I would dance for the future saved lives, then cry for all those who died prematurely. Medical doctors will sing praises to Jehovah. Fox News would have a ticker, "Jehovah's Witnesses reverse blood ban." It might get a 1 minute spot on national news channells - but not much more. Pat Robinson would call the JW's a false religion (which he already does, so no big news there). After four days, the world will stop talking about it and go on the next, bigger news problem. Think about it, no one out in the "real world" really cares about what the WTS is doing, or not doing, anyway. The Watchtower Society would use the short-lived bad press as further proof of persecution. The WTS would find a way to make the change into "New Light" or find a way to say that we all misunderstood the original blood ban (aka Y1975 correction). In the end the WTS will prove itself right, as it always does.
skeeter1
JoinedPosts by skeeter1
-
21
If the blood transfusion ban was lifted tomorrow......
by Gill in.
if the blood transfusion ban of the wtbts was lifted tomorrow, and having blood was left to 'the conscience' of each member, ie they would not be announced as 'no longer one of jehovah's witness', if found out, what effect would this have on the beliefs of the standard ordinary jw?.
would they remember all of those who died for 'the cause' and realise their deaths were in vein, or would they just swallow the 'new light bs?
-
-
-
41
What kind of house would you like to have?
by averyniceguy ini would like to have a very big and very nice hot whirlpool tub inside the house.
what kind of house would you like to have?
-
-
skeeter1
One with NO mortgage.
-
7
Blood
by KW13 inhey folks, listen with me being 17.... mum gave the doctor some documents about me not taking blood when i was a jw.
will these of expired?
with me living with my mum can i get them removed/cancelled?
-
-
skeeter1
No problem. Now, just don't get in an automobile accident. Otherwise, it's unlikely that you'll need blood. Grow old & prosper, KW.
Skeeter
-
44
Is There Any JW Belief That You Still Believe In?
by minimus inwould you have any qualms about taking blood??
do you believe in a paradise earth?
do you think there is only one "truth"?
-
-
skeeter1
Distinctly JW beliefs....I believe in smoke free lungs.
It's "nice" to think of a Paradise on [Earth], not growing old, and never dying. But, I like the John Lennon "Imagine" version better - imagine no religion. As long as there is A religion, there is something to fight over.
Heaven, Hell, Trinity, etc.....I'll let you know when I die.
Skeeter
-
7
Blood
by KW13 inhey folks, listen with me being 17.... mum gave the doctor some documents about me not taking blood when i was a jw.
will these of expired?
with me living with my mum can i get them removed/cancelled?
-
-
skeeter1
In the above post, sorry for the numbers. Those are footnotes, that did not post through.
-
7
Blood
by KW13 inhey folks, listen with me being 17.... mum gave the doctor some documents about me not taking blood when i was a jw.
will these of expired?
with me living with my mum can i get them removed/cancelled?
-
-
skeeter1
I do not know if you are in England or Wales. The laws differ slightly. If you are 16, you should be able to tell your doctor that you would want to take blood, and ask him to keep this in confidence from your mother. Your mother can refuse that you not take blood, but only when it's not a necessity. At the point where it's a necessity, the doctor should go to the court and ask the court to override your mother's decision. However, as an advanced minor, it looks like you can choose your own life-saving medical treatments. So, you need to pick up the phone, and talk with your doctor. Show him Dr. Whooley's article too. (Brittish courts are less likely to allow advanced minors to refuse life saving medical treatment). Following is an excerpt from an article by Sarah Whooley in the Brittish Journal of Medicine's June 24, 205 edition. The name of the article is "Jehovah's Witnesses: What are their rights? Children of Jehovah's Witnesses and adolescent." It talks about UK, Canada, and Austalia laws as well. I downloaded it from adc.bmjjournals.com . Below is the excerpt on the UK Skeeter **************************below is excerpt on UK laws**************************************** United Kingdom Well established in British law, is the fundamental principle that every person’s body is inviolate.44 Traditionally, under British law, while regarding the child’s welfare as paramount, 45 courts respect parental wishes concerning children’s medical treatment.
46 Parents have the right and the duty to give proxy consent, where required, for a minor.
47 Some arguethat when parents refuse treatment, any procedure is an assault on the child. 48 However, as parental rights and duties are not absolute, 49 existing only for the child’s best interests, 50 the court, ultimately, has overriding control. 45 Established in 1875, 51 he prevailing law in British jurisprudence regarding parental treatment refusal on religious grounds remains unchallenged: parents who fail to obtain medical treatment for their children, are subject to criminal liability even if their refusal is religiously based. In contrast to the USA, there are only three JW cases in the UK contesting the well established legal opinion on parental treatment refusal. In all three cases (
Re O, 52 Re S, 53 Re R 54 ), permission for transfusion was granted, confirming the judicial opinion of the US courts: the child’s interests are paramount. The court did stress, however, that although the child’s welfare is paramount, consideration would be given to parental beliefs, particularly when the situation was not imminently life threatening. . . .
ADOLESCENT JEHOVAH’S WITNESSESThe rights of adolescents to refuse medical treatment vary throughout the world and this judicial inconsistency creates confusion among healthcare workers. In England and Wales, mature minors may consent to, but not refuse, treatment, with the courts using the ‘‘best interests’’ test to override the opinions of adolescents. In Scotland, although the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act does not specifically refer to treatment refusal, the inference is that a child deemed competent could refuse, as well as consent to, treatment. In North America, the situation for mature minors is state/ province dependent.
United Kingdom The legal position with regard to mature minors remains ambiguous. In 1969, the Family Law Reform Act 62 set the age of consent for medical treatment at 16 but did not specifically deal with parental-child conflict. The implication, however, is www.archdischild.com that a child’s consent to a procedure overrides parental opinion. If refusing treatment, however, parents (and indeed the Court) in England and Wales may override the child. In Scotland, this is less likely to happen.In a child under 16, four main issues arise: (1) the child’s capacity to consent to treatment; (2) parental authority and its limitations; (3) whose view prevails when parents andchildren clash; and (4) the extent of the courts’ powers over adolescents. Gillick v West Norfolk 63 considered the first three issues, with the majority of the House of Lords holding that, if a child under 16 could demonstrate sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully the treatment proposed they could give their consent to treatment. 63 If they failed this competency test, parental consent is required. Unfortunately, treatment refusal was not considered. However, this case did specify the limitations of parental rights: ‘‘parental rights are derived from parental duty…exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of…the child’’. 64
The logical inference from Gillick 63 is that competent children are competent to both accept and refuse treatment; yet subsequent decisions 65 66 suggest that a child’s refusal may be overridden by a proxy’s consent to that treatment and that the child’s refusal, while important, may not be conclusive. 66 Re R 67 sought to clarify a minor’s right to refuse treatment. However, by emphasising that, unlike adults who are presumed competent, minors must prove their competence, 68 and by suggesting that as both parents and children were keyholders to the door of consent, 69 parental consent would be sufficient in circumstances of disagreement, the court undermined the Children Act 1989, which sought to enable mature minors to make medical decisions. 70 Additionally, Lord Donaldson made it clear that the court, in addition to parents, could override a minor’s decision. 71 Essentially this case disempowered minors with regards treatment refusal. Re W 66 confirmed the courts ability to override parents, children, and doctors when performing its protective functions, but imposed limits on the power to overrule, with the judge stating that this power should only be exercised if ‘‘the child’s welfare is threatened by a serious and imminent riskthat the child will suffer grave and irreversible mental or physical harm’’. 72 All three cases concerning adolescent JWsrefusing blood
73–75 reinforce the decisions made in Re R 67d Re W . 66
The initial test of the ‘‘ Gillick competence’’ concept came in Re E . 74 With parental support, a JW aged 15 L refused theblood transfusions associated with conventional leukaemia treatment. Court approval was sought to treat him. His parents argued that his wishes should be respected, as he was nearly 16, at which point his consent would be required. 76 In a carefully reasoned judgment, the judge overrode both the child and his parents, deeming the child not ‘‘ Gillick competent’’. 77
Ward J recognised not only the distinction between knowing the fact of death and fully appreciating the deathprocess, but also the absence of freedom in a teenager 78
‘‘conditioned by the very powerful expressions of faith towhich all members of the creed adhere’’. 74 Confirming wardship and authorising treatment for the welfare of the child
, 79 he concluded that although parents may martyr themselves, the ‘‘court should be very slow to allow an infant to martyr himself’’. 74 Re S 73 presented the court with a further opportunity to clarify the question of minors and treatment refusal. Influenced by her mother, S had been attending regular JW meetings and decided that she no longer wanted the blood transfusions necessary to treat her thalassaemia major. Court intervention was requested and after careful consideration the judge declared S not ‘‘
Gillick competent’’. 73 Despite an outward portrayal of confidence, 73 S lacked the maturity of many girls of her age, had led a sheltered life, and showed a lack of understanding about her disease, the mode of death, 80 and the seriousness of her decision (believing in miracles and not understanding that transfusion refusal would certainlyresult in death). 81 The court should therefore authorise treatment in her best interests.
In Re L 75 the decision was much easier. The young JW had serious burns and it was impossible to explain to her theseverity of her injuries or the unpleasant nature of her death 75 which would occur without vital blood products. The court deemed her
Gillick incompetent because, despite the sincerity of her religious beliefs, she was only 14 and had limited life experience.
Logically, the Gillick competence concept should ability to both consent to and refusal of treatment. Nevertheless, underEnglish and Welsh law, minors have no absolute right to refuse medical treatment. 82 In the cases described above, the courts concluded that although the minors showed some evidence of maturity and understanding, they lacked sufficient understanding and experience to refuse treatment offering a high probability of success at a relatively low risk.
Where treatment refusal was religion based, there was concern about the child’s freedom of choice in the context of a religious upbringing in addition to concerns about whether the child fully grasped the implications of treatment refusal. Thus, while a child’s refusal should be considered, it is likely that the court will override the refusal in the child’s best interests. 83
Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses 717 on 24 June 2005 adc.bmjjournals.com Downloaded from -
33
Biodiesel... until the car fueled by water is reality... :)
by bebu inmy husband and i are planning to make biodiesel for our diesel car.
looks like it will be a hobby for him-- he enjoys chemistry.
we will make a fumeless processor, and put the whole setup in our basement.
-
-
skeeter1
Oil laws are one of my specialties. Here are my ideas if I were to run for el Presidente.
#1) We currently pay farmers to NOT grow corn in order to keep the corn prices "high." What if we removed the subsidy, put the farmer to work, and had cheaper corn supply to produce cheaper biodiesel? We could also get out of Iraq (and Iran). My Vice President & wing man, Willie Nelson to the rescue! Check this out....http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/
#2) Certain seaweed has a high oil content. Instead of digging up the Louisiana wetlands to build pipelines to carry oil to refineries....use the coastal towns to farm seaweed for biodiesel.
#3) Our tax laws give "deductions" for Hummer's, but not enough support for hybrid cars (once production per manufacturer is over 50,000 units, no more credit). Get rid of those Hummers, and get a diesel. Same for all the boats - go sail or go diesel.
Vote for Skeeter for President! (I am over 35, and born in the U.S. of A. But, I do tawk funny sometimes).
Skeeter (of the "On the Road Again" class). :-)
-
70
JW's TORTURES DAUGHTER TO DEATH
by DannyHaszard ingirl's brother testifies father fatally beat her
chicago tribune, united states - 20 minutes ago .
... avenue, chicago.
-
-
skeeter1
Wow. Is Jehovah in control?
I feel so bad for the families who lost the most precious things they had. It's more that just upsetting.
I used to not forward this information to my JW family members. No more. I shoving all of this back into thier faces. I'm tired of my sibling telling me about a family who "over spanks" her baby in the book study....then my sibling has the audacity to try to place a WT on child rearing with my family in the same hour! Wake up, smell the abuse.
Skeeter
-
59
I need to lose weight. but HOW?
by Sirona ini've gained a lot of weight recently.
i really need to lose some.
now, my diet isn't the problem as such....its the excersize part.
-
-
skeeter1
When at a restaurant, VOW to leave 1/2 of your plate still there. I don't (can't) do it, but my spouse does and has kept as thin as when we first met.I did try "Fit for Life". It worked the best. My old boss swore by it. He used to be very heavy, and has remained a very slim man ever since - something like 15+ years. Basically, it's all fruits in the morning (cantaloupes, strawberries, watermelon, oranges, etc), lunch and dinner are either a veggie + protein or a veggie + carb. Never, never, never are carbs & protein allowed together. When I did it, I also drank skim milk &/or sugar free yogurt with each meal.
I also tried "South Beach" I lost alot of weight, but my gall bladder area hurt from lack of carbs.
As far as excercising - biking or swimming or farm work. The best is going elk hunting for a week - guaranteed 15 pounds gone.
Skeeter
-
153
I've got $500 on Taylor Hicks to win American Idol ( 10 to 1 odds ) : )
by a Christian ini've got $500.00 on taylor hicks to win american idol.
at 10 to one odds ( pinnacle sports ) !
normally i'm not a gambling man.
-
-
skeeter1
At this point they are all good. How would I rank them?
#1) Kat
#2) Chris (almost tied to Kat)
#3) Paris
#4) Elliot
#5) Taylor
I am missing Pickler already. Her "Walking after midnight' was a great night for her. I culd see Kelly not only as a singer, but as a spokesperson - like for Travel TV. Kelly reminds me of Samantha Brown in front of the TV. She is a cute, sweet, and bubbly gal - the type that has broad appeal to all.
Skeeter