UK 'blood' court case re:2yo

by darkspilver 19 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Scully

    I've personally known a couple of families who have lost children over this idiotic ban on blood transfusions, prior to the WTS/HLC 'softening' the position on blood transfusions in Canada, where children are concerned.

    What about families like these, ones who did as WT commanded and opposed their children receiving blood transfusions? Had they been allowed to fast forward 20 years or so, it would not have been an issue and their beautiful children might be alive today.

    So, yes, in my humble opinion, the context in these cases *must* include a big fat "fuck you" to the WTS, the HLC and the toadies / Elders™ who robbed those families of their precious children, and murdered them by proxy.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    I want to join too in solidarity to profane bloggers. F---k them all (GB and BoE)

  • JunkYardDog

    I 'm with Pale Emperor; and up him one... I would like to stone them slow the gb and hlc bastards. with small rocks and watch them bleed to death VERY SLOWLY.

  • OrphanCrow
    darkspliver: But also, I suppose, it was a strange rant/useage, as this is an example of the 'elders' and 'governing body' very much taking a back seat and letting the court/hospital take the lead, without any drama or f'ing and blinding.
    Which is probably the best compromise and the reason why I wanted to flag this up with OrphanCrow.
    The parent's made written representations regarding their wishes and did not attend the court, the hospital was happy to follow those wishes, with the priviso that they could adminster a blood transfusion, if needed. The judge agreed. End of case. I thought the brief write-up and comments of the Judge were interesting, which is again why I flagged it up for OrphanCrow.

    It isn't that strange or odd if you take into consideration the decades of losing cases that the WT has faced whenever their child sacrifice practice gets challenged. For a bit of background on how the law has been handled in the case of minor children whose parents will let them die for a "god"...this is a good place to start:

    The Watchtower has known since 1944 that child sacrifice will not hold up in court but that hasn't stopped them from continually challenging the Prince ruling:

    Where Witness parents wish to refuse blood transfusions for their minor children, American law generally does not permit them to do so if there is no alternative course of acceptable medical treatment. As the US Supreme Court observed in the 1944 case of Prince v. Massachusetts, 72 “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow that they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.”

    Australia has a Blood Transfusion Act that has been in place since 1960 that will allow a minor child to be transfused (details at first link).

    In some areas of the world, the legal standards are such that a case like happened in the UK doesn't even get filed - that child gets transfused regardless of whether the parents follow a barbaric religious practice of child sacrifice. And, many many cases go through the courts on a regular basis - they just don't make the news.

    What the Watchtower has done - for reasons the reader can discern for themselves - is to ignore the law on minor children and continue to make the adherence to child sacrifice a measurement of adult JWs' spiritual standing.

    The secular world has recognized the right of a minor child to have access to life saving measures. The Watchtower does not recognize that the child has rights - they have continually pushed for the right of the family to be a sealed unit. That has been their legal argument from Day One - both with blood and with child sex abuse.

    A child, to the WTS, is property. To be used and abused as anyone sees fit. Including up for grabs to be used in the medical industry as tiny little guinea piggies.

    As far as the profanity is only extreme profanity that is a problem here, from what I have been able to discern.

    So...fuck the Watchtower Society and fuck all those parents who blindly lay their babies on the altar of the Blood God Jehovah. Fuck them all.

  • OrphanCrow

    I am still thinking about this....more thoughts

    You will notice what it is that the parents are pleading for in this case. They already know that they cannot oppose a blood transfusion for their child:

    "They are understandably unable to consent to what is being proposed but they do not oppose it and leave the decision to the Court."

    So what is all the fuss about taking this to court? a case that they don't "oppose"?

    Here we go:

    "They emphasise that they would want forms of treatment other than the administration of blood products to be considered..."

    And there we have it - the reason why the WTS continues to oppose the law on the matter of child sacrifice - to promote their alternative brand of medicine.

    One more thought.

    This concerns the Society's position in Australia that a mandatory reporting law for child abuse would fix the problem down there. Sez who? Why would the courts believe that? The WTS' record of respecting the law on minor children is completely the opposite. Laws that have been in place to protect children from having their parents use them for a sacrifice to the Blood God have been challenged over and over again in the courts. Why would we expect anything different with the laws put in place to protect victims of sex abuse when laws protecting the minor victims of their blood doctrine are still being challenged?

  • TheWonderofYou

    Crow are you coming outside for a smoke?

  • dozy

    This is a fairly standard legal procedure - by not consenting , the parents avoid any judicial action from the elders. They aren't allowed officially to give consent so the hospital has to get legal permission ( which is always granted in these circumstances ).

    We had a couple like this in our congregation - the mother admitted to my wife that they actually were pleased that their baby ( born prematurely ) had been given transfusions and none-Society approved blood products but they were told by the HLC that if they signed the consent forms it could be a DFing offence, as that would be tacitly perceived to be condoning the treatment. As ever in "the truth" - it's all about appearances.

    If the parents really wanted to kick up a fuss , they would appear personally in the court - not that it would make any difference , of course. Times have changed - remember that this is a group that used to talk about pulling blood lines from children's veins and getting young women to say that getting a transfusion was like being raped.

  • OrphanCrow
    Wonder: Crow are you coming outside for a smoke?

    Sure. Why not? I have some good green stuff here. We will stand outside, quote bibble scriptures and let that sweet sweet smell waft up to the Lord above.

    "...I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

    And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?"

  • darkspilver


    See You Next Tuesday

  • Crazyguy

    When it comes to the murder of children I think the word "fuck" is appropriate !

Share this