Bookmark and Share

Viewed 10401 times

KS Blood-Handout s-55-e (PDF)!!!

    M dozy posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 09:29:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 778 of 1498
    Joined 2/18/2006

    Thanks YKnot.

    How do the WTBTS reconcile their statement in the legal submission to the Bulgarian authorities:

    "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

    with the passage in the elders letter that states that the action of a parent that allows a doctor to potentially transfuse blood as "not be viewed as a compromise by the congregation." This would clearly imply that any parent who did authorise a transfusion would be viewed as a compromise by the congregation (and would therefore be dealt with judicially , potentially being disfellowshipped.) Yet the WTBTS clearly state in law that no control or sanction is enforced.

    It would be helpful to get this document into the hands of medical authorities & lawyers. If it saves even one childs life , then that would be an achievement.

    M Doubting Bro posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 13:42:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 1095 of 1575
    Joined 2/22/2006

    Thanks so much ynot and your source!! Fantastic, this handout is available before the elders in my area even go to the KM school.

    I didn't pick up anything new but cerainly there is no softening of the position. To think I would have once let someone I love die because of what a stupid religion told me to do shakes me to the core.

    M sir82 posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:00:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 4852 of 8925
    Joined 5/17/2005

    I find this paragraph pretty astounding:

    Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

    Really?!?

    Saying "Oh I don't care if l'il Suzy dies, I'll see her in the resurrection on a paradise earth very soon now" might make a judge think you're stone cold bonkers?

    Gosh, I never would have figured! Thanks so much Watchtower!

    Hmm...so stating a core central belief of JWs may make others think you are "unreasonable"....what does that say about (1) JW doctrine, and (2) the JWs resolve to stand up for what they believe in, when the pressure is on?

    For any non-believing parents / relatives / concerned friends who are involved in such a case, now you know exactly what question to ask the doctor / judge / child advocate / whoever in the presence of the believing parent(s)!

    "So tell us, Father-of-child, how much does the hope of the resurrection factor into this decision you are making in behalf of the child?"

    M TD posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:43:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 2923 of 4748
    Joined 5/14/2001
    I think this shows that the chance of any type of reform, any time soon is nil. they are getting worse, not better

    Those who had a mind to do it have passed on. The janitors along with their wives are now running the boardroom

    respectful_observer posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:02:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 40 of 519
    Joined 5/28/2010

    "Some physicians or hospitals...will not give 100 percent assurance that they will not use blood...Nevertheless, when a cooperative doctor has performed similar procedures without blood in the past, he may assure parents that he will do everything he can to avoid using blood. Under this circumstance, parents may conclude that this is their best option. If they grant permission for treatment, parents should make it clear in writing that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion for their child...this would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."

    I find this paragraph facinating for three reasons:

    1. The WTS is putting in writing that a parent's "best option" may be to grant written permission for treatment to a doctor who "will do everything he can to avoid using blood."

    • The WTS lawyers carefully worded these statements. The legal construct used here is intentional. It's legal meaning is that parents are permitted to consent, in writing, to treatment that they acknowledge may include the use of blood.

    2. The parents are directed to also put in writing "that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion".

    • Again, the legal construct used by the WTS is intentional. It lays the foundation for the following statement, that "this [consenting to treatment that may include the use of blood after the doctor has done "everything he can"] would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."

    3. Thinking back the legal compromise made in Bulgaria: "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

    • This new KS Blood handount seems to be carefully aligning all of its blood policies to comply with any potential future legal/human rights challenges.

    This paragraph is, to me, the most significant portion of the entire KM Blood handout. The WTS is permitting parents to consent to treatment that may involve blood, yet it does so in way that the parents will not suffer any sanction by the congregation since it is "not viewed by the congregation as a comprimise. This paragraph protects the WTS's legal reputation to the authorities, yet allows it to protect its spiritual reputation to members.

    I'm sure many here will disagree, but I see this new handout as yet another way they are SLOWLY loosening their stance on the use of blood. (I think we all understand the legal/organizational implications of what would happen if they did it quickly, or even in a way that was perceptable to members.) Whether they're doing it out of a legal need, or whether they're doing it out of a recognition that their previous stance was not correct is up for debate. But anytime the WTS puts in writing that consent to treatment that may result in the use of blood will not result in any sanction, it's undeniable what direction the WTS is moving in.

    M undercover posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:14:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 11130 of 13134
    Joined 9/25/2002
    Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

    Holy Kool-Aid, Batman!

    Fuck yea, it'll convince the judge they're unreasonable. They're fucking cult nutcases.

    Seriously...it is a very enlightening statment. It's basically saying, "we're not a cult, but just so people don't think we're nuts, let's keep our belief in everlasting life via resurrection just between us, okay? No need to worry that silly ole judge with all that."

    Whatever happened to "We're Jehovah's Witnesses - We speak out in fearlessness"? How many "experiences" have we read/heard about nurses and/or family who were inspired by a patients steadfastness in their belief that this death was only temporary and the greater things were in store for them?

    I went to a JW funeral not too long ago where the elder speaker had the gall to say that the dead person laying in the casket was the lucky one!! Yea, she wasn't in pain. She didn't have to fight the world. She was only sleeping, waiting to wake up in a perfect world.

    What a bunch of fucking loonies...

    3dogs1husband posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:16:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 145 of 517
    Joined 10/10/2010

    Twinkle Toes,Sir82 and Undercover bring up great points. Jehovahs People have to be "preped" to know how to give a fine wittness, and not bring up anything that doesnt sound "normal" in other words lie. JW refuse blood because of fear of disproval of Jehovah which would make them unworthy of resurection/living forever, and the fear of shunning in this life. Simple...yet sounds crazy and the WT KNOWS THIS!

    I dont think most JW's get how prepped they are for what they should say, not what they really believe. Hmmm does this sound like an Org. run by lawyers or what. Just try to get a straight answer on any topic.....all you get is the preprogramed acceptable response.

    life is to short posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:32:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 662 of 2021
    Joined 8/22/2009

    Thanks so much.

    PSacramento posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:45:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 6639 of 10973
    Joined 6/22/2009

    I love the way the WT has made all the legal documents and met all the requirments to NOT be sued and has put ALL the LEGAL responsibility on the individual BUT has kept the theocractic ability to exercise the option for disfellowship.

    Nice legal work, worthy of Satan at his best deceiving.

    You can really tell how the WT puts their trust and faith on Jehovah in regards to the legal issues, er I mean, their trust and faith in LAWYERS that is.

    Barbaric to the max.

    Mad Sweeney posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:05:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 3400 of 6963
    Joined 11/2/2009

    respectful_observer, I'm not so sure this is a doctrinal conciliation as much as it is an acceptance of the fact that "we'll try not to" give a blood transfusion is the best they're going to get from many hospitals/doctors. You make a good point that the motive isn't really as significant as the result and I agree with it.

    Another important thing to think about is the age of the JWs this thing is aimed at. Your 50+ year old JWs, the ones who have old-school Borg doctrine in living memory aren't likely to have little kids that this letter/document applies to. This is aimed at the 20 and 30-something Dubs who don't even know what the details of the blood doctrine (or any other doctrine for that matter) is but who are JWs because all their friends and family are. These are ones who are likely to take "we'll try not to" give a transfusion as "good enough for me" in the first place because they're not hardcore JWs.

    This could well be an administrative move to ease the burden on elders and HLCs so that they don't have to form committees to prosecute JW parents as long as the doctor says, "I'll try."

    F Gayle posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:11:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 2071 of 4502
    Joined 11/17/2006

    The WTS has a history of making statements creating for themselves evolving "loopholes." The leadership is very good at it, mastery of double talk, at least, even their own rank & file followers hardly even notice it. Unfortunately, most rank and file JWs don't develop loopholes strategy skill, except only maybe after years of trying to survive/endure through the JW world/reality.

    Consequently, most JWs don't understand the "blood fractions" loophole of the GB, most just quickly, easily make a decision that they won't do "any" fractions, as that would be too complicated for most to try and figure out and how to justify to themselves. Even, putting something "in writing" will be too difficult for them to clarify, at that time of stress, that most won't.

    M sir82 posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:20:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 4853 of 8925
    Joined 5/17/2005
    This could well be an administrative move to ease the burden on elders and HLCs so that they don't have to form committees to prosecute JW parents as long as the doctor says, "I'll try."

    If that is the case, that would be very significant.

    It would indicate the GB is concerned with appearing cruel in the eyes of the world (or at least, the world's courts), and are willing to bend their doctrines so as to avoid such an appearance.

    They seem to have revealed a weakness.

    Could the next step be similar concessions in the area of shunning family members?

    Not likely it would happen in the US, but in the decidedly more secular European courts a well-planned lawsuit or 6 may prompt additional "handouts" in the future.

    M Doubting Bro posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:37:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 1096 of 1575
    Joined 2/22/2006

    This goes along with conversations I've had with someone I know on the HLC. We were talking about young kids (not "mature minors") and he described trying to fight blood for a young one as "pissing in the wind". He's right, they can get court orders easily and quickly and the only thing the parents get is legal bills (provided there's a non-WT lawyer involved), headaches and news coverage. He said that as long as the parent's objections are noted, they have done the best they could.

    Now, maybe this person disagrees with the WTS stance on blood and is a reformer. I just don't get that sense at all given what I know about him. He's also pretty moderate as far as elders with big circuit/district responsibilities go but I don't see him as a liberal. So, maybe that's what his personal ideas are but he presented them to me as the official HLC party line.

    I really think this handout is simply to save the HLC time from getting involved in every case when a young child needs an operation.

    BTW - the sentence about not talking about the resurrection hope just proves how deceitful the WTS wants their followers to be. So, on the one hand, the main arguement as to why JWs don't worry about withholding life saving treatment is because God can bring the child back anyway and it's more important to abstain from "blood". On the other hand, don't talk about that main doctrine?

    F nelly136 posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:46:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 4032 of 3747
    Joined 12/14/2000
    Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

    theocratic warfare (its not lying, theyre just not worthy of being informed) at its very best.

    Nickolas posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:49:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 685 of 2287
    Joined 9/27/2010

    Outstanding work, Yknot. I hereby nominate you to be elevated from the footnotes in the upcoming book "The Rise and Fall of The Watchtower" to the main text. Keep it up and you might get an entire page. A chapter if you're really ambitious.

    Heaven posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:50:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 3056 of 5724
    Joined 4/16/2009

    If a mature adolescent is involved, request
    that the hospital evaluate his
    decision-mak ing capacity and request
    that the court hear from him

    Uummm.. exactly how does a mature adolescent request this when they are DYING??!!! They aren't gonna be around long enough for a "request that the court hear from him"!!

    The WTS... taking Christ's example of breaking the law for the right reasons and turning it around for all the wrong reasons (aka to enhance THEIR agenda). A-holes!

    stuckinamovement posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:50:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 101 of 760
    Joined 2/23/2010

    I think if this got into the hands of a Judge who was hearing the case, that the sincerity and truthfulness of the Society, the parents, and the HLC is really called into question (understatement of the year). It is a case of the Society giving disingenuous instructions. If the instructions were only for the HLC they would have been sent directly to the members of the HLC instead of the entire group of elders in the organization.

    I wonder if this will be published in Bulgaria?

    M Doubting Bro posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:19:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 1097 of 1575
    Joined 2/22/2006

    Sorry, I meant that I thought this was already the HLC's instructions and that by getting this info into the hands of the local elders, it would save the HLC time having to discuss every situation involving a minor child.

    I totally agree that this would be damning information to present to a judge. Disingenuous indeed!

    IMHO posted Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:30:00 GMT(12/8/2010)

    Post 139 of 232
    Joined 10/29/2006

    Whatever happened to promoting the blood alternatives.

    M Cold Steel posted Fri, 10 Dec 2010 02:52:00 GMT(12/10/2010)

    Post 266 of 1343
    Joined 11/1/2006
    Recently I have had communication with a mole from Bethel who has been there many years, and is privy to certain information from the Legal Dept. regarding several matters, not the least of which is the blood transfusion issue among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Obviously the identity of this person must be kept a secret, especially since they have no intention of leaving at this point.

    From what you're saying, this "mole" is soaking the organization by collecting a paycheck (and pension) and is pretending to believe in something he doesn't. If so, he's rationalizing his beliefs, kind of like someone who is against second amendment rights and being in the NRA, collecting a salary and secretly sending their enemies information. In short, even though I don't believe in the JW religion, what does he hope to accomplish? If the JWs are wrong on such an issue, they can't possibly be the true church of Jesus Christ. First they have the wrong dates, now the wrong doctrines. The JWs teach that the human soul sleeps at death, but Peter talks about the gospel being preached to those who are dead. How would that be possible? Well it's the "spiritually dead," we're told. But Peter says that the preaching was done so that they could be "judged" according to those in the "flesh," but "live" according to God in the "spirit." That's two major doctrines now and the church simply can't survive that, and the dates, and remain credible. As for the mole, I have conflicting feelings about him smuggling stuff out of the church HQ. Everyone's leaking things these days!

    The concept was that the “new light” now came directly from Jehovah by means of his “holy spirit” via the “faithful and discreet slave” (the supposed 144,000 chosen to be of the “heavenly calling” and who were supposed to be feeding the “sheep at the proper time”) This doctrine is presently under flux as of 2007, but this will not be discussed here.

    The JW leaders have emphasized time and time again that they do not receive revelation from God. But what is "new light" if not revelation? Was it new light or revelation when Peter saw the vision of the sheet with unclean animals on them that signified the gospel being taken to the Gentiles? Other Christian sects say that the "other sheep" were the Gentiles. Only the JWs saw the sheep as being another class of people (which I'll not discuss here, either), but the JWs are the only ones who see it the way they do. How many torpedos can they survive and maintain their position as Christ's true church. (Actually, they see themselves as "Jehovah's" church, but the New Testament clearly has Jesus claiming the church as his. That's another big miss.) The point is, new light is revelation. The blood doctrine that initially was contrived by the JW leaders was not rational, so new light correcting that doctrine goes way beyond the change to the circumcision doctrine. That doctrine was given by God, but the blood doctrine as interpreted by the JW leadership was not. To change it would be significantly different than the circumcision and gentile changes. They were changes in divine policies. What happens when you change a policy that's dead wrong?

    I personally don't think the JWs will change their policy, but their best bet would be to come out and say they were wrong. And I don't see how they can separate "new light" from "revelation."

    They also need to change their "stake" vs. "cross" takes. Historically they're just WRONG. Fortunately for this one, it's not a deal killer. They can just say they were wrong historically and, because it isn't based on revelation, they can continue on.

      Close

      Confirm ...