Would the W.T. be open for massive lawsuits if they changed blood policy? (page 4)

hubert

Thanks for the reply, coffee, but of course I was hoping for a more positive answer.

Hubert

No lawyer would take the case on a contingency basis is what you meant. A lawyer would persue it if you paid the way. But to get to trial against the WTS would cost you about $ 150,000.... money better spent on writing a book, spreading the word of thier falsehoods, etc...

And besides the WTS has bilked all of us out of too much time, money, and energy no?

My grandmother died in the recovery room after a routine hip replacement because she wouldn't take blood :(

hubert

Awww. That sucks, evil.

Sorry to hear that.

Hubert

Oroborus21

Greetings:

EvilForce: I know it may sound unbelievable, but lawyers do have an ethical duty not to press forward or even bring a lawsuit in the first place that they believe to be without any merit.

Some attorneys, including myself, will even go further and simply tell the client when they don't have a case. It doesn't pay the bills but it is the right thing to do.

Of course, there will always be someone with looser ethics (morals) that will try to find any basis for a lawsuit, no matter how tenuous and there are some that sincerely believe in their causes, even in the face of fact and law (e.g. witness the Terry Shiavo's parents attorneys).

Hubert:

I realize I never responded to your two questions. I would have to examine exactly the Bulgarian agreement document to make some educated guesses. But a fundamental principle of contracts (and it isn't clear that the WTS-Bulgarian agreement has that status of being an enforceable contract) is that of STANDING.

Simply put if the WTS "broke the contract" or didn't honor the agreement, it is possible that the Bulgarian government itself would have STANDING to bring suit but it is unlikely that anyone else (especially "unidentified 3rd Party beneficiaries of the agreement," i.e. Bulgarian witnesses) would have standing to bring suit to enforce the agreement or for damages.

As for the second question regarding different treatment or laws or agreements between nations/jurisdictions serving as a basis for a lawsuit.

As a BASIS for a lawsuit no. The mere diversity in treatment is not enough to serve as the basis of a lawsuit.

But as Evidence, yes. In other words, if for example at a trial in the U.S. if the WTS said something like "WE NEVER MODIFY OUR STANCE AGAINST BLOOD", the opposing counsel could break out a copy of the Bulgarian Agreement and say "Oh Yeah?!".

-Eduardo

EvilForce

In my medical opinion she died because of the blood policy. During the surgery she lost a fair bit of blood, (not massive amounts), the doctor, knowing he could not use blood at all as an option over expanded her blood system w/ blood replacement items knowing that blood replacement isn't as effective at transporting oxygen and such. This started a cascade of issues which eventually overwhelmed her cardiac and pulmonary systems.

I was in med school at the time and started a debate w/ a "local elder on the hospital committee" on where the biblical proof was in not allowing someone to store a couple of units of blood prior to a surgery. This one the other final belief system flaw I could not accept from the Jo Ho's. The 1914 thing first, then this blood thing.

So it's ok to get an organ transplant? Yes. - I asked the elder how he thought that "jived" with the bible. I asked him to explain how the remaining blood in any organ during transplant figured into this. Do you think they give that organ a hose down w/ bleach or something?

Storing up blood? No, can't do it. - This would be "eating blood" again because you are removing the blood and then putting it back in the body....but what about dialysis I ask? That's removing the blood and then putting it back in. He responded, "no it's different it's just expanding one's circulatory system."

White blood cell transfusion? Yes. - That's actually a tissue, not blood per se.

After a couple of hours, I found his answers to be legalistic and petty without regard to the "INTENT" of the Mosaic law. I of course asked him how we were supposed to know which of the Old Testament rules we were still under law to uphold and which one's we weren't. Apparently it should be apparent. I guess eating blood vs. wearing a shirt made of two threads or eating shell fish is apparent to everyone else other than me.

From here on out my belief in the J'dubs went down the tube. That was in 1989. I think I had quit going completely other than a memorial here and there sometime in 1990 / 1991.

seesthesky

EDUARDO: "Simply put if the WTS "broke the contract" or didn't honor the agreement, it is possible that the Bulgarian government itself would have STANDING to bring suit but it is unlikely that anyone else (especially "unidentified 3rd Party beneficiaries of the agreement," i.e. Bulgarian witnesses) would have standing to bring suit to enforce the agreement or for damages."

umm - i thought third party beneficiaries to a K could sue - so long as they're identified - e.g., the beneficiary to a life insurance policy can sue the insuring company if it refuses to pay benefits even though the beneficiary was not a party to the contract

Oroborus21

In some cases an identified 3P beneficiary can sue to enforce a contract that is for their benefit. Again without seeing the Bulgarian agreement (again assuming it has contract status), its impossible to say whether a Bulgarian JW might have standing. From the excerpts or summaries of the agreement that I have read on the Net, JWs in Bulgaria are only referenced tangentially and so any JW would probably be considered "unidentified" and also only incidently a beneficiary of the contract and thus he/she would not have standing to enforce it in his/her own right.

-Eduardo

Lois

More than likely there would be a mass Exodus of members from the congregation because all these years they have been taught to abstain from blood. This is the reason I believe they won't change their policy. Imagine all the countless members who could have been saved if only they could have received the precious gift of blood.

Take a man and woman having the same height and weight. The woman has less blood volume than a man. My sister was a J.W. and died 1998 at the age of 49 .She was diabetic and had a heart problem. Her elders in the congreation found a doctor who would perform bloodless surgery on her heart. Even though she had average blood loss during the operation....the day afterward she went in cardiogenic arrest, lapsed into a coma and died. There wasn't enough blood flow to sustain her vital organs. I will believe till the day I die that if she had a blood transfusion it would have boosted her system enough for her to survive. I heard he doctor say that the fillers that J.W.'s use in place of blood is like running kool-aid through the veins. In other words...it doesn't have the nutritional value of a normal blood transfusion.

Not one elder was there at the hospital where she was operated on...before, during or after her surgery to be there for her, her husband and children to pray for them or give moral support. Of course she was about 3 hours from her hometown, however they could have contacted any congregation in the state...near the hospital she was in...to be there for them during this traumatic event.I watched my sister take her last breath of life and feeling this didn't have to happen if only she would have been given a transfusion.

I later informed her pastor vie a letter; "She may have been baptized a J.W....but blood is thicker than water and she knew where the true love was and that was with her (flesh and blood) family (brothers and sisters...none of us were J.W.).

There is suppose to be separation of church and state, however when it comes to life endangerment whether in a physical or mental act...then for humanitarian reasons the state should have the right to intervention (for children not of the aged to decide)and religious beliefs shouln't have any weight to support unrealistic beliefs. After all...life is precious in the eyes of our Lord.

hubert

((((Lois)))))

Sorry you lost your sister to this cult blood policy.

Welcome to the board.

Hubert

greendawn

I believe it is not a straight forward case that the WTS can not be held liable for JW deaths due to their blood policy. It's easy to say that they didn't force them to refuse transfusions but this is transparently false.

It was the WTS that stuffed their heads full with the ideas that drove them to over-ride the mighty will to live and choose a (needless)death and they certainly did pressure them into taking those fatal decisions. It's loathsome hypocrisy when they claim that they have nothing to do with those deaths. Simply if the WTS didn't exist all those deaths wouldn't occur.

I am sure they know that an able lawyer can most probably beat them in a case at court and get heavy compensations out of them and they are worried sick about it given the number of deaths involved.

Would the W.T. be open for massive lawsuits if they changed blood policy?

Share this