court in this case?
I think the mother has somewhat of a point in all this. In other words, if there are viable medical treatments, which don't include blood, why should the state impose a specific medical treatment?
This does not seem to be a case where a blood transfusion is the only option -- if it was, then I would support removing custody from the mother. But it's not, thus the mother should be allowed to chose a treatment that is viable and that is in line with her delusional views.
Er no FM... in this case court offered the plaintiff a route to try an alternative, only reverting to a court order to enforce a transfusion if the alternative did not work.
The plaintiff did not accept this. She wants the threat of a court order removed completely.
Do you think this woman is acting alone or will she be acting with the support and guidance of the WT legal team?
It's another example of the WT arguing beyond a reasonable position purely for the sake of their doctrine. The law says X, the WTS wants Y. Will they accept X? No.