Jehovah's Witness wants SCC to overturn new law

[MHz]

I could be mistaken but i have heard that if you are a JW and you need an operation (not an emergency) you can donate your own blood before said operation, that way you are receiving your own blood (products). In the case that is not possible I would think the parents blood (one of which should be compatible) would suffice. That should eliminate the threat of getting 'contaminated blood' (unknown diseases) which is why they have that there in the 1st place, as far as I know.
Under 16 or 18 deserve as much protection from death as possible.
http://www.ajwrb.org/review6-15-04.shtml
Conclusions
The June 15, 2004 Watchtower makes several things clear:

1. It makes clear what the WT organization permits and what it forbids to JWs in the way of using from the donated and stored blood supply.
2. It makes clear that JWs do, in fact, use from the donated and stored blood supply.
3. It makes clear that the WT does not necessarily speak for a majority view of the JW community.

However the same article leaves many questions unanswered:

1. Ethically: How—and why—do any JWs continue telling the world that JWs abstain from donor blood when JWs regularly use from the donor blood supply?
2. Ethically: How—and why—do any JWs continue tolerating premature death over medical use of donor blood since JWs already regularly use from the donor blood supply?
3. Theologically: If it were true that God "determined to reserve blood for use in one highly important way," then why would WT doctrine permit on one hand uses of blood in ways other than how God uniquely reserved, yet on the other hand forbid uses of blood in ways other than how God uniquely reserved?
4. Medically: Should the medical establishment depend on the WT for information on what medical treatment is acceptable to the JW community?

The June 15, 2004 Watchtower makes an attempt to substantiate the WT blood doctrine, but it fails in this attempt. It not only fails to provide rational bases for unique distinctions of what is forbidden and what may not be forbidden from a theological perspective, it also fails to provide scientific bases for distinctions it makes of constituents fractionated from blood. 10

However, by means of a chart the WT does for the first time provide published information that clearly delineates what its doctrine forbids and what it tolerates. Members of AJWRB are concerned for the well-being of JWs and therefore want to further publicize the benefit of having this information so that more lives are not lost prematurely in the confusion of trying to figure out what the WT will permit them from blood and what the WT will shun them for regarding blood.
Because the WT admittedly does not necessarily speak for a majority view of JWs, then treating physicians have all the more reason not to assume what therapies are acceptable to individual JWs based on what the WT says. Every reasonable effort should be exercised to provide individual JW patients with ample opportunity to communicate preferences privately and away from coercive requirements taught and enforced by the WT. Physicians should know and understand that the mere presence of another JW—including immediate JW family members—may be sufficient to hinder autonomous decisions because the WT teaches JWs to report any infraction of WT teaching for disciplinary action. 11 Again, it is essential that doctors treat JW patients as the individual JW wants to be treated rather than treating him or her as the WT wants them treated. If doctors do the former they nurture the patient. If doctors do the latter they nurture a religion.

 

[karrie]

Then the other half of the argument lies in the child making their own informed decisions on the matter and those decisions being respected.

That is so difficult to judge though Prax. With this girl, I can't know without knowing her and her parents, if what the courts decided was right or not. How much brainwashing has she received. What have her parents told her would be the consequences of choosing treatment? There's just not enough info in this little article to say if she was in the position to choose rationally for herself or not.

 

[tracy]

I disagree, and it isn't an equivilant to food and water.

When a child is in a coma, or is on life support due to some tragic accident or physical condition, who makes the decision to pull the plug and why?

Believe it or not, it's usually the family AND the doctors but it does depend on the specifics. In my experience, if the child has no chance of surviving or surviving intact, most docs will recommend stopping treatment and do so if the family agrees. If the family doesn't, they will keep treating even though it's futile because it's the family's wishes and it isn't causing any further harm to the child.

If the child is likely to recover and this is just a temporary thing, then the doctors are not legally allowed to stop treatment because the family wants to pull the plug. The reason why is that children are different than adults. Children shouldn't be sentenced to death just because they were born to people who don't want certain procedures. Medical care is considered a basic. It is like food and water. Denying a child needed medical care is neglect. A parent has the responsibility to keep their children alive and healthy when that's possible. If they don't do it, child protective services has to step in.

 

[tracy]

And by the time a court does that, the child has most likely been forced into the treatment they're in the courts to fight to begin with.

Maybe or maybe not. It takes time for the hospital to get a court order. I've seen judges rule against the hospital before. They obviously had the time to investigate the matter enough to decide the hospital was wrong, so they would have time to assess a child to see if they should be considered a mature minor or not.

 

[Praxius]

That is so difficult to judge though Prax. With this girl, I can't know without knowing her and her parents, if what the courts decided was right or not. How much brainwashing has she received. What have her parents told her would be the consequences of choosing treatment? There's just not enough info in this little article to say if she was in the position to choose rationally for herself or not.

Fair enough, but brainwashing? Isn't anybody's input on anything a form of influence on your own opinions and judgement.... hince Brainwashing? Perhaps we're brainwashed to think all these perscriptions we take daily are good for us?

Slippery Slope when we start trying to label who's brainwashed and who's actually using their own sound judgement.

 

[tracy]

As an adult, I personally don't believe in Blood Transfusions, or Vacinations for that matter... not for some religous reason(s) but based on my own path in life I wish to take..... I don't give a sh*t what some doctor thinks it best for me

As an adult you have that right. No one will argue that you don't.

This issue isn't just about forced medical treatment, it's about whether we let children make life and death decisions when they are not mature enough to appreciate them. It's about whether we allow parents to deny their children needed medical care.

 

[Praxius]

As an adult you have that right. No one will argue that you don't.

This issue isn't just about forced medical treatment, it's about whether we let children make life and death decisions when they are not mature enough to appreciate them. It's about whether we allow parents to deny their children needed medical care.

The issue is both forced medical treatments and if we allow our children to make serious decisions that directly relate to them.

And ffs people.... Once again and I'll Bold/Uppercase this for those visually impaired: THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS DENYING MEDICAL TREATMENT OR NEEDED MEDICAL CARE. IN ALL OTHER CASES PRESENTED RECENTLY, THEY WANTED TO SEEK ALTERNATE TREATMENTS BESIDES WHAT THE DOCTOR WAS DICTATING AND THEN FORCED ONTO THE CHILD.

Seriously how many damn times to I have to repeat this before people let it sink into their damn heads. The debate isn't getting very much further because people keep back tracking to thinking about parents just out-right refusing treatments all together, when this hasn't even been the case in the above examples. And I even presented an argument for children making their own decisions above which I left wide open for debate as well.... yet we're right back to the above comments.

You know what? forget it... I'm done with this debate, as it's going nowhere.

 

[EagleSmack]

This reminds me of a case in which the parents allowed their child to die from a blocked bowel. The poor boy suffered in excrutiating pain until he died. The parents claimed it was against their religion to seek medical treatment. What was funny was the father wore eye glasses and had recently been to a dentist to have a tooth removed. The prosecution was all over that.

GUILTY

 

[MHz]

The debate isn't getting very much further because people keep back tracking to thinking about parents just out-right refusing treatments all together, when this hasn't even been the case in the above examples. And I even presented an argument for children making their own decisions above which I left wide open for debate as well.... yet we're right back to the above comments.

A minor can't make those types of decisions, they get to make life and death decisions once they reach 18, until then those rights belong to whoever is their guardian.

What is stressing you out is that bloody animated gif, you are starting to take on that personality.

 

[#juan]

Ok, let's play that scenario out for a second:

Let's say there were no religions in existence.... and someone still refuses treatment proceedures based on some personal reasons they believe a lot in, should the doctors still ignore their own wishes and perform whatever they damn well please on their bodies because they know what's best? Since when have doctors become dictators?

And once again.... you're all still stuck on this "Denial of Treatment" when it's already been shown above and has been explained countless time by myself alone, that they did not deny medical treatment, they sought alternative medical treatment besides the suggested treatments they were forced into.

And once again, children can and do make those decisions.... our laws require change.

Praxius
Doctors are who we go to for medical care. It is the doctors who we rely on to make the decisions on which medical procedure to use.. Yes I'm stuck on "denial of treatment" because that is what it is. The doctors make the decision not some dopey religion. The doctors have years of training and years of experience and are far better qualified than any holy roller preacher.

 

[Praxius]

A minor can't make those types of decisions, they get to make life and death decisions once they reach 18, until then those rights belong to whoever is their guardian.

Bzzrrrp, wrong apparently since the doctors override the guardian's wishes in these situations.

What is stressing you out is that bloody animated gif, you are starting to take on that personality.

I've been that personality for years now... I'm just losing my politeness.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius
Doctors are who we go to for medical care. It is the doctors who we rely on to make the decisions on which medical procedure to use.. Yes I'm stuck on "denial of treatment" because that is what it is. The doctors make the decision not some dopey religion. The doctors have years of training and years of experience and are far better qualified than any holy roller preacher.

*Starts making simple symbols with hands:*

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT HOLY ROLLER PREACHERS.....

I am talking about the fk'n parents and children who have to face the decisions these doctors run them through based on typical proceedures accepted by the majority. You goto a doctor for medical treatments and ADVICE, Not for them to just suck you into their little world and do as they please regardless of your own wishes.

They are the ones with years of education in these matters, and better qualified then most to suggest and perform such medical proceedures.... but doctors should not have the right to take away children or individuals against their will to perform whatever they damn well please because they think they're always right.

NEWS FLASH: Doctors are never always right, and they do not always know what is best and following standard proceedure dosn't work for every and all medical cases.... they are humans like you and I and screw up just as much as you and I... they even have their own religious and personal views of certain things too that influences what proceedures and practices they use over others.

• My brother apparently busted up his knee a few months ago and they told him he'd need surgery, a leg brace, at least 12 months of rehabilitation and would never be able to walk normally ever again.... he hasn't had the operation, is still walking now, and is still working at that.
• My Girlfriend busted up her ankle in a similar fashion, told all the same damn things, went through the operation, the operation failed and the ankle busted again and needed to go through more operations and more pain/suffering.... oh and at the start of it, they told her nothing was wrong with her ankle and sent her home, only to be sent back in an ambulance the very next day after it started to change color and get worse. They said after the second surgery she wouldn't be able to walk without a brace either..... she's walking without one now.
• I was supposed to be wearing glasses for all of my life, because my vision was apparently bad, I even went into an operation because of this..... my eyes are still the same as they always were, and I haven't been wearing any glasses since grade 5..... wanna know why? Because the doctors fokked up on the god damn tests, that's why, and I never needed glasses or that stupid operation to begin with.

I could go on with many more medical cases I know of first hand, regardless of others I have read in the media.... Doctors are not always right and they don't always know what's best and the moment I have a doctor attempt to force a proceedure on myself or anybody within my family against our educated opinions on the matter (And yes, we have medical experience in our family.... it's not exclusive to doctors) will be the moment that doctor gets a fk'n scalpel in the eye.. and they can throw me in jail if they wish, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow some asshole in a suit make any of my children suffer or go through something they do not wish to do, based on their educated opinion on the matter (Given that you actually explain the situation to them, anybody and their monkey can make an educated decision on it, regardless of age)

The doctors oath is to defend against not just physical harm but mental as well, and if their actions are going to screw someone up mentally for the rest of their lives, such as the girl in post #1, then they are going against their oath.

I don't give a crap how it is, I give a crap about how it should be, and the way it currently is, isn't right.

 

[#juan]

Praxius that is paranoid nonsense. If your doctor wants your child to have a blood transfusion to save the child's life you can if you want, get a second opinion. If you prevent the procedure from happening and the child dies, you are guilty of manslaughter. We've used the same doctor for over twenty years and on at least two occasions, that doctor has saved our child's life. I don't know where you got your wild distrust of doctors, but your attitude could be putting your children at risk.

 

[Tonington]

Doctors are not always right and they don't always know what's best and the moment I have a doctor attempt to force a proceedure on myself or anybody within my family against our educated opinions on the matter (And yes, we have medical experience in our family.... it's not exclusive to doctors) will be the moment that doctor gets a fk'n scalpel in the eye.. and they can throw me in jail if they wish, but I'll be damned if I'm going to allow some asshole in a suit make any of my children suffer or go through something they do not wish to do, based on their educated opinion on the matter (Given that you actually explain the situation to them, anybody and their monkey can make an educated decision on it, regardless of age)

Of course doctors aren't always right. But who do you go to when you're ill? It's not a bloody mechanic. You go to someone who has specialized training because, we rationally expect that they are: a) competent at their trade, b) know more about the alternative treatments than the lay person, c) can relay the likely outcomes of the various procedures to us, and d) recognize telltale symptoms that indicate the better course of action. Of course even then we can still choose the riskier procedures (provided our provincial health plan covers the procedure.)

Just because the parents were trying to get alternative treatments though, doesn't mean that they were well informed of the range of outcomes. The kid is starting at a disadvantage right off the bat, because they don't "believe" in certain proven treatments.

And again, not all cases that go before the courts result in a decision backing the doctors advice. Like we have stated here, they're not always right. Sometimes it takes another doctor with more experience to show the court that the advice is not the best course of action.

The doctors oath is to defend against not just physical harm but mental as well, and if their actions are going to screw someone up mentally for the rest of their lives, such as the girl in post #1, then they are going against their oath.

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority."

Mental illness can be treated, death can't.

 

[Risus]

I don't know why mama government thinks it has the right to stick its damn nose into everything.

No doubt due to a lack of consequences I suppose.

Situations such as this needs someone to safeguard the public, a minor in this case, just as they don't condone assisted suicides. No one has the right to play God in deciding if it is in the best interest of the patient to risk death.

 

[Praxius]

Praxius that is paranoid nonsense. If your doctor wants your child to have a blood transfusion to save the child's life you can if you want, get a second opinion. If you prevent the procedure from happening and the child dies, you are guilty of manslaughter. We've used the same doctor for over twenty years and on at least two occasions, that doctor has saved our child's life. I don't know where you got your wild distrust of doctors, but your attitude could be putting your children at risk.

1st off, listing off real life 1st hand examples of these situations isn't anything near being paranoid, considdering them to be actually true.... it's a simple fact that doctors are not always right and that doctors can and will (through any given time) will make mistakes and may make your life worse then how it was before.

2nd, my attitude will not have any interference in my child's life, nor have any risks added to them then any other normal time in life. I will tell my children what the problem is, what the suggested solutions to the problem are, what the side effects and/or risks involved in those solutions are, present them with the options the doctor suggests, if I don't feel comfotible in the final outcome of that option or I feel there might be other ways to go about it, I will then present other options to choose from, if I need a second opinion, I'll get one.... but in the end of it all, I will not just blindly throw my child into a "One and only solution, suck it up" scenario. If my child makes an informed and educated decision on what to do that directly relates to them, then I will follow it through. If I feel they did not take the situation seriously and may have decided on the wrong choice with limited chance of sucess, then I will make the decision for them as the parent.... and then the doctor either carries out the chosen proceedure, or we'll get another doctor who will.

I am not saying I don't listen to doctors and what they suggest and that I would refuse treatment for any children I may have in the future.... I am saying that I will listen to what the doctor has to say, what his recomendations are, and if we agree with the treatment to use, then we will follow through..... but I take serious offense to doctors and officials like the above forcing what they think is best above and beyond all other available options.

And let's face it... there are always alternative options out there.... not all doctors agree to the same proceedures for every case... that's why there are other options to begin with.

And this is the exact same stance I take on vaccinations.... I will not just blindly allow doctors or schools to inject vaccines into my children without my research on what is being put into my kids and my approval. I will take a look at what the vaccine is supposed to do, what it's potiential side effects are, what risks are involved for my children based on their own personal medical history, and then I will decide if it is right for my children.

Like I said, this process of thinking I have doesn't mean I will refuse and reject any and all treatments out there.... I'm just saying that they have more rings of fire to jump through before they can just go and do as they please with myself or my family, and if that means they have to take 5-10 more minutes out of their days to explain these things properly and educate their patients, then that's what it takes.

 

[Praxius]

Of course doctors aren't always right. But who do you go to when you're ill? It's not a bloody mechanic. You go to someone who has specialized training because, we rationally expect that they are: a) competent at their trade, b) know more about the alternative treatments than the lay person, c) can relay the likely outcomes of the various procedures to us, and d) recognize telltale symptoms that indicate the better course of action. Of course even then we can still choose the riskier procedures (provided our provincial health plan covers the procedure.)

Agreed, but see, you also touched on my point I was trying to make:

"Of course even then we can still choose the riskier procedures (provided our provincial health plan covers the procedure.)"

In the above cases, there were alternative treatments the patients in question wanted to take, but that "Choice" you spoke of was ripped away by a court order.... that's the problem I have. The parents were not refusing treatment for their children, they were refusing the one treatment in paticular the doctor was forcing on them, when they were willing to face other options of treatment.

Just because the parents were trying to get alternative treatments though, doesn't mean that they were well informed of the range of outcomes. The kid is starting at a disadvantage right off the bat, because they don't "believe" in certain proven treatments.

They probably do believe in those treatments and that they work, they just go against their religious beliefs and thus they refuse the treatment.... and if they mentally think they are going to goto hell because they were forced to do something against their religion, then what kind of mental conditioning is that going to affect throughout their lives after the proceedure? Is it the right way to think about these situations? Probably not, but people do and one can not dismiss that. In some aspects, people can feel they have not only gone against their religious teachings, but they have completely cheated and altered their course of their lives as it was originally planned out by their God(s).

Myself, I feel that organ donation and blood transfusions, etc. are a method of cheating your natural life to prolong it for as long as you can..... there's nothing wrong with wanting to prolong your life, but everybody has their own line they don't cross as to how far one goes with this... and it should be respected, no matter how foolish we all think it is.

And when people want to relate their thinking to brainwashing due to a religion, well brainwashing also occurs when someone leaves a religion too.... truth is subjective, and we each have to make the decisions that suit our own lives, and if that means we might die a little sooner then most, then them's the breaks.

And again, not all cases that go before the courts result in a decision backing the doctors advice. Like we have stated here, they're not always right. Sometimes it takes another doctor with more experience to show the court that the advice is not the best course of action.

"To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority."

Mental illness can be treated, death can't.

But sometimes when you decide to go and get a second opinion, the doctor will get the court order before anything can be done with the second doctor, and claim that there isn't any time to get a second opinion, or that they're off to get some quack doc in an alley to suit their argument...... I mean with the case of the child who was forced into a second batch of chemo, the father said they thought they were just going in for a regular checkup/update and then then issued the court order to them and took the child away from them and locked him in isolation in the hospital not being able to see any of his family until it was all said and done.... exactly what do you think that does to a child?

And the first time he had the Chemo, it failed and he came back with cancer.... then they forced him through another batch of Chemo, with the same odds as the first. What happens if/when it comes back in the kid? He would have been thrown right back into all that pain, suffering and seperation from his family for nothing, nobody is held responsible for it, and chances are, they'll force him to go through a third batch of chemo via a court order and put him through even more suffering.... exactly when does someone draw the line on this type of insanity and just let a family accept the inevitable and just be a family during the remainder of their time together?

I would almost relate it to how someone determines just how long after a heart stops, that you keep on try CPR to get it going again.... some will quit right away, some will be rational and quit after they know there's nothing that can be done, and other's will keep on going and going until someone else stops them.. everybody is different and everybody has their own understanding of mortality..... I just feel in certain situations those understandings should be respected.

And as a reminder, no I am not for a family refusing any and all forms of treatment for an illness when it comes to their religion, but I am for a family and a child's right to choose what kind of treatments they are put under.

 

[tracy]

The issue is both forced medical treatments and if we allow our children to make serious decisions that directly relate to them.

And ffs people.... Once again and I'll Bold/Uppercase this for those visually impaired: THE TOPIC IS NOT ABOUT PARENTS DENYING MEDICAL TREATMENT OR NEEDED MEDICAL CARE. IN ALL OTHER CASES PRESENTED RECENTLY, THEY WANTED TO SEEK ALTERNATE TREATMENTS BESIDES WHAT THE DOCTOR WAS DICTATING AND THEN FORCED ONTO THE CHILD..

What alternative treatment was she seeking exactly? If she was actively bleeding to death, there aren't any alternative treatments that are going to keep her alive. If she could have been treated with just volume or with blood products JWs are allowed to take or with meds like Epogen or something, I'm sure they would have done it. I've seen docs go to great lengths to avoid transfusions before. Maybe I see this differently because my experience with docs is that NONE of them are eager to get into a dispute with families. They don't want to involve state authorities, they don't want to risk bad publicity, they don't want to risk the family losing it and getting violent or suing them. There is really very little upside to them seeking a court order.

 

[talloola]

Every few years the government has to step in and save the life of some child who's parents are Jehovah's Witnesses, or some other branch of Holy Rollers who for religious reasons won't allow a medical procedure that will save the child's life. The child is not old enough or mature enough to make that decision. I think the government has to step in in these cases. Why should the kid pay with his/her life because of the stupidity of the parents.

Yes, I totally agree, let them whine and complain all they want, but save the lives of minors who's parents would let them die, for religious reasons. When the child is an
adult, then he/she can make that decision for themselves. No one should be allowed to
knowlingly take the life of another, (especially your own child, how stupid and thoughtless), do it to yourself, but not your child. In this country we don't allow people to 'kill' people, simple.

 

[ShintoMale]

Agreed, but see, you also touched on my point I was trying to make:

"Of course even then we can still choose the riskier procedures (provided our provincial health plan covers the procedure.)"

In the above cases, there were alternative treatments the patients in question wanted to take, but that "Choice" you spoke of was ripped away by a court order.... that's the problem I have. The parents were not refusing treatment for their children, they were refusing the one treatment in paticular the doctor was forcing on them, when they were willing to face other options of treatment.



They probably do believe in those treatments and that they work, they just go against their religious beliefs and thus they refuse the treatment.... and if they mentally think they are going to goto hell because they were forced to do something against their religion, then what kind of mental conditioning is that going to affect throughout their lives after the proceedure? Is it the right way to think about these situations? Probably not, but people do and one can not dismiss that. In some aspects, people can feel they have not only gone against their religious teachings, but they have completely cheated and altered their course of their lives as it was originally planned out by their God(s).

Myself, I feel that organ donation and blood transfusions, etc. are a method of cheating your natural life to prolong it for as long as you can..... there's nothing wrong with wanting to prolong your life, but everybody has their own line they don't cross as to how far one goes with this... and it should be respected, no matter how foolish we all think it is.

And when people want to relate their thinking to brainwashing due to a religion, well brainwashing also occurs when someone leaves a religion too.... truth is subjective, and we each have to make the decisions that suit our own lives, and if that means we might die a little sooner then most, then them's the breaks.



But sometimes when you decide to go and get a second opinion, the doctor will get the court order before anything can be done with the second doctor, and claim that there isn't any time to get a second opinion, or that they're off to get some quack doc in an alley to suit their argument...... I mean with the case of the child who was forced into a second batch of chemo, the father said they thought they were just going in for a regular checkup/update and then then issued the court order to them and took the child away from them and locked him in isolation in the hospital not being able to see any of his family until it was all said and done.... exactly what do you think that does to a child?

And the first time he had the Chemo, it failed and he came back with cancer.... then they forced him through another batch of Chemo, with the same odds as the first. What happens if/when it comes back in the kid? He would have been thrown right back into all that pain, suffering and seperation from his family for nothing, nobody is held responsible for it, and chances are, they'll force him to go through a third batch of chemo via a court order and put him through even more suffering.... exactly when does someone draw the line on this type of insanity and just let a family accept the inevitable and just be a family during the remainder of their time together?

I would almost relate it to how someone determines just how long after a heart stops, that you keep on try CPR to get it going again.... some will quit right away, some will be rational and quit after they know there's nothing that can be done, and other's will keep on going and going until someone else stops them.. everybody is different and everybody has their own understanding of mortality..... I just feel in certain situations those understandings should be respected.

And as a reminder, no I am not for a family refusing any and all forms of treatment for an illness when it comes to their religion, but I am for a family and a child's right to choose what kind of treatments they are put under.

people denying their children medical attention don't deserve to be respected and this child is clearly brainwashed by her family. forcing religion down children throats is child abuse. and cut this alternative treatment crap. stop making excuses for this family