Posts by defender of truth

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

defender of truth

Edenone, do you have a belief in any kind of God, present or not present, right now at this moment?

4

JWs lose Charity status

by Gayle in

charity tribunal rejects jehovahs witnesses charities' latest appeal attempt.

governance | kirsty weakley | 9 apr 2015 a jehovahs witnesses charity has been refused permission to appeal a charity tribunal ruling that had denied it extra time to appeal against the opening of a statutory inquiry.

the watchtower bible and tract society and appealed the charity tribunals decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the charity commission.

defender of truth

It's okay Gayle. I apologise for being so curt with you. It's just that my heart leapt when I saw the title. No harm done. Thankyou for posting this, it is still very good news :)

284

I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?

by EdenOne in

it just dawned on me.

the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.

so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.

defender of truth

I attack bad ideas, unlike you I don't attack people.

I couldn't agree more, Cofty. ^^^ *liked*

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

Here you go Marvin:
www.ajwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/KM_School_Handout_on_Blood_2010.pdf
(Only links starting with www. are recognised I think)

4

JWs lose Charity status

by Gayle in

charity tribunal rejects jehovahs witnesses charities' latest appeal attempt.

governance | kirsty weakley | 9 apr 2015 a jehovahs witnesses charity has been refused permission to appeal a charity tribunal ruling that had denied it extra time to appeal against the opening of a statutory inquiry.

the watchtower bible and tract society and appealed the charity tribunals decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the charity commission.

defender of truth

No.

"The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and appealed the Charity Tribunal’s decision not to extend the period of time that they had to file an appeal into a statutory inquiry that had been opened by the Charity Commission. "

They have just failed to prevent a statutory inquiry. Very misleading thread title. Please don't get my hopes up like that.

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

And can someone please tell me if they can follow the point I'm trying to make..? I don't mind if you say 'no, what a load of rubbish'. But please explain why. OK, I'm done.

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

I know it's technically off-topic, but I just need to post this, as a reference for any who didn't know what I meant by
rape being viewed as fornication (and thus potential grounds for disfellowshipping),
if someone doesn't resist.
(There are stories and examples throughout, as well as all the quotes on the first page.)

www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/43055/disfellowshipped-being-raped?page=1

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

You have changed your horse in mid race. LOL. First, you advertize that the WT is secretly consenting to blood transfusions, but now you concede that they are not and you say that it is an acknowledgement and not an authorization..

Fisherman, I don't understand your reply. I only posted the article, trying to find out what it was all about. Where did I say that the Watchtower is consenting to anyone having blood transfusions? You don't seem to have read my post carefully enough to grasp the point.

The news article made it clear that this is not a consent form, and that no authorization is required from the parent.
The form states that JW beliefs do not allow for a blood transfusion.
You seem to be mixing up two seperate things.

I was talking mainly about the JW judicial consequences (or lack thereof) after the event, especially considering the Watchtower's stance on rape. The rest you can discuss with Marvin.

The parent in question obviously does not want their child to be in a life-or-death situation.
You may presume that the average JW would not want the child to have a blood transfusion even if their life is in danger, because of their religious belief that God would prefer that a life be lost rather than for someone to take in blood..
A victim does not want to be raped.

Let me try to be clearer, then:
So why would they not fight to take the child away from the hospital that is going to administer the blood transfusion, if taking in blood is so important to Jehovah?

Why would they acknowledge a transfusion may happen whilst at the hospital, then let a transfusion happen if, as the Watchtower would assume (according to the parents personal beliefs), they would rather die or fight to the death or be imprisoned than take in a transfusion themselves? Because they had no choice? Neither did the rape victim. They still had to resist, even to the point of death.

The fact that parents are signing these forms, and then letting the children be given a transfusion without putting up a fight, as it were, indicates to me that the parents either view submission to the authorities as more important than what God wants, or they do not believe that God wants a child to die rather than take in blood.
It's just my thoughts on how all of this relates to the after-effect of being raped and disfellowshipped for not putting up enough of a fight, the seeming injustice of it, and you haven't even responded, just done a lazy cut out of my post.

To reiterate: With this document, parents can allow someone to force their child, to break God's Law by taking in blood (as the Watchtowers claims), and then have no judicial commitee or anything, because they had a signed document from the HLC.

The hospital would always bear the blame, because the parents in a way had no choice, except for breaking the law and running away with the child, possibly endangering the childs life. But since when has endangering a life stopped JW's from obeying God's Law?). In the case of a rapist violating someone, the victim has at times taken the blame. Despite clearly having no choice, not even to physically flee.

Women (and men) have been taught by the Watchtower for decades that they should risk death, when faced with being raped, rather than just accept it and acknowledge that the rapist can do what they want. They were to fight to the bitter end.
Obedience to God was viewed as more important than the victims safety or life (even their family's safety depending on the situation).

There is no question that the victim did not consent to being raped.
But if they were not seen to have put up enough of a fight, they could be disfellowshipped or at least told that they needed to repent.. merely for acknowledging that the rapist had power over him/her and they could do nothing about it, so they did not try to resist.
The victim did not consent. They could not stop it. So they acknowledged it was going to happen and let it happen. What is the difference between that and this situation with parents signing acknowledgement forms with the help of the HLC (usually elders, I believe.)

Parents could sign one of these forms, acknowledging that their child may be 'violated' by a blood transfusion. Then they let it happen and don't have to face a judicial committee.
Win-win. Good for them. Seems like a double standard for the HLC people to be allowed to work on these forms and arrange them with hospitals. What happened to the old fight-Satan's-system-to-the-death mentality?...

And the fact that these have been used by various hospitals indicates that this has happened quite a number of times.

It seems to be a compromise, so that things would not have to get 'ugly and messy' for the JW's, and so the child would receive the blood that the hospital wanted to force on them against the parents wishes.
Some JW's in the past would have fled the country, or fought to the death, rather than break God's Law.

That is when I suggested that many JW parents who use this may be relieved that their child will not have to lose their life, because they do not privately hold the belief that it is better to die than to take blood into the body.

I don't know whether the Watchtower consented to all this or not, discuss that with Marvin, it's his article.. They did allow the HLC to make these arrangements though, or are you suggesting that only certain elders and the parents knew of it?

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

Secondly..

Fisherman said:

Regarding the document that you posted, since the authorities have the power to administer a BT with or without the document anyway, the parent is not...tacitly consenting to BT by signing it because the authorities do not need any consent or signature from the parent to administer blood to a minor they deem needs it.

Many governments or 'authorities' have (and have had many times in the past) the power and authority to do whatever they want to do to JW's, without consent. Many JW's have died due to opposing the authority and power of a government..

As a less dramatic recent example, Ashya King was made a ward of court, so his parents (and good for them, may I add, it all turned out well..) 'kidnapped' him and fled the country, running from the authorities to get their son the treatment they wanted. I am not suggesting for a minute that all parents should do this, it is merely an example of not consenting to authority.

My point?
Many faithful Jehovah's Witness will defy the law to get the treatment they want for their child, or even die (or let their children die in some cases) in order to stay loyal to Jehovah, in line with their deeply held religious convictions. They would rather die than agree to anything that would displease their God.

One example of this being that women were taught by the Watchtower that anything short of fighting and resisting being raped (even to the point of death) was a sin.

Some would view even signing a document indicating acceptance that the hospital can (from the point of view of a JW parent who believes that taking in blood, in any situation, is immoral and loathsome in God's eyes)
violate the body of their child and make them 'unclean' would be a compromise of their faith.

Would a JW woman sign a form that a non-JW rapist handed to her ( just for the sake of example, in relation to doctors being nonJW and the Watchtowers position that women should be willing to fight rapists to the death)
, stating that
'she accepts that he will violate her, she will not fight him every step of the way, and she acknowleges that she does not have the power to prevent him from forcibly violating her'?

If she did, that would not in itself be indicating tacit consent obviously, because he has the power to do whatever he wants to, and the outcome will be the same anyway.
But that hypothetical JW woman would have been disfellowshipped, if such a form were to have been presented at her judicial..

Not because of any consent issues, but because she accepted the man forcing her to break God's will, did not resist it happening even to the point of death, and signed something to show that.

It all smells of double-standards to me, to avoid negative media coverage and to improve their dealings with, and reputation with, the medical community.
It's just 'less messy and ugly' this way, as the news article noted.
(I'm not going to explicitly connect the dots here between the words 'messy and ugly' and the Watchtowers fight-rapists-to-the-death teaching, or being told to defy authorities even if it costs your life, but you know what I mean...).

Besides all of that, why would any JW parent sign something that acknowledges that the authorities can take their child and force them to break God's command?
I'd tell them where to stick the form if someone asked me to sign something that acknowledged their power to 'violate' my child if they decide to.

Unless the parent privately DID NOT view having a blood transfusion as being against Jehovah's will..
(after all, when human blood is transfused, the blood is not eaten.)

Consider this point from the news article:
"All the ethicists stress, as well, that some Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the blood ban, but are anxious that their green light to transfusion be kept confidential.
“Some families are really more concerned about other Jehovah’s Witnesses finding out they consented to the blood transfusion,” said Ms. Seller."
www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

Fisherman said:
It has not been established on this thread that the posted "agreement" is genuine and used by JW...

The evidence that suggests such a letter exists and is used, is abundant.. for those who are not biased:
“3. The JW Hospital Liaison Committee members supporting this couple inquired whether an option existed for them to sign a letter of understanding (LOU) indicating their acknowledgment that their child will receive necessary transfusions, without requiring either their explicit consent or [Child Protective Services] involvement to temporarily apprehend the child.”—(Frolic et al, Opening the Black Box of Ethics Policy Work: Evaluating a Covert Practice, The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 12, No. 11, November 2012, pp. 3–15)"

And from the news article:
"Toronto’s Sick Kids... Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. [The hospital] also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion."

Justitia Themis
"The following seems to document the usage of a similar document in a 2006 or 2007 North Carolina case:
"Hospitals have an ethical obligation to delineate expressly to guardians of minors the parameters of the law and how medical care will be administered.
The institution operating the “blood conservation program” in the above case routinely utilizes acknowledgement statements in circumstances involving the medical care of minors whose parents seek to refuse blood transfusions. These statements serve as a tool ensuring and documenting that clear and complete disclosure of the hospital’s intentions are conveyed to the patient’s guardians . . .
Failure of the parents to sign such a document would not alter the care administered to the minor under North Carolina law in the event a life saving [sic] transfusion is required. From a legal and ethical standpoint, the statement serves to document formally that a clear dialogue was conducted between the hospital and the parents regarding the emergent administration of blood products.”
Paul R. Brezina & John C. Moskop,Urgent Medical Decision Making Regarding a Jehovah’s Witness Minor: A Case Report and Discussion, 68 NC MED J 312, 314 (2007)."
www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/244052/blood-transfusion-letter-understanding?size=10&page=3

Justitia Themis
"In the article I quoted earlier, the doctor actually directs physicians to www.noblood.com to obtain similar documents..."
www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/244052/blood-transfusion-letter-understanding?size=10&page=4

AS FOR THIS LETTER SPECIFICALLY:
"4. First hint of this document came in early 2008 after reading the article “Only flesh with its soul–its blood–you must not eat” (Dr. Christine Harrison, Paediatric Child Health, Vol. 12, No. 10, December 2007, pp. 867-868) and attempting to retrieve an unpublished referenced guideline titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Products within The Hospital for Sick Children. Success in obtaining the policy and the Letter of Understanding is recent. It turns out Dr. Harrison was the issuing authority within The Hospital for Sick Children for the policy and letter."

With just a little research, I tracked her down.

If anyone (FISHERMAN for instance) wishes to email her and confirm the validity of this letter, *PLEASE DO SO* rather than publically suggesting that the document may not be 'genuine'... find out for yourself (and please post here when you get a reply, otherwise me posting all this was a total waste of time):
www.jcb.utoronto.ca/people/harrison.shtml