Are They Eager To Avoid Dead Kids?

by metatron 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • metatron

    I just found this over at Kent's site

    The tone of the comments seems oddly eager to compromise. I guess the Society has discovered the convenience

    of the 'Sabbas Goy' in dealing with their problems.


  • Scully
    'Doctors should make transfusion dilemma decisions'
    2004-08-06 11:20:02+01
    Doctors can go against parents wishes to grant life-saving blood transfusions to children, it was claimed today.

    Brendan O'Farrell, chairman of the Jehovah's Witnesses Dublin Hospital Liaison Committee, said a court's permission was not necessary to give essential blood products to children whose parents forbid it on religious grounds.
    Mr O'Farrell said: "When it comes to the crunch a doctor has the right, if he feels the child is going to die, under common law to administer blood. All he needs is to have a colleague okay it. Why pre-empt the whole thing by getting a court order?"
    The High Court yesterday told surgeons at Our Lady's Hospital for Sick Children in Dublin's Crumlin they could carry out a blood transfusion on a five-month-old baby girl.

    The girl's mother was objecting on religious grounds to the use of blood products needed during life-saving open heart surgery.

    The court heard the baby's mother had signed a consent form for the use of blood products but had withdrawn permission following "support" from her Jehovah's Witness community.
    Mr O'Farrell said he was not familiar with the specifics of the five-month-old girl's case but that there was an alternative way of doing things.

    He said communication between the hospital and parents must be the way forward to avoid the trauma of removing constitutional rights from parents.

    "We believe there are alternatives to blood transfusion and that is why we have our hospital liaison committee," Mr O'Farrell told RTE radio.

    "We truly appreciate the dilemmas that doctors go through. Worldwide there is an upsurge in interest in bloodless medicine and surgery."

    Mr O'Farrell said the community which is against blood transfusion for religious grounds has a good relationship with the Crumlin hospital.

    "There are many doctors in Crumlin, or some doctors who would go the alternative route," he said.

    "They would do the surgery and if the crunch comes administer blood rather than pre-empting everything and going and getting a court order which shifts everything."


    "When it comes to the crunch a doctor has the right, if he feels the child is going to die, under common law to administer blood. All he needs is to have a colleague okay it. Why pre-empt the whole thing by getting a court order?"

    It almost sounds as though they are trying to set things up so that they have two pigeons to sue and set up precedents under Irish Common Law. He's baiting a trap....

    Love, Scully

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex
    Why pre-empt the whole thing by getting a court order?"

    To prevent just what you're talking about Scully.

    Geez those guys are sleazy.

  • metatron

    I think compromise might be the better explanation. We need to consider the thought that the organization in Europe

    may be more advanced in going mainstream. There was some feeling that the emergence of "Branch Offices" over

    "Your Brothers" ( in Brooklyn) indicated a change sometime back - with the possibility of some branches making

    discrete adjustments according to local legal and social needs.

    They need European money for funding Third World expansion. With low birthrates and high atheism, Europe looks

    more like a long term lost cause to the theocrats - and their lawyers may advise them to tread carefully after public

    lying by the Watchtower about blood transfusion policy in particular. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I see

    them stuck with a huge defeat in France on taxation. Things are not going their way in Europe and they may know it.


  • Monski

    Scully, how d'ya become a forum assistant? What do you have to do?

  • Stephanus
    Europe looks more like a long term lost cause to the theocrats

    I agree with Meta - Europe is a different kettle of fish. The theocrats have gotten very adept over the years at bullying the Good Ol' US of A, with it's constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. Europe, on the other hand, (for the most part) hasn't got the same scruples re seperation of church and state. This reminds me of the (official) compromise in the face of Bulgarian opposition to their registration. A softly, softly approach is more likely to get them further in Europe than their typical North American approach.

  • MerryMagdalene

    I'm afraid I don't have a very good grasp of such matters as this but am wondering if, perhaps, it isn't all summed up in this one fragment: " avoid the trauma of removing constitutional rights from parents."

  • funkyderek
    "When it comes to the crunch a doctor has the right, if he feels the child is going to die, under common law to administer blood. All he needs is to have a colleague okay it. Why pre-empt the whole thing by getting a court order?"

    The reason is to avoid the malpractice suits and defamation that a doctor who acts in this manner would be subjected to by the Watchtower legal machine or individual JWs. In Ireland, the legal position of doctors in such cases was in doubt. The constitution guarantees "bodily integrity" and there was no clear ruling on the rights of children in such cases. This particular case was the first time the High Court has pronounced on the matter.

    See the article I posted at for more details.

    Note especially the last paragraph:

    The High Court decision makes absolutely clear for the first time that under Irish law, doctors will be acting lawfully when they override parents' religious objections to give a blood transfusion in a child's best interests and where not to transfuse would create a serious risk to the life or health of the child.
  • Pterist

    Don't blame the doctors for your family member's decision not to receive a blood transfusion and your decision to stand by and support their denial...

    January 10, 2014

    "DETROIT, MI -- The Michigan court of Appeals ruled in favor of doctors Friday in the case of a woman who died at St. John Hospital in 2007 after refusing a blood transfusion because she was a Jehovah's Witness.

    The estate of Gwendolyn Rozier sued several physicians and St. John Hospital, arguing that medical malpractice led to the need for a blood transfusion, and that doctors knew about her religious convictions but failed to prevent the loss and weakening of her blood after a kidney transplant.

    Many Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept blood transfusions because of interpretations of bible passages that direct followers to "abstain from blood,"according to , a website run by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.

    Rozier, 55, of Oak Park, received a kidney from her daughter in a Aug. 15, 2007 surgery and returned to the hospital three days later complaining of abdominal pain.

    Doctors found that her body was rejecting the kidney and could not save the transplant, in part because Rozier signed documents denying consent for a blood transfusion, and her husband stood by the denial, according to courtdocuments.

    The transplanted kidney was removed and Rozier died Aug. 29, 2007.

    Rozier's estate argued that by prescribing blood-thinning medications, ordering daily removal of blood plasma and failing to recognize signs of internal bleeding, doctors contributed to the need for a blood transfusion and to her death.

    But a Macomb County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case and the appeals court upheld that decision Friday.

    "Reasonable minds could not disagree that reasonable efforts were not made to avoid Rozier’s death and the resulting damages," Judges Pat M. Donofrio and Jane M. Beckering wrote in the court opinion. "The trial court did not err by concluding that the doctrine of avoidable consequences precluded plaintiff from recovering damages for Rozier’s death."

    Judge Mark T. Boonstra in a concurring opinion added:

    "Our opinion should not be interpreted as reflective of any viewpoint regarding religion... In this sad case, Gwendolyn Rozier and her family made a choice, and decided to forego a blood transfusion that likely would have saved her life...

    "The choice was hers to make, whether for reasons of religion, or for altogether different reasons entirely, or in fact for no reason at all. But as in any aspect of life, where choices result in consequences, Ms. Rozier’s choice resulted in a consequence for her. Sadly, that consequence was her death."

    A lawyer for Rozier's estate told the Associated Press the case will be taken to a higher court and that the doctors who treated her were sought out because they had experience working with Jehovah's Witnesses."

Share this