Judge rules on Jehovah's blood transfusion

It's about time and it should be law everywhere.

The witnesses are some of the biggest nuts I've ever encountered.

I'm always amazed at people that put God, their beliefs and so on, before their children.

I totally agree. Too many innocent children compromised.

I realize it's not about the flag but I think it's important news.

According to the article it's for a liver transplant that will be needed in the next two or three years. By then, they may have a total "new light" flash on and the policy changed.

There was a time not so long ago when transplants weren't allowed and the blood policy has altered a great deal. Plenty of details online and their own publications, but it amounts to they can have most of the parts of separated blood but once the parts are together, it's not allowed. About the same as saying, "we don't allow cake. You may eat eggs, you may eat sugar, you may eat cake flour and oil. But you may NOT eat cake."

There was also a time they didn't allow stored blood from anyone. Now I think (not positive but pretty sure) they can store their own blood for planned surgery, but can't use someone elses'.

There is a claim, which the link shows, that JW's will be allowed blood transfusions in Bulgaria:

[link to www.watchman.org]

More likely that it's a word play game so they can continue talking out of both sides of their mouth. That, or money is involved. In the Bulgaria case, they allegedly exchanged their freedom to decide for themselves and their children, for the government of Bulgaria classifying them as a religion. Wouldn't want to get stuck with tax liabilities, so it seems like a good trade off.....if it is in fact, a tradeoff, as stated.

May be true though, because though they claim to not be involved in "worldly" things, which includes flags and saluting or displaying them, here's a pic and article of a Kingdom Hall in Chile displaying a national flag....to get out of paying two hundred dollars.
[link to jwsurvey.org]

Last Edited by Nine's - IN MEMORIAM on 06/26/2015 03:05 AM

Well. Guess I should have waited for morning coffee before writing that disjointed post.

Could have summed it up by saying that maybe their doctrines will change yet again, before that little boy needs it. That, or they could go to a country where their leaders have a deal with the government to allow blood transfusions. Either way, best wishes for the little boy.

While the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom to practice religion, courts have not interpreted that freedom to include the right to refuse lifesaving treatment for a child on the basis of that religion. Instead, courts confronted with the issue have upheld a hospital’s ability to provide blood even against a parent’s wishes. Some states even have specific laws that authorize a court to order treatment under certain circumstances, though such laws are not required since a court can make an independent determination based on the state’s inherent interest in protecting the child.

Exception for Mature Minor

There is one notable exception for cases that involve adolescents. In a minority of states, a “mature minor” doctrine allows minors who demonstrate a requisite level of maturity the right to consent for, and potentially refuse, treatment. While 17 states recognize the doctrine to varying degrees and in different settings, only a handful of the states have allowed an adolescent to refuse live-saving treatment. Outcomes vary based on state-specific legal precedent and the facts (e.g., genuineness of the religious belief, whether treatment would be curative). In one of the most well-known recent cases, a 14-year-old Witness in Washington State was allowed to refuse blood products, ultimately leading to his death, despite the fact that blood transfusions likely would have saved his life.

Risks and Legal Issues in Caring for Minor Jehovahs Witness Patients
[link to forum.ashrm.org (secure)]

Well it's official. They can pump any poison into you they deem necessary.

Good luck?

Does this mean that government can vaccinate children against their parents wishes as well?

Yes with blood from AIDS patients, or that's full of who knows what from people who have taken the clot shots.

I don't think you want to subtract children from governence.

Just remember the same politicians that enacted those laws are the same ones now legalizing late term abortions, trying to mandate forced vaccines on adults and children alike, along with pushing "gender affirming procedures" for minors. Slippery Slope.

i'm against any and all state overreach

op, you just don't get it

Nope...a slippery slope.

So, OP, is it OK with you that the medical community can do whatever chemo they desire on a child, or hormone disrupting treatment or even surgery for Trans without parental consent?

Seems like you have a burr up your butt about Jehovah Witnesses. Parents should have the final say, no one else should