Quote:
Originally Posted by GraMar89
If they survive the dangers of these transfusions then they and their family will be consoled as the victims they feel they are. Sadly this is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and therefore there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that your comment is not the way such ones are treated. Therefore could I ask what you mean by that statement, please?
|
They may be treated as victims, but they will still be regarded as "tainted". I've spoken to JWs who tell me that I cannot become one if I have had a blood transfusion in the past (whether by choice or not), because I am no longer "pure" of blood. So what do you do if you ARE a JW, and you get a blood transfusion (whether by choice or not)?
Quote:
|
We look forward to progressive steps away from the sorts of authoritarianism that prefers to use a blanket treatment as they have here in the face of burgeoning information indicating that (1) officialdom neglected due process and (2) the transfusion really wasn't necessary.
|
You are correct about #1, but #2 is speculation on your part. I've been following this case pretty closely, and NO mention from the court documents has provided any new information about whether the treatment was necessary, or avoidable, because they haven't discussed the health of the infants prior to the court order, beyond the initial "two died" and "they were severely anemic" mentioned in the father's appeal. Until that time, neither of us can say that the doctors were completely wrong or right in using the treatment they did. There just isn't enough information about the situation.
Quote:
|
I look forward to hearing the complete official story on this case and therefore then exploring the details.
|
Same here, which is why I've never commented on the necessity of the transfusion one way or the other, as I don't have enough info about the infants' condition when they were seized for treatment. That info is unlikely to be forthcoming, as the lawsuit before the court is about the error in application of the law, not an error in the treatment.