Jehovah's Witnesses upset over losing Quebec judgm

by Kent 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • Kent
    Kent

    Jehovah's Witnesses upset over losing Quebec judgment on blood transfusions

    MONTREAL (CP) -- The Jehovah's Witnesses say they may appeal a Quebec Superior Court Court ruling that authorized a blood transfusion, a practice forbidden to church members.

    The rest of the story on http://watchtower.observer.org

    http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Site=WO&Date=20010803&Category=NEWS2&ArtNo=10803001&Ref=AR

    Yakki Da

    Kent

    "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
    http://watchtower.observer.org

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Good news. I'm all for religious freedom, but since the Tower doesn't practice it, it's good to see the state step in and protect people from their own delusions. After all, it's not adults being forced by the state to not commit suicide, just adults being prevented from subjecting their children to unnecessary martyrdom. Another good post, Kent.

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Okay folks here is the rest of the story.

    I contacted Elisabeth Gibbons at 514-934-1934, then press 2 for the Montreal Children's Hospital, and then ext. 2742.

    I told Elisabeth who I was and why I phoned.

    The teen actually never received a transfusion. But the doctors were worried the boy might so they got the court order. The family was not pushing it. It was actually the Watchtower (aka the HLC) that pushed this - those Bastards!!!!

    It happened back in May, 2001 but the Watchtower took the case to court anyway. Elisabeth couldn't figure out why the Watchtower wanted to push this case even after it got resolved. I told her of the New Brunswick case where the teen actually got the right to choose and told her to be careful. Elisabeth indicated there was no information on a further apeal by the Watchtower at this time.

    I gave my phone number to her if she or any of her hospital staff need help and the web site for AJWRB ( http://www.ajwrb.org . I also told her there was valuable information for both the doctors and lawyers on how to handle the Hospital Liason Committee people.

    Just trying to help save children's lives and thanks for the link Kent.

    hawk

    The story is as follows:

    Jehovah's Witnesses upset over losing Quebec judgment on blood transfusions

    MONTREAL (CP) -- The Jehovah's Witnesses say they may appeal a Quebec Superior Court Court ruling that authorized a blood transfusion, a practice forbidden to church members.

    August 2, 2001

    In the end, the 16-year-old who signed a refusal form while in hospital last May didn't require a transfusion but the Jehovah's Witnesses feel an important principle is at stake.

    Leonce Crepaud, a church spokesman, said the beliefs of Witnesses must be respected.

    "This is a religious affair," he said Thursday. "If we refuse blood, it's for religious reasons."

    The belief about transfusions stems from Bible passages in which Israelites are instructed not to eat the blood of animals. The Witnesses take that to mean they can't allow the blood of any animals -- including humans -- directly into their bodies.

    Crepaud added "there are many substitutes" for blood that can be used during surgery.

    However, the grounds for any appeal weren't immediately clear because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled transfusions may be given to a minor without consent.

    Montreal Children's Hospital, which obtained the authorization of Justice Maurice Laramee for any needed transfusions, said its main concern was the boy's health.

    The youth, whose name hasn't been disclosed, was treated for leg injuries.

    Hospital official Elizabeth Gibbon said the hospital tries to respect the wishes of family members and it's "very rare that we go to this recourse" of obtaining a court order.

    "A surgeon who knows there's a risk of a patient bleeding is not going to undertake the surgery without being able to give the blood," Gibbon said.

    "On the other hand, if the surgery isn't absolutely necessary, he'll give the family the choice."

    In his ruling, Laramee cited a Supreme Court decision that held transfusions can be given to a minor, in spite of objections and even if the child's life isn't in danger.

    "The fact that the child or the mother object doesn't change anything," said Laramee, noting there's nothing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to justify a refusal.

    He said it would be unreasonable to prohibit a blood transfusion if medical professionals believed the procedure was necessary.

    The Supreme Court held in 1995 that a child's right to necessary medical care supercedes a parent's right to religious expression.

    The Witnesses are upset because Laramee, who listened to testimony from the mother, didn't hear from the youngster himself, whom Crepaud called a highly articulate teen.

    "He was ready to speak to the judge but he was never approached."

    Crepaud said alternative methods to blood transfusions can be used in surgery "and often people recuperate faster."

    But Gibbon said while there are new products available to replace blood used in transfusions "it's not clear yet if it replaces everything in the blood", including oxygen.

    "You can replace the fluid but you've got to make sure that what you're putting in is really what the patient needs," she said.

  • Moxy
    Moxy

    i dont know too much about this situation but as many are well aware, quebec has been the focus of a lot of legal trouble for the WT for a long time and it has intensified recently. i believe the WT would like to prevent either precedent being set for the entire country or problems for freedom in a possible sovereign quebec in the future (less likely now than it seemed a few years ago when the blainville stuff was going on.)

    crepaud, the spokesman in the article, was specifically sent to quebec to head up the legal dept there about 4 years ago IIRC.
    mox

  • Fredhall
    Fredhall

    I would say that the first 3 who posted are bastards.

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Moxy,

    Doesn't matter - Children's Aid Society of Toronto that went to the supreme court was the main case that decided this puppy.

    But I dam sure they will try for a push that this kid was actaully a "teen" who could think like an adult much like the New Brunswick case that the WTS won. The judge didn't buy the WTS arguments but maybe, just maybe the upper court may say, hey lower court you should have taken evidence from the "teen" instead of the mother - thus, we are throwing your decision out and lets have a new hearing in the lower court.

    I will be keeping track of this case as close as I can and will help the Children's Hospital legal beagles all the way. Kent if you pick up anything let me know via this board or through Maximus.

    They picked the wrong year to start doing this.

    hawk

    Fred - I know how feel and why you are here. Its good to have you around. Take care and have a great weekend sir. I notice your spelling is improving.

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Bastards because we don't want to see childrens' lives sacrificed to the vengeful WBTS gods (AKA GB)? Coming from you, Fred, that's high praise indeed. LOL

    And Hawkaw's right - albeit a short sentence, you got it right!

    Q: How do you know a Dub loyal to "Jehovah's Organisation" is lying?
    A: Their lips are moving.

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Yes, you're right about this being the wrong year, Hawkaw. Now that the institutionalised protection of child abuse is exposed, we now have them arguing for the right to murder children arbitrarily - not a good move!

    Q: How do you know a Dub loyal to "Jehovah's Organisation" is lying?
    A: Their lips are moving.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit