BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: JW MINORS

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body's circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body's digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item. Ingested blood would be completely digested and broken down into proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and waste; which are then either assimilated or excreted by the body.

The WatchTower Society uses scriptures which speak about the blood of slaughtered animals to teach Jehovah's Witnesses that blood is "sacred" because blood is the "symbol of life". Then, the WatchTower Society turns around and requires Jehovah's Witnesses to sacrifice their own "life" to maintain the alleged "sacredness" of a "symbol" of the very thing they are sacrificing -- their life. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that the WatchTower doctrine on blood moronically places a higher value on the SYMBOL than it does on the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the Old Testament scriptures permitted the eating of unbled animal meat, which the Bible equates as eating animal blood directly. In isolated occasions, when humans needed to eat unbled meat in order to sustain their own human life, the Mosaic Law permitted such, but then required the eaters to fulfill the requirements of being "unclean" for a few days. Thus, the Bible recognized that the sustaining of human life was more "sacred" than maintaining the sacredness of animal blood. To do otherwise would be doing exactly what the moronic WatchTower Society does. It would make the SYMBOL more SACRED than the THING SYMBOLIZED.

In fact, the WatchTower Society is leading Jehovah's Witnesses to disobey GOD and violate the Holy Scriptures in one of the most serious ways possible. Because humans were created in GOD's image, GOD considers human life sacred. A Jehovah's Witness who sacrifices their SACRED LIFE in order to maintain the sacredness of a SYMBOL of that SACRED LIFE varies little from those who profane life by committing suicide. Those Jehovah's Witness Elders who teach and police this moronic doctrine vary little from common accessories to murder. The Bible is fairly clear in how GOD views murder, and how He deals with murderers.

This moronic twisting of scripture would be laughable if not for the fact that it has lead to the pointless deaths of numerous Jehovah's Witnesses in the past, and it will continue to lead to the pointless deaths of many more Jehovah's Witnesses in the future.

American law regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and their refusal to accept blood transfusions is somewhat settled and is fairly simple. Competent adults have the constitutional right to refuse a blood transfusion, even if such refusal means they will die. Many Jehovah's Witness parents have exercised their constitutional right to choose death rather than accept a blood transfusion.

Jehovah's Witness Parents will attempt to make the same "death decision" for their minor children, but practically every hospital will attempt to obtain a court order which will permit them to administer a medically necessary blood transfusion over the parent's objections - assuming that the Jehovah's Witness Child is still alive by the time all the legalities are completed. Borderline areas, such as Jehovah's Witness Mothers pregnant with "fetuses" and Jehovah's Witness Minors approaching "majority", are scenarios in which the WatchTower Society has been slowly chipping away in American courtrooms. Court cases dealing with such are posted on subsequent webpages.

Readers should keep in mind that the following cases are merely those which could be located. One should not assume that because no cases are listed in a certain year that no such scenarios went through the courts during that year. One can probably assume that when many cases are listed for a certain year, such as 1992, then that is, at the very least, the minimum number of cases that may very well occur in any given year. In fact, in a 1989 interview, the spokesperson for Loma Linda University Children's Hospital told a reporter that that hospital alone administered 4-5 court-ordered blood transfusions to Jehovah's Witness Minors every year. Do the math! Researchers will also start to notice something not noticed by casual browsers. That is, groupings of cases from the same state, or adjacent states, in a certain year, or consecutive years. This phenomenon was most likely the result of one case getting media attention simply by chance. However, the publicity from that case then brought the issue to the attention of other reporters in the same and nearby coverage areas, who then put such cases on their own "radar screen", and thereafter reported cases that they previously had been missing. It is simply no telling how many 1000s of such cases went "unreported" over the decades in the United States alone. Keeping in mind that the vast majority of Jehovah's Witnesses live in foreign countries, with most of those being third-world countries with bare-bones legal and medical systems, the potential body count is staggering.

PRINCE v. MASSACHUSETTS was a 1944 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT decision. Although this court case did not directly involve the blood transfusion issue, this SCOTUS decision did define many of the legal principles on which many of the future blood transfusion court cases were decided. Additionally, this court case also involved the Jehovah's Witnesses - a parent and child(ren).

In the early 1940s, Massachusetts' child labor laws prohibited boys less than twelve years old and girls less than eighteen years old from selling magazines and other literature in any street or public place. Sarah Prince, of Brockton, Massachusetts, was a Jehovah's Witness. Prince was also the mother of two sons, and the aunt and legal custodian of a nine year girl, named Betty Simmons. Prince was in a habit of selling the "Watchtower" and "Consolation" magazines on the streets of Brockton, and she often took the children with her, and they also sold the literature. Prince had been confronted and sometimes cited by a school truancy officer on mutiple occasions for violating the aforementioned child labor laws.

On the evening on which occurred the incident which gave rise to this case, after being warned again about violating state laws, Prince retorted:

"Neither you nor anybody else can stop me. ... This child [Betty] is exercising her God-given right and her constitutional right to preach the gospel, and no creature has a right to interfere with God's commands."

Prince appealed the convictions for violating the state's child labor laws all the way to SCOTUS. Prince's argument was that Massachusetts' child labor laws, as applied to the activities for which she was cited, violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying or abridging Prince's freedom of religion, and by denying Prince the equal protection of the laws. However, SCOTUS affirmed the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, stating in part:

"As the case reaches us, the questions are no longer open whether what the child did was a "sale" or an "offer to sell" within [Mass statute] or was "work" within [Mass statute]. The state court's decision has foreclosed them adversely to appellant as a matter of state law. The only question remaining therefore is whether, as constituted and applied, the statute is valid. ...

"[Prince] does not stand on freedom of the press. Regarding it as secular, she concedes it may be restricted as Massachusetts has done. Hence, she rests squarely on freedom of religion under the First Amendment applied by the Fourteenth to the states. She buttresses this foundation, however, with a claim of parental right as secured by the due process clause of the latter Amendment. Cf. Meyer v. Nebraska, ... These guaranties, she thinks, guard alike herself and the child in what they have done. Thus, two claimed liberties are at stake. One is the parent's, to bring up the child in the way he should go, which, for appellant, means to teach him the tenets and the practices of their faith. The other freedom is the child's, to observe these, and among them is 'to preach the gospel ... by public distribution' of 'Watchtower' and 'Consolation', in conformity with the scripture: 'A little child shall lead them.'

"If, by this position, appellant seeks for freedom of conscience a broader protection than for freedom of the mind, it may be doubted that any of the great liberties insured by the First Article can be given higher place than the others. All have preferred position in our basic scheme. Schneider v. State, ... Cantwell v. Connecticut, ... . All are interwoven there together. Differences there are, in them and in the modes appropriate for their exercise. But they have unity in the charter's prime place because they have unity in their human sources and functionings. Heart and mind are not identical. Intuitive faith and reasoned judgment are not the same. Spirit is not always thought. But, in the everyday business of living, secular or otherwise, these variant aspects of personality find inseparable expression in a thousand ways. They cannot be altogether parted in law more than in life.

"To make accommodation between these freedoms and an exercise of state authority always is delicate. It hardly could be more so than in such a clash as this case presents. On one side is the obviously earnest claim for freedom of conscience and religious practice. With it is allied the parent's claim to authority in her own household and in the rearing of her children. The parent's conflict with the state over control of the child and his training is serious enough when only secular matters are concerned. It becomes the more so when an element of religious conviction enters. Against these sacred private interests, basic in a democracy, stand the interests of society to protect the welfare of children, and the state's assertion of authority to that end, made here in a manner conceded valid if only secular things were involved. The last is no mere corporate concern of official authority. It is the interest of youth itself, and of the whole community, that children be both safeguarded from abuses and given opportunities for growth into free and independent well developed men and citizens. Between contrary pulls of such weight, the safest and most objective recourse is to the lines already marked out, not precisely but for guides, in narrowing the no man's land where this battle has gone on.

"The rights of children to exercise their religion, and of parents to give them religious training and to encourage them in the practice of religious belief, as against preponderant sentiment and assertion of state power voicing it, have had recognition here, most recently in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, ... Previously, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, ... this Court had sustained the parent's authority to provide religious with secular schooling, and the child's right to receive it, as against the state's requirement of attendance at public schools. And in ... this Court had sustained the parent's authority to provide religious with secular schooling, and the child's right to receive it, as against the state's requirement of attendance at public schools. And in Meyer v. Nebraska, ... children's rights to receive teaching in languages other than the nation's common tongue were guarded against the state's encroachment. It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.

"But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Reynolds v. United States, ... Davis v. Beason, ... . And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's wellbeing, the state, as parens patriae, may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child's labor and in many other ways.Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death. People v. Pierson, ... . The catalogue need not be lengthened. It is sufficient to show what indeed appellant hardly disputes, that the state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare, and that this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction.

"But it is said the state cannot do so here. This, first, because when state action impinges upon a claimed religious freedom, it must fall unless shown to be necessary for or conducive to the child's protection against some clear and present danger, cf. Schenck v. United States, ... and, it is added, there was no such showing here. The child's presence on the street, with her guardian, distributing or offering to distribute the magazines, it is urged, was in no way harmful to her, nor, in any event, more so than the presence of many other children at the same time and place, engaged in shopping and other activities not prohibited. Accordingly, in view of the preferred position the freedoms of the First Article occupy, the statute in its present application must fall. It cannot be sustained by any presumption of validity. Cf. Schneider v. State, ... . And, finally, it is said, the statute is, as to children, an absolute prohibition, not merely a reasonable regulation, of the denounced activity.

"Concededly a statute or ordinance identical in terms with [Mass statute] except that it is applicable to adults or all persons generally, would be invalid. ... But the mere fact a state could not wholly prohibit this form of adult activity, whether characterized locally as a 'sale' or otherwise, does not mean it cannot do so for children. Such a conclusion granted would mean that a state could impose no greater limitation upon child labor than upon adult labor. Or, if an adult were free to enter dance halls, saloons, and disreputable places generally, in order to discharge his conceived religious duty to admonish or dissuade persons from frequenting such places, so would be a child with similar convictions and objectives, if not alone, then in the parent's company, against the state's command.

"The state's authority over children's activities is broader than over like actions of adults. This is peculiarly true of public activities and in matters of employment. A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that implies. It may secure this against impeding restraints and dangers within a broad range of selection. Among evils most appropriate for such action are the crippling effects of child employment, more especially in public places, and the possible harms arising from other activities subject to all the diverse influences of the street. It is too late now to doubt that legislation appropriately designed to reach such evils is within the state's police power, whether against the parent's claim to control of the child or one that religious scruples dictate contrary action.

"It is true children have rights, in common with older people, in the primary use of highways. But even in such use, streets afford dangers for them not affecting adults. And in other uses, whether in work or in other things, this difference may be magnified. This is so not only when children are unaccompanied, but certainly to some extent when they are with their parents. What may be wholly permissible for adults therefore may not be so for children, either with or without their parents' presence.

"Street preaching, whether oral or by handing out literature, is not the primary use of the highway, even for adults. While for them it cannot be wholly prohibited, it can be regulated within reasonable limits in accommodation to the primary and other incidental uses. But, for obvious reasons, notwithstanding appellant's contrary view, the validity of such a prohibition applied to children not accompanied by an older person hardly would seem on to question. The case reduces itself therefore to the question whether the presence of the child's guardian puts a limit to the state's power. That fact may lessen the likelihood that some evils the legislation seeks to avert will occur. But it cannot forestall all of them. The zealous though lawful exercise of the right to engage in propagandizing the community, whether in religious, political or other matters, may, and at times does, create situations difficult enough for adults to cope with and wholly inappropriate for children, especially of tender years, to face. Other harmful possibilities could be stated, of emotional excitement and psychological or physical injury. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves. Massachusetts has determined that an absolute prohibition, though one limited to streets and public places and to the incidental uses proscribed, is necessary to accomplish its legitimate objectives. Its power to attain them is broad enough to reach these peripheral instances in which the parent's supervision may reduce, but cannot eliminate entirely, the ill effects of the prohibited conduct. We think that, with reference to the public proclaiming of religion, upon the streets and in other similar public places, the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, as is true in the case of other freedoms, and the rightful boundary of its power has not been crossed in this case.

"In so ruling, we dispose also of appellant's argument founded upon denial of equal protection. It falls with that based on denial of religious freedom, since, in this instance, the one is but another phrasing of the other. Shortly, the contention is that the street, for Jehovah's Witnesses and their children, is their church, since their conviction makes it so, and to deny them access to it for religious purposes, as was done here, has the same effect as excluding altar boys, youthful choristers, and other children from the edifices in which they practice their religious beliefs and worship. The argument hardly needs more than statement, after what has been said, to refute it. However Jehovah's Witnesses may conceive them, the public highways have not become their religious property merely by their assertion. And there is no denial of equal protection in excluding their children from doing there what no other children may do.

"Our ruling does not extend beyond the facts the case presents. We neither lay the foundation "for any [that is, every] state intervention in the indoctrination and participation of children in religion" which may be done "in the name of their health and welfare" nor give warrant for "every limitation on their religious training and activities." The religious training and indoctrination of children may be accomplished in many ways, some of which, as we have noted, have received constitutional protection through decisions of this Court. These and all others except the public proclaiming of religion on the streets, if this may be taken as either training or indoctrination of the proclaimer, remain unaffected by the decision.

"The judgment is Affirmed."

ON APPLICATION OF NORTHEAST GEORGIA MEDICAL CENTER was a 2005 Georgia court decision. In June 2005, an unidentified Gainsville, Georgia area Jehovah's Witness couple refused to permit doctors at the Northeast Georgia Medical Center to administer a medically required blood transfusions to their premature infant. The Medical Center petitioned the local court for temporary guardianship and authority to adminster the blood transfusions, which their doctors testified more likely than not were necessary to save the infant's life. Superior Court Judge John Girardeau granted the hospital's petition.

APPLICATION OF BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER was a 2004 Florida court decision. In May 2004, Deliah Floyd of Jacksonville, Florida prematurely delivered a baby, three months early, at Baptist Medical Center. When doctors informed Floyd that the 1 pound, 6 ounces infant would need a blood transfusion to survive, she and the infant's father, Doward Carter, informed the hospital that both parents were Jehovah's Witnesses, and that neither would consent to blood transfusions. The Hospital then petitioned the Duval Circuit Court for guardianship and authorization to administer life-saving transfusions. Petition granted.

SOTO v. VALLEY HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER and MICHELE NICHOLS, R.N. was a 2004 Nevada Supreme Court decision. Jerry H. Mowbray of Reno, Nevada filed an Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses", a WatchTower Society subsidiary. WatchTower Society attorney, Donald T. Ridley, represented Jason and Rebecca Soto.

Identical twin boys were prematurely born on June 11, 2001, at Valley Hospital, to Jason and Rebecca Soto. Prior to the birth, Rebecca had been hospitalized due to twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, a condition in which the babies' circulatory systems were joined at the placenta, causing blood volume to be preferentially directed to one twin, L.S., and causing the other twin, H.S., to be anemic. To alleviate H.S.'s anemic condition, doctors massaged the umbilical cord, directing blood toward H.S., thereby naturally transfusing H.S. with blood. Although H.S. was stillborn, doctors successfully revived him seven minutes after birth. Despite a normal blood platelet count, H.S. remained critically ill, requiring a ventilator to assist his breathing and medications to help his circulation and heartbeat. Because of H.S.'s chronic anemic state prior to birth, physicians monitored his blood platelet count over the next few days. The hospital was also aware that, consistent with their religious beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses, Jason and Rebecca Soto objected to the administration of blood transfusions to their twin boys.

On June 17, 2001, H.S.'s blood platelet count had dropped to such a degree that the attending physician, Dr. Martha Knutsen, felt that H.S.'s life was in jeopardy if a transfusion was not immediately performed. Furthermore, a medical alternative to blood transfusion was not available. Without parental consent, Dr. Knutsen transfused H.S. with blood platelets. Despite the transfusion, H.S.'s condition remained critical.

On Monday, June 18, 2001, Valley Hospital petitioned the Eighth Judicial District Court, ex parte, for temporary guardianship of both H.S. and L.S. The petition was based on "the substantial and immediate risk of physical harm, potential death, and the emergency circumstances surrounding the health and well being" of both children and requested a "special" guardianship to "provide for the medical care of the twin children." An attached affidavit of Dr. Barry Perlin stated that a significant probability existed that H.S. and L.S. would require a blood transfusion within the next thirty days to survive. Furthermore, if a transfusion were needed, the transfusion would need to be initiated in less than two hours after the emergency arose.

On Monday afternoon, June 18, 2001, the district court granted temporary guardianship on an emergency basis for the purpose of consenting to blood transfusions and to other medical care as deemed necessary by the hospital for both children. The order required that Jason and Rebecca S. be given notice "as soon as practical." The district court also set a hearing for the next morning at 8:45 a.m. and ordered that Jason and Rebecca Soto receive notice of the hearing by 7:00 p.m. that evening, June 18. The parents received notice that afternoon.

On June 19, 2001, Jason and Rebecca Soto appeared in proper person at the hearing. Jason expressed a concern that, while Valley Hospital was accusing him and his wife of medically neglecting their children, no investigation was being conducted, and that neither the State nor Child Protective Services was present. The district court, concerned with the children's health, continued the hearing to Wednesday afternoon, June 20, 2001, so that medical experts could be obtained and Jason and Rebecca S. could obtain counsel.

On June 20, 2001, Jason and Rebecca Soto appeared with counsel. At the hearing, Dr. Knutsen testified concerning H.S.'s critical condition and his continued need for medical attention, with the real probability that he was at risk for immediate medical intervention, including blood transfusions. Jason and Rebecca argued that H.S.'s condition was stable and that an immediate medical emergency did not exist. The parents also reiterated their concern that Valley Hospital should have brought a petition under NRS Chapter 432B (Protection of Children from Abuse and Neglect). The district court responded that NRS ____ was less intrusive for the parents, and that NRS Chapter 432B would not necessarily provide additional protections. Furthermore, the district court reasoned that when an emergency presented itself, there would not be time to obtain a court order. The district court's final order ratified the blood transfusion given to H.S. on June 17, 2001, and extended the temporary guardianship as to H.S. only and for "the limited purpose of providing consent for the administration of blood and/or blood products" for thirty days. The district court further ordered that H.S. was not to be removed from Valley Hospital without the hospital's consent. Barring any unforeseen events, L.S. would not likely require a blood transfusion, and therefore, the district court did not extend the temporary guardianship to him.

Jason and Rebecca S. filed a notice of appeal of the district court's final order concerning Valley Hospital's temporary guardianship of H.S. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court appointing Valley Hospital as temporary guardian of minor child H.S., stating in part:

IN RE JADA THOMAS was a 2004 Arkansas court decision. In June 2004, Jada Thomas, a minor, was admitted at Arkansas Children's Hospital. Although needing heart surgery in order to save her life, Jada's mother, Stephanie Thomas, refused to consent to necessary blood transfusions based on what she had been taught as a Jehovah's Witness by the WatchTower Society. The Hospital sought an emergency court order allowing the procedure if and when such became necessary during the heart surgery. Outcome of surgery unknown.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF BABY GIRL STEWART was a 2003 Nebraska court decision. In September 2003, Omaha's Children's Hospital filed a petition for guardianship of a 4-month-old girl, who had been born pre-mature, and authorization to perform surgery to correct a congenital heart defect, as well as administer blood transfusions required ed during the surgery. The baby's Jehovah's Witness Mother, Joyce Stewart, of Omaha, had refused to give her consent for the blood transfusions which would be necessary during the surgery. The petition indicated that surgery should be performed within 45 days.The petition was apparently granted, and the surgery was apparently successful, given that the infant was alive and well when Joyce Stewart died in February 2008. No husband/father was mentioned in either the 2003 nor 2008 media reports.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF CONNER CASTILLO was a 2003 Texas Court decision. In November 2003, Conner Castillo was born 15 weeks premature at Hillcrest Baptist Medical Center, to Shawn Castillo and Alicia Castillo, of Waco, Texas. Conner joined his siblings 21-month-old Aaron Castillo and 14-year-old Ryan Castillo.

When doctors informed the Castillos that blood transfusions would be needed as part of the extensive treatments Conner needed simply to survived, the Castillos refused to give their consent, citing their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. Thereafter, the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services obtained a court order allowing it to remove Conner Castillo from the custody of the parents, and authorization to consent to all necessary medical care, including transfusions. Petition was granted.

The Castillos later obtained permission from the court to move Conner to a Houston hospital that agreed to cease transfusions, but not until Hillcrest had first treated the newborn past the point of survival. However, it was later revealed that even the Houston hospital was forced to administer a transfusion to keep the newborn alive, along with multiple other procedures, including laser eye surgery.

******************

In February 2001, Jehovah's Witnesses obtained as much media attention as possible for what was laughably referred to as a "bloodless surgery" performed on Aiden Michael Rush, who was the 7 month-old son of Jehovah's Witness Parents, Jason Rush and Heather Rush, of Tipton, Iowa. During the organ transplant surgery performed at Children's Hospital in Los Angeles, California, Aiden Rush received 20% of Vicki Rush's (paternal grandmother) liver.

Jehovah's Witnesses proudly declared the surgery to have been the first-ever "bloodless" liver transplant for an infant. Anyone who has ever prepared beef or pork liver, or any other animal organ meat for that matter, in their kitchen at home knows why any claim that an organ transplant is "bloodless" is ridiculous. Actually, one doesn't even have to be a cook to know that the JWs are fooling noone but themselves. It is common sense that any live (or even dead) organ, be it human or animal, contains the donor's blood, which means any organ transplant is also a transfusion of blood from the donor to the donee. The fact that people who have been convinced that the Bible prohibits blood transfusions can also be convinced at the same time that an organ transplant is also NOT effectively a blood transfusion says much about the reasoning ability of those same people.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF SUTPHEN was a 2001 California court decision. In February 2001, Obadiah Sutphen was born 11 weeks prematurely to Antwanette Bennett, of Hemet California. The newborn needed a blood transfusion, but Antwanette Bennett refused to give her consent, citing her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. The hospital sought and obtained court-ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including blood transfusions. Treatments lasted nearly two months, before Obadiah Sutphen could be released to go home at the end of April. However, two weeks later, Riverside County Child Protective Services began legal action to take all three children away from Antwanette Bennett and her unidentified husband. In August, Obadiah Sutphen, Alizah Malone, and Tatanaye Guillory were taken by Riverside County Child Protective Services. The children were returned to their parents in three weeks, after unknown action. According to Antwanette Bennett, she was being persecuted because the family were Jehovah's Witnesses. No doubt!

******************

IN THE MATTER OF EBONY BRABOY was a 2001 North Carolina court decision. Limited details. Admitted to High Point Regional Hospital, in May 2001, four year old Ebony Braboy needed treatment for sickle-cell anemia. When her parents, Daniel Braboy and Nicola Braboy, were informed that Ebony would need one or more blood transfusions, they told hospital officials that they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and would not consent to transfusions. The Hospital sought and obtained a court order of guardianship, with authorization to administer medically required transfusions.

At some point, Daniel Braboy and Nicky Braboy attempted to remove Ebony from High Point Regional Hospital. The Braboys were informed that it was hospital policy that parents were not allowed to remove children in need of potentially life-saving treatment, not even on religious or moral grounds. The hospital eventually had to call High Point Police to stop them from taking Ebony from the hospital. At a later point in this controversy, Ebony Braboy was transferred to Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, where the court-ordered emergency blood transfusion was administered. Fortunately, Ebony recovered and rejoined her two siblings and parents.

******************

ON APPLICATION OF OKLAHOMA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER was a 2001 Oklahoma court decision. An unidentified infant born prematurely at Oklahoma City's Children's Hospital was placed in custody of the Department of Human Services. The hospital petitioned a local judge for intervention after the newborn's Jehovah's Witnesses mother refused to consent to a life-saving blood transfusion for the infant. The boy - weighing 1 1/2 pounds after 25 weeks in the womb - was listed in critical condition, and was in "desperate need" of a transfusion. Allen Poston of Children's Hospital said that a newborn child does not have the ability to make decisions for itself, medically or otherwise. George Johnson of the Department of Human Services said that while in state custody, the child would receive a blood transfusion and other life-saving medical procedures that might be needed. After spending nearly two months in the hospital, it was estimated that he would still need another 2-3 months of treatments.

******************

ON APPLICATION OF UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES was a 2001 Arkansas court decision. In March 2001, an unidentified Jehovah's Witness delivered her baby boy prematurely at University Hospital. When informed that her newborn would need a blood transfusion to survive, the Jehovah's Witness mother refused to give her consent. The hospital sought and obtained guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including blood transfusions. Outcome unknown.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF LEFLORE was a 2001 Nebraska court decision. In April 2001, Anika LeFlore, 31, took her 7-year-old son, Martez LeFlore, to University Hospital, in Omaha, Nebraska, after Martez began having trouble breathing. Doctors told Anika LeFlore that due to Martez's sickle cell anemia, his heart was enlarged, and his red-blood cell count was low. Martez LeFlore needed a blood transfusion. However, Anika LeFlore refused to give her consent, citing her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness, and typically claiming that there were "alternative treatments" available other than blood transfusions. LeFlore was supported by an Elder with the Jehovah's Witness Fontenelle congregation, named Harlan Haupt, who was running around spewing the WatchTower nonsense about "alternative treatments", artificial blood, different surgical techniques, etc., as if the hospital and its doctors did not know what to so for the child's present condition.

Omaha Police took Martez LeFlore into physical custody, and placed him in foster care. The hospital the petitioned the local court for authorization to administer all necessary medical care to Martez LeFlore, whose death was imminent. After receiving blood transfusions twice per day for a week or longer, LeFlore's condition was reported as improving.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF BLAKE was a 2000 Oklahoma court decision. In December 2000, 5-year-old Brianna Blake was diagnosed with rhabdomyosarcoma at Tulsa's St. Francis Hospital. When informed that Brianna's treatment would require the transfusion of blood or blood products, the Blakes refused to give their consent, citing their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The hospital sought and obtained an emergency court order authorizing the needed medical care. Outcome unknown.

******************

HARTT v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES was a 2000-3 California court case which involved a Jehovah's Witness couple named Merlin Hartt and Catherine Hartt. The Hartts sued Los Angeles County for negligence, fraud, and violating Health and Safety Code section 7051. After a September 1996 autopsy, the County donated a lung and cornea from the Hartts' deceased son Justin Hartt to an emphysema researcher at USC and a corneal transplant company without first seeking or getting the Hartts' permission. Justin Hartt, 17, had been murdered after getting into a fight with gang members at an East L.A. party.

Described in media reports as "devout Jehovah's Witnesses", the Hartt's claimed that their WatchTower religion prohibited the donating of organs or tissue. Merlin Hartt stated: "That, to me, is sacrilegious. If they asked me I would have said 'no.' But no one ever asked." Also, "It just seems so gross to do something like that. Where do they draw the line? Apparently they did what they damn well felt like."

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit as a "nonsuit" ruling that the 1996 versions of the controlling statutes expressly allowed the coroner to make the challenged donations without seeking or obtaining consent. The Hartt's appealed. The California appellate court affirmed the trial court decision. The Hartt's appeal contained numerous arguments, including one regarding the "blood card", which all JWs are required to carry. In regard to such, the appellate court stated:

"We reject the Hartts' suggestion that Justin's Jehovah's Witness identification card somehow put the County on notice that Justin or the Hartts objected to such post-autopsy donations under Health and Safety Code section 7152. The card referred exclusively to medical treatment for someone who was still alive. The card was silent regarding post-death disposition of remains. Moreover, the form Mr. Hartt signed at the coroner's office referred only generally to control of disposition of the remains. The form did not purport to waive or contradict statutes establishing the coroner's control over the body while it was within the coroner's legitimate control."

******************

IN RE KNOLL was a 1999 Missouri court decision. In February 1999, Rebekah Knoll was born at Missouri Baptist Hospital to Jehovah's Witness Parents, Larry Knoll and Debby Knoll, who were now the parents of three children. When it was learned that Rebekah Knoll would need heart surgery to correct a congenital defect, the Knolls refused to consent to blood transfusions should such be necessary. Details are unclear, but the hospital either did obtain a court order which allowed transfusions if such became necessary to save the baby's life, or the hospital operated with the understanding that an order would be obtained if a transfusion became necessary. Reportedly, transfusions were not necessary. Longterm outcome unknown given that the child also needed future surgery.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF BUCKLAND was a 1999 Oklahoma court decision. In April 1999, Marcella Buckland was born prematurely at Tulsa's Hillcrest Medical Center to a Jehovah's Witness couple named Buckland. Marcella Buckland was born three months premature, and was severely anemic, and required blood transfusions to survive. However, the Bucklands refused to give their consent for the life-saving transfusions. The hospital sought and obtained court ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Marcella also required surgery after birth. Outcome unknown.

******************

In February 1999, an unidentified 16-year-old Jehovah's Witness boy died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Tests revealed that he was suffering from bone cancer. Blood transfusions were recommended, but the child's Jehovah's Witness parents refused to consent. The hospital sought and was granted guardianship and authorization to administer necessary medical care, including transfusions. Unfortunately, the teenager died before a transfusion could be administered.

******************

ON APPLICATION OF PHOENIX CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL was a 1999 Arizona court decision. In July 1999, unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses parents refused to consent to a blood transfusion for their 15-year-old son. The hospital sought and obtained a court order authorizing the needed medical treatment. Outcome unknown.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF JEAN-MICHEL was a 1997 Florida court decision. Born prematurely in September 1997, at Bethesda Memorial Hospital, 4-day-old Daniel Jean-Michel needed a blood transfusion to survive. However, his Jehovah's Witnesses parents, Fito and Marian Jean-Michel, refused to give their consent. The hospital sought and obtained court-ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Outcome unknown.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF STREITBERGER was a 1997 Utah court decision. Details are limited, but readers can figure out for themselves what was going on in this drama given that a infant less than 30 days old old ended up in an out-of-state hospital. Matthew Streitberger was born in April 1997 to Jehovah's Witnesses, Carl and Yolanda Streitberger, of Montpelier, Idaho, presumably at a hospital in their hometown. Matthew Streitberger was diagnosed with three congenital heart defects. The baby was moved to a hospital in Bannock, Idaho, and then to a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. There, the SLC Hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to perform necessary medical treatment, including the administering of blood transfusions. The necessary surgery was performed, but outcome unknown.

******************

ON APPLICATION OF CROUSE HOSPITAL was a 1997 New York court decision. In October 1997, the newborn infant of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses parents needed surgery to save its life. The Jehovah's Witnesses parents refused to give their consent for any blood transfusions that might become necessary during or after the surgery. Crouse Hospital, in Syracuse, New York, then sought and obtained guardianship and authorization to administer all necessary medical care, including blood transfusions during the surgery and the following period of recovery.

******************

IN RE BEASCOCHEA was a 1997 Texas court decision. In July 1997, Jehovah's Witnesses Parents, Rodolfo Beascochea and Claudia Beascochea, of Baytown, Texas, took their 2 year-old daughter, Alexis Beascochea, to San Jacinto Hospital in Baytown, with what turned out to be a life threatening illness. In shock, and with a high fever, Alexis Beascochea was transferred to Hermann Hospital in Houston. When it was determined that the young girl needed emergency surgery to save her life, her JW Parents refused to consent to blood transfusions should such become necessary. The hospital sought and obtained court intervention. Hermann officials last reported that after her surgery, Alexis was still in critical condition, but recovering in their pediatric intensive care unit.

Interestingly, the DA's office indicated to a reporter that such scenarios, where children of JWs were taken into temporary custody in order to administer needed blood transfusions, were generally ho-hum routine. The legal hoops that the hospital, DA, and judges jumped through for the local JW community was characterized merely as "an accommodation" that the parties made for the local Jehovah's Witnesses, so that the JWs could maintain their WatchTower beliefs. Kinda reminds me of "Amish Telephone Booths".

******************

IN THE MATTER OF HAWKINS was a 1996 Florida court decision. In May 1996, Sabrina Hawkins, 18, gave birth to "Alexander Karl Bailey" a/k/a "Alexander Bailey Hawkins", at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Delivered three months premature, the newborn needed blood transfusions simply to survive. However, 18-year-old Sabrina Hawkins refused to give her consent for the needed transfusions, citing her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. The hospital then sought and obtained guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Outcome unknown.

******************

In April 1996, emergency room doctors at Lowell General Hospital, in Lowell, Massachusetts, allowed a minor, Juan Baez, 17, to make the decision to die rather than accept a blood transfusion. In fact, the boy's Jehovah's Witness family even stated to reporters that the minor was not even an active Jehovah's Witness.

Juan Baez's Jehovah's Witnesses friends and family stated that the 17-year-old was "easy-going", and "not quick to anger". Yet, he was dragged to his death after he confronted another driver in a parking lot after a road-rage incident, and then when Baez stuck his upper torso into the other driver's car, that driver sped off dragging Baez 170 feet, before Baez was then clotheslined into a parked vehicle.

Juan Baez's Jehovah's Witnesses parents and siblings rushed to the hospital, where they supported him in his decision to refuse consent to blood transfusions. Obviously proud of their family member who up until then had apparently rejected the family's WatchTower beliefs, the Baez's brother, Fernando Baez, boasted that Juan had first refused blood transfusions while in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Sister, Sylvia Baez, boasted that once arriving at the hospital, Juan refused a blood transfusion that might have saved his life, stating: "Even if I die, ... ."

Fernando Baez further stated: "He knew the injuries were bad, and then the doctor said he wasn't going to make it. He told us that he loved us, and we told him that we loved him, too, and would be there for him."

******************

IN THE MATTER OF JOVAN JEANTEL was a 1996 Florida court decision. Limited details. In June 1996, Jovan Jeantel was born just 25 weeks into his mother's pregnancy. Jovan's tiny body held just five tablespoons of blood, but he needed a series of transfusions of packed red cells and other blood products in order to live. Doctors believed that they had the technology to save the baby boy. However, Jovan's parents, Jennine Jeantel and Marcus Jeantel, of Pembroke Pines, Florida, were practicing Jehovah's Witnesses. They refused to consent to the administering of those blood transfusions to Jovan, even though such were necessary if he had any chance to live. It was local south Florida judges who stepped in to attempt to save Jovan's life by ordering the Hospital and doctors to provide the needed medical treatment, stating in part: "The state's interest in protecting the life of the infant Jovan Jeantel is paramount to the parent's religious convictions ... ."

******************

Valerie Marie Hernandez was born in November 1996 to Irving, Texas parents Diego Hernandez and Tanya Hernandez, who professed to be Jehovah's Witnesses, but later acknowledged that they were only studying to become Jehovah's Witnesses. Valerie Hernandez was born with a serious heart deformity. Doctors at Dallas' Children's Medical Center said that they could not perform the surgery without administering a blood transfusion. Evidently supported by Jehovah's Witnesses Elders on the scene, the Hernandez parents would not consent to transfusions. The Jehovah's Witnesses Elders recommended to Diego Hernandez and Tanya Hernandez that Valerie be removed from the Dallas hospital and be taken to Portland Oregon's Legacy Emanuel Children's Hospital, which supposedly would perform the surgery without using blood transfusions. However, when contacted, the Oregon hospital said they would not perform the needed surgery without transfusions. In late December, Valerie was discharged without having the needed surgery performed. It is not known what became of her. Curiously, officials at Children's Medical Center said that they would have pursued a court order to perform the surgery with transfusions only if Valerie's chances of survival were at least 95 percent.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF SEPULVEDA was a 1996 Illinois court decision. In 1996, Kirk Sepulveda, the 3-year-old son of Jehovah's Witnesses parents was diagnosed with leukemia at Rockford Memorial Hospital. When doctors informed the Jehovah's Witnesses parents that blood transfusions would be needed in conjunction with other medical care, they refused to give their consent. The hospital sought and obtained a court order authorizing transfusions and other associated treatment. Outcome unknown.

******************

In April 1995, an unidentified Jehovah's Witness female gave birth at a Harris County, Texas hospital. The premature newborn weighed less than two pounds, and required a blood transfusion to survive. The mother refused to give consent. The hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Petition was granted.

******************

In March 1995, an unidentified Jehovah's Witness female gave birth at a Long Island, New York hospital. The newborn required a blood transfusion to survive. The mother refused to give consent. The hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. After rushing to the hospital to hold an emergency hearing, a Nassau county judge granted the hospital's petition.

******************

CROCKFORD v. DENTON COOLEY AND KAMEL GIRGIS was a 1995 Texas court decision. Internationally renown heart surgeon, Denton Cooley, was the heart surgeon in Houston, Texas, to whom Jehovah's Witnesses were going, and to whom Jehovah's Witnesses were taking their children, because Cooley would selectively perform some heart surgeries, while agreeing to the Jehovah's Witnesses' condition that no blood transfusions be administered.

In appreciation for his willingness to do what very few heart surgeons at that time were willing to do for Jehovah's Witnesses, Denton and an anesthesiologist were sued by Jehovah's Witnesses for medical malpractice in the death of their 2-year-old son, after a 1990 surgery done without a blood transfusion.

John and Victoria Crockford of El Cajon, California, alleged that Denton Cooley and anesthesiologist Kamel Girgis were negligent during a surgery to repair a congenital heart defect in their son, Kelsey Crockford, performed in Houston, in 1990. In November 1995, after years of expensive legalities, a Texas jury decided in the two doctors favor.

******************

CABALLERO ET AL v. SAN ANDREAS REGIONAL CENTER ET AL was a 1994 California lawsuit. Very limited details. In early 1993, 16 year old Regina Caballero was given a blood transfusion while hospitalized for pneumonia and other unknown medical problems. Regina Caballero was the daughter of Della Martinez, a Jehovah's Witness. Regina Caballero was institutionalized at South Valley Hospital in Gilroy due to being profoundly retarded and unable to talk or walk. Caballero's Jehovah's Witnesses parents had filed paperwork prohibiting any blood transfusions from being administered to her, but that paperwork had not been transferred from the previous facility from which Caballero had just recently been transferred.The particulars of the lawsuit, and even the outcome are unknown (probably settled out of court), but apparently Della Martinez blamed various state agencies for both the transfusion[s] and the illness[es] which gave need for the transfusion[s]. Readers should note that since Caballero could in no way be termed a "mature minor", that doctors had every right to administer transfusions to Caballero. However, don't bet that such fact would have stopped a sympathetic jury from making a large award, or that such would have stopped a large settlement in order to avoid a jury trial.

******************

PARENTS OF B.N. v. WOLFSON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL was a 1994 Florida appellate court decision. Eight-month old B.N. was admitted as a patient at Children's Hospital, where she was diagnosed with acute monocytic leukemia, severe anemia, and a low platelet count. Chemotherapy was recommended as the most appropriate treatment for B.N.'s life-threatening condition, but this would necessitate blood transfusions. B.N.'s Jehovah's Witness parents refused to consent to this procedure because of their WatchTower religious beliefs.

Children's Hospital filed an emergency petition requesting an order as to whether chemotherapy and blood transfusions might be administered to B.N. without the parents' consent. In addition to their religious objections, the appellants expressed concern that the proposed treatment would cause B.N. undue suffering. After an evidentiary hearing the court entered the order authorizing the medical treatment. The parents appealed, and the appellate court remanded for further hearings. Outcome unknown.

******************

BANKS v. MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA was a 1994 South Carolina Supreme Court decision. Phaedra Banks, the eight year old daughter of a Jehovah's Witness, named Barbara Banks, began to suffer from respiratory distress and intense hip pain. In seeking to diagnose the source of the child's infection, doctors at the Medical University performed exploratory surgery, removed her appendix, administered cardiac resuscitation and blood transfusions. Tragically, final resuscitative efforts were unsuccessful and Phaedra died. The cause of death was "pulmonary emboli" - blood clotting in the lungs caused by a protein C blood disorder.

Barbara Banks filed suit against the doctors and the Medical University, alleging wrongful death and survival actions, as well as actions for battery, deprivation of liberty interests, breach of duty, and breach of contract. Summary judgment was granted at trial level on the causes of action for battery, deprivation of liberty interests, and breach of contract. Banks retained viable actions for wrongful death and survival.

The SC Supreme Court overruled the lower court's dismissal of Bank's battery claim, stating in part:

"Banks is a Jehovah's Witness opposed to blood transfusions. She claims a viable cause of action for battery on the ground that no emergency existed justifying the administration of blood plasma to Phaedra. We agree and reverse this issue.

"As a general proposition, except in the event of an emergency, a surgeon will be liable for an assault where he operates on a child without the consent of the latter's parents." ... The Children's Code of South Carolina provides that parental consent is not required for an operation upon a minor if, in the opinion of the treating physician and a consulting physician, the operation is necessary to save the life of the child. ...

"Banks concedes that she had no authority to withhold necessary medical treatment from her child even if such treatment was contrary to her religious views. ... However, she contends that the transfusions were not necessary and, therefore, her consent was required. She presented testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Paolini, to establish that there was no emergency justifying the transfusion of blood to Phaedra.

"We find that Banks has presented an issue of material fact as to whether Phaedra was in a life threatening situation which would have justified the administration of the transfusions without parental consent. Therefore, summary judgment was improperly granted on the battery cause of action.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF ECCARD was a 1993 Ohio court decision. Six day old Tyler Eccard was rushed back to Cincinnati's Children's Hospital, after his parents feared his jaundice had worsened. Doctors determined that Tyler Eccard suffered from a rare blood disorder, thrombocytopenia, and his condition was critical. Blood transfusions would be needed. However, Tyler's Jehovah's Witnesses parents refused to give their consent for the transfusions. The hospital then sought and obtained guardianship and court authorization to administer the necessary transfusions. However, Tyler's father, David Eccard, 33, and grandfather, John McFarland, 61, both of Milford, Ohio, were arrested at the hospital when they attempted to prevent doctors from administering the transfusion. The pair later pleaded "not guilty", but were convicted only on a charge of "trespass", and were given suspended 30-day jail sentences and fined $250 each.

******************

APPLICATION OF SOUTH FULTON MEDICAL CENTER was a 1993 Georgia court decision. A 37-day-old baby of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses parents was taken into state custody because her parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions. The newborn female was born prematurely on July 28, 1993. After the baby girl's Jehovah's Witnesses Parents refused to give their consent, South Fulton Medical Center sought and was granted authorization to administer necessary medical treatment, including blood transfusions. Guardianship was awarded to Georgia's Department of Family and Children Services.

******************

VESELY v. FHP INTERNATIONAL ET AL was a 1993 Utah court decision. Limited, sketchy details. In 1993, Tom Vesely and Benta Vesely, of Park City, Utah, won the largest medical malpractice award in Utah's history -- $8,100,000.00. In 1986, James Vesely was born with permanent brain damage, due to oxygen deprivation after his mother's uterus ruptured, which forced an emergency caesarean delivery. Piecing together bits and pieces, it appears that the Veselyes claimed, and the jury believed, that the HMO, in order to save money, had forced them to accept an unqualified doctor, who in turn should have performed a planned caesarean delivery, instead of waiting for the vaginal delivery, which went wrong, and forced the emergency caesarean delivery. At least part of the HMO's and doctor's defense was that Bemta Vesely was a Jehovah's Witness, who would not consent to blood transfusions. Since, as attested by numerous summaries on this website, caesarean deliveries often result in excessive blood loss, and the eventual deaths of Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse transfusions, the doctor apparently felt that the danger from a planned caesarean delivery outweighed the danger presented by Benta Vesely's one previous caesarean delivery. The jury obviously did not understand the doctor's point of view.

While gathering the court cases for this website, it has been enlightening to see how many medical malpractice lawsuits that Jehovah's Witnesses have filed against hospitals and doctors over the "no blood transfusion" issue, over the years. I have simply bypassed many such cases because they did not involve "Jehovah's Witnesses Children". I now wish that I had recorded such, because many of such lawsuits were against hospitals and/or doctors who had went out of their way to cooperate with the "no blood transfusion" doctrine.

For example, in 1993, a Jehovah's Witness from Niagara Falls, New York, named James Nielson sued a Cleveland, Ohio hospital that had agreed to operate on his wife, Doreen Nielson, under the condition that no blood transfusions would be used, even if such meant her death. Well, she died due to her refusal to accept a blood transfusion. Guess what! James Nielson then sued the hospital for $30,000,000.00! To beat it all, Doreen Nielson was a 49-year-old nurse, who would have fully known all the dangers to which she had consented. Outcome unknown.

*****************

IN THE MATTER OF DAVIS was a 1993 Arkansas court decision. In June 1993, "Baby Girl Davis" was born prematurely at the University of Arkansas Medical Center, to Jehovah's Witnesses parents. When doctors informed the Davises that blood transfusions would likely be needed as part of the extensive treatments needed to ensure that "Baby Girl Davis" survived, the Davises refused to give their consent, citing their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. Thereafter, the hospital sought and obtained a court order authorizing all necessary medical care, including transfusions.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF GRIER was a 1993 Florida court decision. In September 1993, 2-year-old Lashawndrea Grier was admitted to St. Peterburg's All Children's Hospital with complications from sickle cell anemia, which destroys the red blood cells that carry oxygen throughout the body. Lashawndrea Grier was in critical condition; perilously close to a stroke or heart failure. When informed that blood transfusions were needed to save Lashawndrea's life, the mother, Tomeka Patrick, a 21-year-old Jehovah's Witness, refused to give her consent, citing her WatchTower beliefs. The hospital sought and obtained court-ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all necessary medical care, including transfusions.

Grier improved after receiving the court-ordered blood transfusions, but remained in critical condition. Tomeka Patrick stated that her mind is unchanged, and that she will continue to oppose future transfusions needed to fight her daughter's sickle cell anemia.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF ALVARADO was a 1992 New Jersey court decision. Named in honor of the mother's German grandparents, Rommel Alvarado, was born prematurely in May 1992 at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, in Paterson, New Jersey. Curiously, the Jehovah's Witness couple, Walter F. Alvarado and Monica Alvarado had first went to Holy Name Hospital in Teaneck, New Jersey. Does anyone suspect that the blood transfusion issue first arose there? The infant's full medical problems are not known, but a blood test was needed to determine that the baby was a male. Walter F. Alvarado, a 40 year old landscaper, claimed that he was NOT a Jehovah's Witness, but he was able to outlined the WatchTower doctrine better than many Jehovah's Witnesses. Monica Alvarado, 32, said she had been reared as a Roman Catholic, but had been baptized in 1991 as a Jehovah's Witness. Walter stated that he fully supported his wife's decision to refuse to consent to blood transfusions for Rommel, and Walter said that he believed God would see his child through without a blood transfusion. The couple also had a son, Johan, and a daughter, Betsy.

The infants many medical issues made the need for a blood transfusion highly likely, but not an absolute. The hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer blood transfusions should such become necessary. The state court granted authorization and appointed a hospital official as the infant's guardian with respect to medical decisions. It is unknown whether any transfusions were ever needed.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF BACA was a 1992 Texas court decision. In August 1992, Rachel Baca, a 13-year-old Laredo, Texas girl afflicted with acute myeloid leukemia was abducted from Santa Rosa Children's Hospital by her own Jehovah's Witnesses parents. The unnamed Jehovah's Witnesses took their daughter into Mexico to prevent court-ordered blood transfusions from being administered. Outcome unknown.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF ELIANA HERMOSILLO was a 1992 California trial court decision. In August 1992, Susana Hermosillo was crossing a street, with her 3 year old son, Israel, and her 5 month old daughter, Eliana, in a stroller, when they were struck by an automobile. The three year old boy was killed instantly, and Eliana was severely injured - suffering arm and skull fractures, and various internal injuries. At the hospital, Eliana's parents were requested to consent to a blood transfusion to save Eliana's life. The parents refused.

The Hermosillos explained that they were studying to become Jehovah's Witnesses, and that it was their newfound belief that blood transfusions were prohibited by the Bible. The parents explained that forcing blood into their daughter violated her body and showed disrespect to the creator of life. The Hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authority to treat 5 month old Eliana with packed red blood cells. The petition was granted, and Eliana's life was temporarily spared. After 4 surgeries over a ten week period, Eliana was finally released from the hospital in Modesto, in October 1992.

On August 31, 1993, Eliana died at Valley Children's Hospital in Fresno. Her death was reported as caused by complications brought on by her injuries from the 1992 accident.

Curiously, only 22 days later, on September 22, 1993, a second child of Jehovah's Witnesses parents died at Valley Children's Hospital in Fresno. That child's named was Lenae Martinez. Although only 12 years old, Valley Children's Hospital decided that Martinez was a "mature minor", who was legally competent to make her own decision to refuse blood transfusions. The hospital's "Ethics Committee" decided that the hospital would NOT pursue a court order to administer blood transfusions.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF CAMPOS was a 1992 Texas court decision. Audrie Michelle Campos and Marla Annelle Campos, each weighing less than 2 pounds, were born three months premature to Jehovah's Witnesses, Roel and Maria Elena Campos. When the parents refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for the twins, McAllen Medical Center petitioned the local court for help. The court granted Texas Child Protective Services temporary custody of the children, including authorization for all necessary medical care.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF JEANLOUIS was a 1992 Florida court decision. In June 1992, a critically ill 10-year-old girl named Ketia Jeanlouis was admitted to Palm Beach county's St. Mary's Hospital suffering from pneumonia and sickle cell disease. When doctors informed Ketia Jeanlouis' unidentified Jehovah's Witness mother that the 10-year-old would need blood transfusions to survive, the Jehovah's Witness of only six years refused to give her consent. Thereafter, the hospital sought and obtained an emergency petition of guardianship and authorization to administer life-saving blood transfusions.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF HEATH was a 1992 West Virginia appellate court decision. Latoya Heath, 15, of Shepherdstown, West Virginia, suffered from strokes caused by sickle cell anemia. Heath's Jehovah's Witnesses parents not only refused to consent to needed blood transfusions, but after transfusions were authorized by a local court, Heath's Jehovah's Witnesses parents appealed the lower court's decision. West Virginia's Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

******************

APPLICATION OF JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL was a 1992 Florida court decision. On November 28, 1992, siamese twins were born at Miami's Jackson Memorial Hospital. The Jehovah's Witnesses parents asked not to be identified. The twins shared a liver. They needed blood transfusions to survive. Their Jehovah's Witnesses parents refused to consent. The hospital petitioned the local court for guardianship and authorization to administer the necessary transfusions. Petition granted. The weaker twin soon died, but the stronger twin survived until February 1993.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF ABASTA was a series of 1992 Texas court decisions. Nina Abasta was born two months premature at Driscoll Children's Hospital in September 1992. Nina Abasta suffered a perforated intestine. Doctors informed parents, Marco and Lenora Abasta, that blood transfusions would be necessary during the surgery required to repair Nina's intestine. The parents refused to give their consent due to their Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. When the court first took custody of Nina, the parents hired an attorney who fought tooth and nail to prevent Nina from receiving a blood transfusion. The state court tried to cooperate with the Jehovah's Witnesses efforts to find a hospital that would perform the surgery with transfusions, but such efforts apparently were unsuccessful. Custody was maintained with the court for only the medical matters. Its not entirely clear, but it appears that surgery was finally performed using blood transfusions after 2-3 weeks of repeated court hearings.

******************

IN THE MATTER OF ZWEYER was a 1992 West Virginia court decision. In January 1992, Patrick Zweyer, 12, was struck by an ambulance as he waited for a school bus in Morgantown, West Virginia. When Zweyer's Jehovah's Witnesses parents refused to consent to needed blood transfusions, WVU's Children's Hospital petitioned the local court for authorization. Petition granted. Transfusions were administered, and Zweyer recovered.

******************

IN THE INTEREST OF W.M. JR. was a 1992 Missouri federal Court of Appeals decision. WatchTower attorney Donald T. Ridley submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., the parent corporation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Seventeen year old W.M. JR. had a sub-form of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, T-cell variety. W.M. Jr and his mother were Jehovah's Witnesses. W.M. JR.'s father is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but he supported the mother's and W.M. Jr.'s decision to object to medical treatment requiring administration of blood products.

As of December 1990, Dr. Alan Schwartz, Chief of the Division of Pediatric Hematology at St. Louis Children's Hospital and Professor of Pediatrics at Washington University School of Medicine, had been caring for W.M. Jr. for approximately eight months. He identified W.M., Jr.'s four major medical problems: (1) leukemia; (2) marked deficiency of white blood cells; (3) severe anemia; and (4) severe reduction in blood platelets. Dr. Schwartz stated the only recognized course of medical treatment to alleviate these conditions was a provision of blood transfusions using red blood cells and blood platelets.

Dr. Schwartz believed that a low blood platelet count placed W.M., Jr. at risk for a potential catastrophic hemorrhage resulting in death or a vegetative state. Since there are no absolute guidelines to forecast hemorrhaging, Dr. Schwartz's believed that it was critical to have available the ability to provide blood transfusions to W.M., Jr. within a ten minute timeframe. With blood transfusions, Dr. Schwartz estimated W.M., Jr.'s chance of survival to be approximately fifty percent. Without blood transfusions, W.M., Jr. chance of survival fell below one percent. Dr. Schwartz indicated that when he started treating W.M., Jr. that he had made W.M., Jr. and his parents aware that if W.M., Jr.'s condition reached a certain condition that he would treat W.M., Jr. with blood transfusions.

December 11, 1990: The following temporary ex parte order was issued by a Missouri juvenile court judge: On the Motion of the Juvenile Officer and the submission of Affidavits from St. Louis Children's Hospital, the Court finds as follows: "That the child is suffering from T-Cell acute Lymphoblastic eukemia and is presently hospitalized at St. Louis Children's Hospital for fever and neutropenia. Further, that the child's condition is complicated by low platelet count and low hemoglobin, both of which conditions could result in hemorrhage and death. Further, that the natural parents have been informed of the said condition and of the need for the possible administration of platelets and packed red blood cells but that the said parents have refused the medical treatment due to their religious beliefs. Further, the Court finds that the said child is in need of immediate treatment and that his condition is life threatening. WHEREFORE, the Court hereby Orders that the said [W.M., Jr.] be and is hereby Ordered taken into Judicial Custody by the Juvenile Officer and that the staff of St. Louis Children's Hospital be and is hereby granted permission to provide such medical treatment, including the administration of blood or blood products, as the child's medical condition may require. Provided, however, that the administration of said blood and/or blood products shall be only for life-saving purposes and not as routine treatment. Further, the Juvenile Officer is authorized to provide such written consents as the hospital staff may require.

December 12, 1990: The court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem for W.M., Jr.

December 13, 1990: W.M., Jr. was transfused against his will at Children's Hospital. The same day, the juvenile officer filed a custody petition because the parents, due to their religious beliefs, refused to authorize administration of blood products and thereby placed W.M., Jr. "at risk of harm in that he may bleed to death or suffer other injuries."

December 14, 1990: Partial evidentiary hearing on the juvenile officer's 12/13 petition. Attorneys for the juvenile officer, W.M., Jr., the parents, and a representative of Children's Hospital were present. Dr. Alan Schwartz testified to W.M., Jr's condition and necessity of blood transfusions. Attorney for parents requested the hearing be continued in order to have an opportunity to further investigate the case. Judge continued the hearing and entered an interlocutory order keeping 12/11 order in force until further order by court.

December 21, 1990: Attorney for parents requested a continuance due to the unavailability of W.M., Jr.

February 8, 1991: Juvenile officer filed a Motion for Protective Custody and Medical Treatment. Juvenile officer alleged in the motion that the parents intended to transport W.M., Jr. to Texas for treatment. However, the staff of St. Louis Children's Hospital opined W.M., Jr. was at risk of death if he did not receive the administration of blood products before he traveled to Texas. The juvenile officer withdrew the motion filed previously that day. The juvenile officer stated he had no objection to W.M., Jr. being transported to Texas after the treating physician administered blood products to ensure he would survive the trip. Parents file motion to set aside or modify the December 14th order. Court orders W.M., Jr. taken to Children's Hospital and transfused as treatment for life threatening anemia.

March 1991: W.M., Jr. went to Texas during the first week of March 1991, for less than two weeks. In Texas, W.M., Jr. received treatment for his leukemia without administration of blood products.

1991: Pediatrician at Cardinal Glennon Hospital in St. Louis is continuing the non-blood treatment program W.M., Jr. began in Texas. Fortunately, W.M., Jr. is currently in remission and is actively participating at school, around the house and at his Jehovah's Witness congregation.

Parents filed appeal in federal court re February 8, 1991 order in an attempt to set precedent in similar cases. Court of Appeals dismissed for variety of legal technicalities.

******************

MORE JW MINORS COURT CASE SUMMARIES ON NEXT PAGE - 1B

******************

RECOMMENDED READING:

Blood Transfusions: A History and Evaluation of the Religious, Biblical, and Medical Objections (Jehovah's Witnesses perspective)

Blood, Medicine, and the Jehovah's Witnesses: The Hidden History of the Watchtower's Position on the Blood Issue

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness

******************

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: JW MINORS - PAGE 1 of 4