What you are referring to, and the case in hand here, are two VERY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.

If an individual knowingly (i.e., not forced against their will), and unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion in contradiction to the held Bible-based beliefs, they can be expelled from the congregation. This is no different than any number of religions where someone who directly contradicts a deeply-entrenched doctrine of their religion (examples escape me at the moment).

However, in the case at hand, the children (and family) have been morally violated, the same as if they had been raped. They would be viewed as victims, just the same as a woman who has been raped. They would be viewed with sympathy and compassion, NOT as "tainted".

__________________
Douglas Phillips

I never expected to see this much interest in this thread. I hope the outcome for the family is good.

However, I too feel that this thread has become too much argument, so I too will close on the matter.

Wishing all of you the best.

Julie, if this is 'word for word' their policy I think this demonstrates that we don't live in an ideal world yet, but it seems that Rainbow's policy is one that has progressed from the blanket self-serving rules of yesteryear to working on all possible medical solutions before violating.

As concerning as the potential outcome of this policy is, it is evident that it is still written with humans and human feelings in mind as they work on the merits of a case by case outcome. They will strive to be as consultative as possible which affords them greater advantage for support options from bloodless support agencies such as the HLC.

This has been useful as it shows what strategies the medical community is capable of when progress is designed to treat not only the human body, but also the human being.

Hi Julie,

Like you say, I've no doubt that certain medical professionals will look to what initially appears an easy route, not out of laziness as such, but out of not knowing what else to do. This is where there needs to be 'external' input.

My Mobile phone has short preset messages and also a feature called Predictive Texting, a feature whereby the phone will assume words I need to use. As I find texting problematic it can be useful - to a point. There are times however that there is a word I need to use that isn't in it's dictionary - at this point I need to be bold and just type that word in manually. It may be a little more complicated, take a little longer to do, but the recipient gets the information they need. Often, what's established in the system isn't the answer, there needs to be a more meticulous and individualised method.

All I can say here is that a blood transfusion is not essential to my life or to the life of my family and there are many who feel the same way. There is always a way, and we have come along way down that 'way' in the medical field due to reasons I can't discuss here, and the strength, courage, and yes faith, of different peoples (medical professionals and non-professionals) willing and working together to look for better answers - and they're finding them.

Kind regards,

Graham.

Julie,
I'm sorry. I don't understand your last post. You said " if parents refuse medical treatment for their child that is necessary to prevent death ". We are not talking about that. We are not talking about refusing medical treatment, period. What we are talking about is chosing bloodles medicine because the persons who have that right to choose find the use of blood to be unethical based on their understanding of the Bible and their personal decision to live by that understanding. If, as you say, they were refusing medical treatment that is necessary to prevent death, then in the case which I posted above the baby would have died. From what I have read online bloodless centers do say that they have to have blood on hand only as a last resort. I also, though, have heard of very serious operations where blood was not even on hand. Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to sign legal forms which absolve doctors of any legal libility as long as those doctors do the best they can, which is really all one can ask under any circunstance. I wonder how many times I will have to repeat this point before you will acknowledge it: the parents in this case were not refusing medical treatment, and other Jehovah's Witnesses do not refuse medical treatment. Why do you think that we go to a doctor or a hospital if we are going to refuse medical treatment. What we are talking about here is the right to exersize the principle of "informed consent" in order to choose what type of medical treatment that they will recieve, and since as we have seen bloodless surgery is reffered to by doctors as the "gold standard" by doctors, then the request not to have a blood transfusion is not an unreasonable one. I thought about your comment made earlier about "not experimenting on children". Anything which is done now was not done before at some point in time. Before 1975 very little was done to try and save preemies as I pointed out in an earlier post. Where did doctors get the ideas from that they use now? I would think that a lot of it came from their experiance with adult patients which were then adapted to children according to thier circunstances. Do you remember the case of the preemiewhich I quoted from a little earlier? I gave the link to where I found it. How did the doctors know how to treat that baby? Were they experimenting? Did the fact that they didn't give the preemie a transfusion fail to prevent it's death, or did the baby survive, and that without complications. This is not an isolated case and to me it prove the falseness of your statement as to what is essetial treatment to prevent death.
In your last statement you said "This will be the case until a time comes when blood transfusion therapy does not represent essential treatment for some conditions".
That time is now. That is not just my opinion. The cases where preemies have recieved an alternative bloodless treatment and have survived are the evidence which substantiates the above assertion.
Please stop saying that people who refuse a blood transfusion are refusing medical treatment. There are religions which do not believe in doctors, in medicine, or hospitals. I believe that Christian Scientists are one of those religions, but this does not apply to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Julie, so far in this discussion you haven't backed up anything you said. I have to go with the facts. It just really sounds irrational for someone to take a specific request (i.e. bloodless medicine) and then to generalize to the point of distortion by saying that this stated request is synymonous with "no medicine". Are you just ignoring the cases we've mentioned, or is it that you think we are just making them up?
Julie, there is something I would like to ask you, if you don't mind. Do you work for a blood bank? I know that sounds like a silly question but it's the only reason why I can think of for your inability to see anything at all that is pointed out to you. All I can think of is that you must have either a very strong prejudice, or you must have an ulterior motive. There must be some reason why you equate blood with medicine and keep asserting that if someone refuses blood then they are refusing medicine, or medical treatment. Otherwise why would you keep saying that?

Jabrwock,
As to what you mentioned before about becomeing one of Jehovah's Witnesses; the basic principle is that is doesn't make a difference what you did before you knew what was right. I know a very sweet lady who made bombs during the 1960's for the civil rights movement. A friend of mine was the major drug dealer at one time in this area. People have the right to change when they learn why they should and what is wrong, and people have the right to be forgiven if they show a basis for it. This is for anything. King Manassah in the Bible was one of the grossest sinners with the "blood" of mant innocent victims on his hands, but he was forgiven, but King Saul who sinned relatively far less was not. The difference between the two was the heartfelt attitude.
In a case similar to what we are taalking about here all God, or anyone else can reasonable ask if for each person to do their best. Those of us are past the "age of consent" and if we have chosen to dedicate our lives to God then we are determined to remain faithful even to death. You may or may not know of our record during Germany of World War 2 when our brothers and sisters were identified in the concentration camps by a "purple triangle". Though thousands were arrested and hundreds were put to death, and all each had to do to leave was to sign a piece of paper renouncing our faith very few choose to do so. A few of the SS guards were so impressed that they became one of us after the war.
This is similar to what we are talking about now because what they did then was based on the same principles we have now. The rational behind our choices do not change very much; only the circumstances in which we apply those principles vary. Julie said earlier that a discussion of faith is not appropiate here, but if you want to understand this case, and the topic in general, then you have to consider motivations. No doubt the doctors and the parents want the same thing; to save lives. The question we should ask then is why can't they co-operate? On the one hand you have someone like Julie, who no matter how much evidence to the contrary you point to, will just keep saying that the only treatment possible is to use blood, and on the other hand you have these people who say " We can't accept blood" and who have doctors on their side also who are willing and able to point to established case precedents, and who researched the topic throughly, and even are willing to train the other doctors in what they know, but the other doctors seem to be clones of Julie, as far as their viewpoint is concerned anyway. I admit both that I am not impartial, and that the attitude of the opposing camp has me completely puzzled. Could it be that they are not humble enough to listen to anyone else? No doubt at least some of those folks would consider me to be a religious fanatic but I do talk to people with a different viewpoint than my own, and I acknowledge their right to believe what they want to. Often I ask people not only what they believe, but I ask them "What do you base that belief on, and how did you come to where you are now?" I've had people of other religions talk to me and I told some of them "If you believe you can prove that what you believe is the truth, I am willing to listen." Does that sound fanatical to you? I grew up around Jehovah's Witnesses but I didn't become one until after I was an an adult and living away from home. I worked in a library at that time and researched the pro and cons using the resources there, and I came to what seems to me to be a logical conclusion.
I apologize for getting "preachy" but in a long discussion with anyone I find it helpful to understand where they are coming from, and I assume the opposite is true for others who talk to me. I think that most people are reacting in a purely emotional manner to this issue, but I try to not let that be my first and only reaction.

Julie,
I apologize for making any assumptions in your regard. It is very difficult to guage motivations of, not only someone you don't know, but also who you have never even met. I can only go by the words, and of course that is not accurate in the short term.
Bambootiger

Without any desire to criticize anybody, because I have no way to know all the details, I would just state that my own experience has been that some medical professionals display a superior attitude when it comes to patients' rights. I do not accuse anone of that in the present situation; I only know that the attitude exists.

I am the parent of 4 children and several grandchildren. As yet, I have not had to face the blood issue. But I know that normally and generally speaking, no state, no judge, and no court cares about or loves a child more than do the parents. I myself would do everything to preserve the life of a child, but not to the point of disregarding what I consider to be Divine law.

Believing that the Creator of life can also restore it if He wills, I would feel duty-bound to consider any and all suitable options that allow me to preserve life now, as well as the prospects for life in the "age to come."

Solomon Landers

__________________
"Keep away from...blood...and you will be doing right." -- Acts 15:29, Beck

It would appear that there is an automatic assumption that a blood transfusion would be the life saving treatment needed. It's not. Time and time again, in case after case, it has been proven not to be the only life saving option.

Get past the thinking that only a transfusion will work in certain instances and you open yourself up to a whole new world of treatment possibilities. Today, it's called "Thinking Outside The Box", and it would appear that some medical professionals could use a lot more of this.

Then again, I've also found that there is an automatic assumption among others that a blood transfusion is inherently dangerous, and that transfusion alternatives are the "cure-all", even when there are some things that transfusion alternatives are as of yet incapable of treating. There has been much progress, but no-blood solutions aren't a 100% replacement for transfusions... yet.