IN RE MICHAEL HARDING was a 1980 Tennessee court decision which involved another parental kidnapping by a Jehovah's Witness family. In December 1980, Michael T. Harding and Olivia Harding removed their son, Michael Harding, 2, from Memphis' Le Bonheur Children's Medical Center after being told he suffered from anemia and needed a blood transfusion to survive. The Hospital sought and received court intervention after the JW Parents refused to consent to necessary blood transfusions. After the child was discovered missing from his hospital room, a police search was initiated. When questioned about the child's whereabouts by the Police, the great-grandmother would only say, "Jehovah will take care of it all." A more law-abiding relative hinted that the parents may have taken the child to an unidentified Jehovah's Witness doctor in Missouri.
******************
ON APPLICATION OF PORTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL was a 1980 Indiana court decision. In August 1980, unidentified Jehovah's Witness Parents refused to consent to blood transfusions needed to save the life of their pre-maturely born baby. The Porter County Welfare Department intervened and sought a court order which would allow Porter Memorial Hospital to administer the life-saving transfusions. Outcome unknown.
******************
IN RE LASHAWN RICKS was a 1979 Kansas court decision. In July 1979, LaShawn Ricks, female, was born to a 15 year-old Jehovah's Witness named Carlene Ricks. No father was identified. The newborn needed an exchange transfusion for unspecified reasons. Carlene Ricks and her own Jehovah's Witness parents refused to consent to the transfusions needed by LaShawn, because such violated the the high moral standards and teachings of the WatchTower Society. The hospital requested and received court intervention, which included the state taking custody of the baby.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS WELCH was a 1979 Michigan court decision. Nicholas Welch was born anemic at William Beaumont Hospital, in June 1979, to Jehovah's Witness Parents, James Welch and Susan Welch, of Livonia.When a respirator was insufficient to prevent brain damage and possible physical deformity, doctors requested the parents' consent to transfusions. First, they consulted their JW Elders; then refused. Doctors sought and received court-ordered guardianship and authorization for all needed care to save Nicholas from a life of possible handicap.
******************
IN RE NEELY was a 1979 Michigan court decision. In March 1979, a Jehovah's Witness Couple, named Gary Neely, 23, and Diana Neely, 21, of Ferndale, Michigan, refused to consent to blood transfusions for their newborn daughter, Andrea Neely, who was born with a genetic blood disorder which caused her red blood cells to be destroyed faster than such were produced. Gary Neely eloquently told a reporter, "Even if they gave her blood, she might die." Bi-County Hospital sought and obtained court intervention. Outcome unknown.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF BOBBI JO KRAFT was a 1979 Minnesota court decision. In February 1979, John Karft, 22, and Karla (Fisher) Kraft, 21, of Negaunee, Michigan, had taken their 2-year-old daughter Bobbi Jo Kraft, who was suffering from leukemia, to the Mayo Clinic, in Rochester, Minnesota. When the Krafts were informed that Bobbi Jo desperately needed a blood transfusion, and that the hospital was seeking a court order to authorize such, the JW parents removed Bobbi Jo from St. Mary's Hospital. The hospital notified Police and social services, who located the Krafts at the home of a Rochester Jehovah's Witness family. Bobbi Jo was taken into state custody; returned to St. Marys Hospital, and given all needed medical care, including three blood transfusions.
When a reporter asked John Kraft what he would do if/when his efforts to regain custody were successful, Kraft responded that they would probably just leave Bobbi Jo at St Mary's Hospital, since "the damage has been done now". The Kraft parents were fully supported by both sets of grandparents, who were also JWs, including Roy and Margaret Fisher, of Marinette, Wisconsin.
The leukemia was in total remission by the second week in March, and the court returned custody to the parents. As the Krafts and Fishers left for home, they told reporters that if Bobbi Jo's condition ever took a turn for the worse, that instead of returning to the Mayo Clinic, they would take the baby to Dr. Jan VanEys in Houston, Texas, who treated JW babies without blood transfusions.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF BUTLER was a 1979 Maryland court decision. Queral Butler was the newborn son of Jehovah's Witnesses, Richard D. Butler and Mary Lou Butler, of Kearneysville, West Virginia. The 5 day old infant was airlifted from a Charles Town, West Virginia hospital to a Frederick, Maryland's City Hospital with unknown medical problems. Doctors secured an emergency court order allowing them to begin giving blood to Queral Butler as soon as he arrived. Whatever the problem, the infant received multiple transfusions before his condition stabilized and improved. The thankful Mary Lou Butler said: "The doctor's trying to act like God, and he's not." Richard D. Butler, obviously confused as to who was the person[s] endangering this child's life, stated: "If my baby dies, it will be on that person's head."
******************
IN THE MATTER OF BRADFORD KEARLEY was a 1978 Massachusetts court decision. In August 1978, 20-month-old Bradford Kearley, also called Brad Kearley, was diagnosed with bone cancer at Melrose-Wakefield Hospital in Melrose, Massachusetts. When hospital officials informed the parents, Thomas Kearley, 37, and his wife, Leah Kearley, 29, of Saugus, Massachusetts, that Brad would need blood transfusions along with his chemotherapy, the Kearleys informed the hospital that they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and that they would not consent to blood transfusions. Thereafter, the hospital petitioned a local court for authorization to provide Bradford Kearley with all needed medical care, including transfusions. The petition was granted, and guardianship was awarded to the Massachusetts Welfare Department.
However, Thomas Kearley and Leah Kearley removed Bradford from the hospital, and seemingly disappeared. A nationwide manhunt ensued. A week or so later, the Kearleys surfaced in Jacksonville, Florida, where they check Bradford into Children's Hospital. Evidently, "someone" had suggested that this Florida hospital would treat Bradford's cancer without administering blood transfusions. In October 1978, Thomas Kearley told reporters that tests at the Jacksonville hospital showed no cancer, but only a staph infection.
In May 1979, Bradford Kearley died in a Jamaican hospital where his parents were trying various alternative therapies for the cancer that didn't exist.
******************
In 1977, the needless death of the newborn infant of Richard Modigills and Kathleen Modigills, 30, at Dallas, Texas, East Town Osteopathic Hospital was reported to the Dallas County District Attorneys' Office for possible criminal investigation by Texas DHS. Expecting their fourth child, the Modigills of Ann Arbor, Michigan, had traveled to Dallas, Texas to be doctored by a fellow Jehovah's Witness Osteopath, named Dr. W. E. Winslow.
The issue was Rh factor incompatibility, and in this scenario, the unborn child was anticipated NOT to survive until birth. Thus, the baby was delivered by caesarian one month early. For three long days, the Jehovah's Witness doctor tried a number of alternative treatments, which apparently outraged his peers at the hospital, who angerily stated that the baby would have most likely lived if given an exchange transfusion. (It was Winslow's peers at East Town Hospital who most likely reported the child's death to authorities.)
After her newborn died, Kathleen Modigill told a reporter, "We've upheld our integrity to God and done what he's said is best. We've pleased our creator and gone along with our conscience and what it dictates to us."
******************
IN RE PETERS was a 1977 New Mexico court decision which involved JW Babies having babies. In December 1977, Jon Peters, 17, and Denine Peters, 17, of the Santa Fe Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, had a newborn baby which needed its blood completely exchanged, when jaundice developed after discharge. Jon and Denine Peters refused to give their consent. Their doctor tried non-blood solutions, but when the baby's health was endangered, St. Vincents Hospital petitioned a local Judge in the middle of the night for emergency authorization.
The hearing was held at the Judge's home at 2:00 AM, and when the Judge heard the Peters and a JW Elder arguing against administering the needed care to their own baby, the Judge threw them out of his home, but only after giving temporary custody of their child to a legal guardian authorized to consent to all needed medical care. Afterwards, this 17 year-old JW Genius was ranting to reporters about how the Judge and doctors had disobeyed his wishes.
******************
The following "Letter To The Editor" was published in a 1977 Washington state newspaper. Nathan George, a Jehovah's Witness, was apparently responding to one of many regular news reports about a Jehovah's Witness who had died after refusing a blood transfusion.
Refusal Explained
With all due respect to your newspaper, I do not believe that you will publish this letter because I believe you are prejudiced to Jehovah Witnesses.
The public should know why so many of Jehovah's Witnesses die in the emergency rooms. They die because doctors are too proud and stubborn to admit that there are many alternatives where blood is not available or where it is refused by persons in need.
The alternatives are Dextron, Haemaccel. P.V.R , Ringers lactate or saline solution, to mention a few.
Do you know that every one of the above mentioned alternatives have been proven far safer than blood? Do you know that not one time has hepatitis or any infection or disease ever been contacted from the use of these alternatives?
Do you know that sugar and water has been used in open heart surgery in place of blood transfusions and the doctors were amazed at the fact that those who used sugar and water in place of blood recovered much faster?
Doctors know these facts as well as the fact that bone marrow has to change to accept every new blood transfusion.
So why do doctors insist on using blood? Doctors make more money from blood. They get it free and sell it.
Ask someone who has had to pay for a pint of blood. Sugar and water is practically free.
Is this really a free country where parents have the say as to what doctors can do to them, or their families?
— Nathan E. George, Randle, [Washington]
******************
STAELENS v. YAKE ET AL was a 1977 Illinois federal district court decision. Interestingly, the Staelens had attorneys from Illinois, Georgia, and NYC. A minor, named Ronald Staelens, was admitted to St. Anthony Hospital of Rockford, Illinois, where required medical treatment necessitated the adminnistering of blood transfusions. The parents, James and Dale Staelens, proclaimed they were Jehovah's Witnesses, and refused to give their consent for transfusions. The Hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer life-saving transfusions. The petition was granted.
Thereafter, James and Dale Staelens filed a federal lawsuit against the physicians, the hospital, and the judge claiming that their constitutional rights were violated, in particular their right to the free exercise of their religion. The suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim given the fact that state courts have the right to order life-saving transfusions for minors. The district court stated in part:
"Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the defendants deprived them of their constitutional rights by conspiring to obtain a court order removing their son, Ronald Staelens, from their custody and appointing a guardian to consent to medical treatment and to the administration of blood transfusions to the child. Plaintiffs claim the entry of the court order violated their constitutional rights by denying them religious freedom, depriving them of procedural and substantive due process, and denying them an alleged "personal and parental right to select and undergo medical treatment of their choice."
Apparently aware of the jurisdictional prerequisite that defendants must have acted 'under color of state law' to be subject to liability under § 1983, plaintiffs allege that defendants Yake and Tisovec acted in concert with Judge Morrison, an officer of the state, and St. Anthony Hospital, a private hospital subject to state licensing and regulation. Neither theory will support a claim against these defendants."
******************
IN RE DANIELLE DIXON was a 1977 Ohio court decision. In May 1977, Danielle Dixon, 12, was admitted to Cincinnati's Providence Hospital with gastro-intestinal bleeding. The Jehovah's Witness Parents refused to consent to needed blood transfusions, so the hospital sought and obtained a court order. However, Danielle died before the transfusions could be ordered.
******************
IN RE BABY WAITE was a 1977 Alabama court decision. Prior to March 1977, a young Jehovah's Witness couple, named Trent Waite and Peggy Waite, were informed that their unborn daughter would need an exchange transfusion at birth in order to survive, due to Rh factor issues. The Waites refused to consent. Thus, as soon as Peggy Waite went into labor, Huntsville Hospital sought court intervention. A local judge placed guardianship of the newborn with Alabama's child welfare agency, and all necessary medical care was authorized.
******************
ON APPLICATION OF MERCY HOSPITAL was a 1976 California court decision. Limited details. In December 1976, an unidentified one-day old newborn infant of Jehovah's Witnesses parents needed a blood transfusion to survive. The parents refused to give their consent. Mercy Hospital petitioned a local court for guardianship and authorization to administer required medical care including blood transfusions. Petition granted. Medical outcome unknown.
******************
IN RE RIVERA was a 1976 New Jersey court decision which involved 4 day-old Joshua Rivera, whose Jehovah's Witness Parents, Saturnino Rivera, 23, and Andiranne Rivera, 20, were refusing to give doctors permission to administer blood transfusions needed to save the newborn's life. Joshua was born with lung complications resulting in a very low red blood cell count. Doctors at Jersey City Medical Center (for whatever reason, not where the mother was recuperating) sought and received guardianship and court-ordered authorization for all needed medical treatment to save the child's life.
After the Judge's decision, Saturnino Rivera told a reporter, "Transfusions are wrong according to the Bible, and we must obey God's laws. ... I just can't understand why the judge ordered the tansfusion when he knew it was against our religion. ... We both decided that the baby should not have a transfusion even if it meant death. That's God's decision. ... Somehow it's alright to kill babies by abortions, but you aren't allowed to let God's will be done."
******************
IN RE ANTHONY CASTILLO was a 1976 California court decision. In October 1976, John Castillo and Margaret Castillo took their son, Anthony Castillo, 3, to Riverside General Hospital, because he had a high fever and possibly other symptoms. Doctors were uncertain what was the problem, but because the Jehovah's Witness parents were refusing to consent to any necessary blood transfusions, the hospital sought court intervention. Authorization was granted, but transfusions were never administered. The child unexpectedly died the next day. An autopsy disclosed that the child had "contagious" spiral meningitus, which had to be dealt with amongst the surviving family members.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN SMITH was a 1976 Michigan court decision. Kevin Smith was born in January 1976, at Grand Rapids' Butterworth Hospital, to Jehovah's Witness Parents, Harold A. Smith, 29, and Marion Smith. Due to complications from a congenital Rh factor problem, Kevin needed an exchange transfusion, which his JW parents rejected. The Smiths opined that since their three other children, including a 5 year-old and 2 year-old, had simply "outgrew" the same problem, then Kevin would too. The local JWs also suggested "alternative treatments", including a "cure" pioneered by an unnamed Jehovah's Witness doctor in Phoenix, Arizona. Kevin's doctors responded with answers that were the equivalent of headshakes and eyerolls.
The hospital sought and was granted both court-ordered guardianship and authorization to provide all needed medical care. Harold Smith, a local Bakery worker, threatened to sue everybody, because his "civil rights" had been trampled -- all while spewing the regular WatchTower nonsense about how people receiving blood transfusions were "eating blood". Harold Smith also threatened to do whatever it took to stop the transfusions, thus, Police guards were posted at the door of the child's hospital room to prevent the child from being abducted.
******************
IN RE SCHOBEL was a 1976 Rhode Island court decision. In August 1976, Jehovah's Witness Parents, named Gene Schobel and Christine Schobel, refused to consent to a blood transfusion needed by their 10-week premature newly-born 16-day-old daughter. Providence's Womens and Infants Hospital sought and obtained court intervention. Christine Schobel told a reporter, "I feel, No Blood - Never! That's how strenuously I object to it. God told Noah and them just to pour it on the ground. Don't fool with it at all. It's more dangerous than we know."
******************
IN RE BRIAN BENNETT was a 1976 Florida court decision. Incomplete details. In September 1976, a Brevard County judge authorized blood transfusions for a minor named Brian Bennett after his Jehovah's Witness parents refused to consent. Condition remained critical though improving.
******************
In March 1975 (remember that Armageddon was going to occur in October), Jehovah's Witnesses, Mr/Mrs James Stimach, of Los Gatos, California, went into hiding from non-JW relatives and Police, after a doctor diagnosed their week-old newborn with jaundice, and informed them that the baby needed a blood transfusion. No further details.
******************
IN RE OLIVER was a 1975 Arkansas court decision which involved a minor named Bobby Allen Oliver. Bobby Oliver was the minor son of divorced parents, Thomas Edward Oliver and Bulah Harley. In January, 1975, Bobby Oliver's doctors discovered that Bobby needed some type of (unidentified)surgical operation. Bobby's doctors anticipated that a blood transfusion might be needed during the surgery. However, Bulah Harvey, who apparently was the custodial parent, was a Jehovah's Witness, and she refused to give her consent for any blood transfusions which would become necessary to save Bobby's life.
Details are sketchy, but apparently Thomas Oliver sought a temporary change in custody, so that he could provide consent for any transfusions that might become necessary during Bobby's surgery. Oliver appeared before Arkansas Probate Judge Van B. Taylor, who apparently ordered the change of custody. That hearing was possibly held on an emergency basis; meaning that Harley either wasn't represented, or did not have time to arrange representation. It is unclear whether a motion to vacate was filed with the state courts, or whether Harley and her pack of JW Attorneys simply proceeded to federal court. At any rate, it appears that custody was returned to Bulah Harley in late February, when at the same time, the judge issued an order directing that the surgery be performed.
***
HARLEY v. OLIVER was a 1976 Arkansas federal appellate court decision which involved a minor named Bobby Allen Oliver, his father, Thomas Edward Oliver, and the Jehovah's Witness mother, named Bulah (Oliver) Harley. This lawsuit was quickly and quietly forgotten because the Jehovah's Witnesses LOST despite having brought in from all over the U.S. every major JW Attorney: Kenneth S. Jacobs from Villa Park, Illinois; George H. Hartman from New York City; Thomas B. Taylor, Jr. from Conroe, Texas; and Billy E. Moore from Columbus, Georgia.
Apparently, after custody of Bobby Oliver was temporarily switched to Tom Oliver in January 1975, or possibly after surgery was ordered in February 1975, this pack of JW Attorneys filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction to either stop the surgery, or affect the change in custody (unclear). However, the JW Lawsuit also alleged damages in the amount of $6,000,000.00 against Thomas Oliver, his attorney, and even the Arkansas Judge, who ordered the custody change. The JW Lawsuit alleged that the $6,000,000.00 in damages suffered by Bulah (Oliver) Harley and Bobby Allen Oliver were a result of the "emotional distress" from the change in custody.
Apparently, the JW Pack got nowhere with the federal judge, and they may have moved for a change in the judge and/or venue. I wish I had the details, because this case apparently got messy. At some point, either in the USDC or USCA, the injunction part of their case was dismissed as moot. The USDC then dismissed the tort part of the case, and the JW Pack appealed for a second time.
The USCA affirmed the USDC's dismissal of the JW Pack's harassment lawsuit against the father, his attorney, and the state court Judge -- barely bothering to address the legalities as to why. The JWs themselves should have been sued.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF LOTT was a 1975 Wisconsin court decision. In November 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Booker T. Lott, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin took their 13-month old daughter, Tiffany, to the emergency room with what they thought was a cold or the flu. Mrs. Lott, 22, told the doctors that Tiffany had not been eating, and was vomiting. Tests revealed that the infant's hemoglobin registered 2.2 milligrams per 100 cubic centimeters of blood. A blood transfusion was urgently needed. The Lotts refused to consent, citing their WatchTower beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The hospital petitioned the local court for guardianship and authorization to administer the needed life-saving transfusion. The judge held an emergency hearing at the hospital, where the Lotts did everything they could to disuade the judge. Steven Kirkland, the Overseer of the Lotts congregation, quoted passages from the Bible which supposedly prohibited blood transfusions. The judge granted the petition. The transfusions were administered, and Tiffany went home five days later.
******************
IN INTEREST OF IVEY was a 1975 Florida appellate court decision. On August 31, 1975, twin daughters, named Julia and Carol, were born three months premature to Ronald and Denita Ivey of Panama City, Florida. Doctors at Sacred Heart Hospital in Pensacola determined that the two infants had only a 5% chance of survival unless they both were administered a blood transfusion. Ronald and Denita Ivey were Jehovah's Witnesses, and they refused to consent to life-saving transfusions for their two daughters.
Initially, the pediatrician filed an emergency petition for guardianship and authority to administer blood transfusions. However, Ronald Ivey threatened him and the hospital with a lawsuit, and they wimped out. The Florida welfare department then jumped into the fray and filed an emergency petition, which was granted -- custody and medical authorization. The transfusions were administered as soon as possible, but such was too late for baby Julia, who died. The transfusion helped Carol Ivey to survive.
When national media criticized the parents for their actions, Denita Ivey publicly charged that the doctors who administered the transfusion had "murdered" Julia: "Our baby was taken away from us by the Welfare Department and given this blood, which literally killed her. ... They took the babies away from me after I had given them birth. This is a mockery of my constitutional rights. It's a mockery altogether ... The Bible clearly states that Christians are to abstain from any use of blood." Ivey stated that the babies were "in fantastic condition" Friday night, just before the transfusions. "They were moving around. Their color was real good. There was nothing that we could do about it, but stand by and watch them kill our baby."
******************
IN RE ISLEY was a 1975 North Carolina court decision. Limited details. In September 1975, "child neglect" proceedings were initiated against Mr/Mrs Anthony Isley, of Reidsville, North Carolina, after they refused to allow doctors at an unidentified Winston-Salem area hospital to administer a needed blood transfusion. Custody of the infant was placed with the state. The baby died two days later despite all efforts to save its life.
******************
IN RE KEITH MILLER was a 1974 Pennsylvania court decision. In June 1974, 5 year-old Keith Miller, who apparently was not being properly supervised, got his head caught in a piece of operating farm equipment, and was critically injured. Mr/Mrs Kenneth G. Miller, of Christiana, Pennsylvania, refused to consent to allow Lancaster General Hospital to administered needed blood transfusions, because of the family's WatchTower beliefs. Court intervention was sought. The Judge placed Keith in the cutody of the state welfare department, and authorized all necessary medical care. Outcome unknown.
******************
MUHLENBERG HOSPITAL v. PATTERSON was a 1974 New Jersey appellate court decision. In January 1974, Anthony Lenard Patterson was born prematurely to Donald and Geraldine Patterson, who were Jehovah's Witnesses. The child was found by his physician Dr. Rudolph Archer to be suffering from jaundice caused by an uncommon incompatibility between Mrs. Patterson's blood and the child's system. Anthony's parents refused to permit blood transfusion on religious grounds. Dr. Archer, understanding the parents objection to blood transfusions, permitted the child's bilirubin count to exceed the level at which, ordinarily, he would have ordered such transfusion; but as the level approached one which could produce serious hazards to the child, Dr. Archer contacted the Chief of Pediatrics and the hospital Administrator, who in turn requested assistance from the Court.
A hearing was convened at Muhlenberg Hospital at 5:30 P.M. on January 22, 1974, at which were present the parents, two Jehovah's Witnesses Elders, two friends of the parents, as well as the hospital director, other hospital personnel and Dr. Archer. Dr. Archer testified that a bilirubin count of 20 or 21 would, within a short period of time, produce severe and irreparable brain damage, seriously imparing the infant's mental facilities, and that the count had risen during the day to the area of 18--19. Based upon the parents continued objections to blood transfusions, the court determined that the Guardian Ad Litem should be appointed, and Mr. Dailey, the Director of Muhlenberg Hospital, was so designated. He testified that from the hospital records and from consultations with the Chief of Pediatrics, it was necessary for the hospital to have permission to transfuse the infant and accomplish a complete blood exchange in the event the bilirubin content advanced beyond its present state. Both he and Dr. Archer agreed that the danger was not one of loss of life, unless secondary infection set in following the adverse consequences of the liver problem. The court found that, although there was only incidental danger to life, there was, to a reasonable medical certainty, immediate danger of irreparable brain damage and concomitant severe mental retardation, in the event the transfusion would be withheld when the bilirubin count equalled or exceeded 20. The requested order was signed after the hearing.
Further details are not available, but the child may have died despite the Hospital's best efforts. The Pattersons may have also appealed the lower court's ruling, but results are unknown.
******************
IN RE SOWELL was a 1974 Pennsylvania court decision. In July 1974, Donald Sowell and Sheila Sowell delivered a newborn daughter with Rh factor problems at Crozier-Chester Medical Center. The Sowells refused to consent to necessary exchange transfusions, so the hospital sought and obtained emergency court intervention. When asked to comment on the case, the Sowells refused until they could meet with the Philadelphia attorney they had already retained.
******************
IN RE ROBERT DANIEL HARSHBERGER was a 1974 Arkansas court decision. In February 1974, Daniel Harshberger was born to Jehovah's Witness Parents, Robert Harshberger, 27, and Rebecca Harshberger, 19. Due to unexpected Rh factor problems, one or more exchange transfusions were needed for the newborn to survive. The JW Parents refused to consent, stating that they would rather have him resurrected than lost for all eternity. (Per WatchTower beliefs, a "wrong" decision by the parents would not penalize the child, so whose lives were they concerned for? ) An unidentified Little Rock hospital sought and obtained court intervention. The baby was temporarily placed in the custody of a second judge who would consent to all medical care needed to save the child's life.
******************
IN RE ALVIN WEAVER was a 1974 Pennsylvania court decision. Alvin Weaver, 22, was an epileptic retardee, who lived with his Jehovah's Witness Mother, Florence Springfield, and her husband, James Springfield, 55. The stepfather stabbed his stepson in a fight between the two, and Weaver died. The stepfather claimed self-defense. He claimed that his physically-large mentally-handicapped stepson was prone to unprovoked attacks. A jury still convicted Springfield of manslaughter.
Florence Springfield refused to consent to a necessary blood transfusion for her son. Court intervention was obtained, but the initiator is unknown. Probably the hospital. Stepfather possible. Regardless, Weaver died before it could be administered.
******************
ON APPLICATION OF PARADISE VALLEY HOSPITAL was a 1974 California court decision. In July 1974, Jehovah's Witness parents with different last names, Bradley Orr and Catherine Pankau, broke a verbal court-order when they removed their newborn daughter from San Diego's Paradise Valley Hospital to prevent the administration of a blood transfusion. No further details.
******************
IN RE AUBREY RUSSELL CONNER JR was a 1974 Texas court decision. In October 1974, 12 year-old Aubrey Conner Jr., his Jehovah's Witness Father, Aubrey Sr, and two probable JW friends who preferred not to identify themselves, were out bird hunting. While standing in the back of a moving pickup truck, Aubrey's 20 gauge shotgun somehow discharged into one of his armpits; nearly severing that arm. Whatever was done at Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital - save the arm or save the life - blood transfusions were needed. The JW Parents refused consent, so court intervention was sought and obtained. The boy's life was preserved, and the arm stood a chance.
However, the JW idiots were all running around as usual, getting in the way of people actually accomplishing something, and spewing both biblical and legal nonsense. One JW fool and local Elder, named St. Clair, who would not even give his first name, stated, "Life is in the blood. which is sacred, and should not be used as a means of living - as a food." [huh??] Elder St. Clair also stated that the Judges had invaded the Conner's personal rights, and "if it were my son, I would do everything possible to bring THEM to JUSTICE." [I wish I had a time machine.]
Apparently, the local news media did these local JWs a favor, and did not report everything that happened at the hospital. Maybe the local grapevine had already done the job, but the news article simply mentions that THREE POLICE OFFICERS were stationed at the hospital after the parents "objected" to the transfusions.
The Conner family evidently was one of means and local influence. The family was able to get the court-ordered guardianship lifted, and Aubrey Conner Jr. was transferred via private airplane to East Town Osteopathic Hospital, in Dallas, which at that time was cooperating with JWs and their refusal to accept blood transfusions. (Search on "East Town Osteopathic" in other summaries.)
******************
IN RE JOSEPH BOSSERT and IN RE JOHN BOSSERT were related 1974 Michigan court decisions. John, 10, and Joey, 14, apparently had already been the victims of a nasty Jehovah's Witness divorce between Edward Bossert and Jean Bossert, who apparently had physical custody.
In August 1974, the Bossert brothers and three other children (possibly JWs given that JW kids generally only play with other JWs) were using gasoline to clean up paint brushes in Jean Bossert's Pontiac, Michigan basement, when the vapors ignited, and the resulting fire seriously burned all five children - killing one almost instantly.
John was eventually treated at University Hospital, and Joey was treated at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. Jean Bossert refused to consent to needed blood transfusions for either boy, so Edward Bossert sought intervention from the family court, which was obtained. The needed transfusions were administered, but overall outcome is unknown.
This INCIDENT should ring a bell for the Judges in all those divorce cases who dismissed the non-JW parents' arguments that the blood transfusions issue is a REAL ISSUE. Even in cases where the court intervenes, who knows how much physical damage is done during the delay.
******************
IN RE THERESA THIGPEN was a 1974 California court decision. In June 1974, Jehovah's Witnesses, Danny Thigpen, 24, Carol Thigpen, 23, were involved in a serious auto accident in which their 2 year-old daughter received severe head injuries. The parents received only minor injuries, and refused to consent to blood transfusions for their daughter at San Leandro Memorial Hospital. Court intervention was sought and obtained, but Theresa died before the order was received.
******************
IN RE STEPHEN OWENS was a 1974 California court decision. In July 1974, Stephen Owens, 9, of Los Angeles, was critically injured due to skull fracture when he was struck by an automobile. The boy's Jehovah's Witness Mother, Grace Owens, refused to consent to needed blood transfusions. Officials at MLK Hospital sought and obtained court intervention. No transfusion was needed during the initial surgery. Outcome unknown.
******************
IN RE GUY TALMADGE LACY and IN RE GUY LACY were two separate 1973 Florida and Texas court cases which both concerned the same Jehovah's Witness child. Talmadge Lacy was born to JW Mother, Nell Lacy, in August, 1973, with Rh factor issues which deemed a complete exchange of his blood using blood transfusions. When doctors at a Pensacola area hospital sought a court order to override the JW Parents refusal to give consent, the JW Father, Guy Lacy, secreted Guy Talmadge (their 4th child) out of the hospital, and took him to Gulfway General Hospital, in Houston, Texas, where a Jehovah's Witness Osteopath, named Kenneth Riggle, had treated other JW babies whose parents had "kidnapped" their own children in efforts to avoid court-ordered blood transfusions in other states.
However, in this instance, the Texas welfare department was eventually informed of what was going on, and the State sought and received guardianship and a court order, which also authorized the necessary blood transfusions, which ended up saving the baby's life. The Welfare Department moved the newborn to Jefferson Davis Hospital, where necessary transfusions were administered over a several week period -- both inpatient and out-patient, given that the child had been temporarily placed in foster care. Once the child was out of danger, he was returned to the custody of his loving parents.
Canadian Attorney Glenn Howe, flown in from the WatchTower Society's Canadian HQ, in addition to making several totally asinine statements, declared that the action of the Texas welfare department in looking out for the baby's welfare represented "a continued direction of animosity against a minority group by public officials."
Guy Lacy declared to the Texas court: "Blood cannot save a life, and no doctor's has ever been able to prove it." Lacy further stated that if the baby were to have died that no doctor could ever convince him that such was because the baby had not had the exchange transfusion. Lacy also stated to the Judge that he felt as if "he had no rights", and that the proceedings reminded him of the "Gestapo taking children". [If I had been the Judge in those proceedings, I would have told Canadian Glen Howe that if the G-word came out of his client's mouth one more time, that he -- Howe -- would be cleaning Texas ditchlines for the next 30 days. Readers should not for an instant believe that rank-n-file JWs come up with such inflamatory catch-phrases as "Gestapo", and equating blood transfusions with "rape", on their own. Glen Howe was using the "rape" inflamatory as early as 1964, and he probably borrowed it from Hayden Covington. Some Judge with some backbone should put a stop to such courtroom shenanigans.]
Mrs. Guy Lacy told reporters that the Judge's decision was "evidence of the Jehovah's Witnesses PROPHECIES" that "we are living in the conclusion of a wicked system."
After this court case, the Harris County District Attorney announced that it was investigating Gulfway General Hospital for its growing reputation as "a nationally-known haven for Jehovah's Witnesses seeking an alternative to blood transfusions." The investigation was initiated due to the testimony of Dr. Kenneth Riggle that at least two other out-of-state JW children, plus a third Texas JW baby, had died at Gulfway General Hospital within the past couple years. Riggle testified that Jehavah's Witness Parents who had newborns experiencing Rh factor issues came to Gulfway seeking a treatment called phototherapy, which Riggle said involved "bathing the child in a fluorescent light," which penetrates the skin, and appears to neutralize the blood disorder. At a later hearing, Riggle stated that "less than ten" children had died in the past six years. (He couldn't even provide an exact death count.)
LACY v. HARRIS COUNTY ET AL was a 1974 $6,000,000.00 federal lawsuit which this JW Couple filed against Harris County officials in Texas, and Escambia County officials in Florida. Outcome unknown.
******************
IN RE FRANCISCO RAMIREZ was a 1973 Texas court decision. Jehovah's Witness Parents, Mr/Mrs Martimiano Ramirez , of La Villa, Texas, brought their 11 year-old son, Francisco Ramirez, to Gulfway General Hospital, in Houston, Texas, presumably to be treated for bone cancer and its complications by fellow Jehovah's Witness, Dr. Kenneth Riggle. When the parents refused to consent to needed blood transfusions, and apparently neither the JW Doctor, nor Gulfway, would seek court intervention, someone notified the Harris County Welfare Dept, who sought temporary custody of the boy. A local court declared the JW child "neglected", and gave custody to the County, who then had the child transferred out of Gulfway to another unidentified hospital where needed transfusions would be administered.
******************
IN RE JOHN VICTOR MARTINEZ III was a September 1973 California court decision which involved the 15-week premature newborn son of John Martinez and Martha Martinez of Union City, California. Due to Rh factor issues, the baby's blood needed to be exchanged if there was to be any hope that he would survive. The parents refused to give their consent based on the family's WatchTower beliefs, so doctors at Hayward's Kaiser Hospital sought court authorization, which was granted. Hayward Police even took the newborn into protective custody to prevent him from being removed from the hospital. Mary Martinez, the baby's paternal grandmother, decried the court's action in violating "God's law", and remarked that the parents already had four children who did not need their blood exchanged, although she admitted one girl had been sickly, and a sixth baby had died at four months due to some other problem.
IN RE SAMUEL ?????? was an August 1973 California court decision. In that case, a JW newborn with Rh factor problems had to have court intervention to receive the needed exchange transfusion. The Judge that handled the Martinez case revealed this one to a reporter while discussing Martinez. The Judge informed the reporter that such Jehovah's Witness cases were so ROUTINE that the procedures were well established.
******************
IN RE MATTHEW SHEETER was a 1973 California court decision. In March 1973, Mr/Mrs Danne Sheeter took two year-old Matthew Sheeter to Oakland's Children's Hospital, where the child was initially diagnosed with severe anemia likely due to intestinal hemmoraging. The Sheeters were told that surgery and blood transfusions would be needed to save the child's life, which they refused to consent to based on their WatchTower beliefs. The hospital sought police and judicial intervention. A Judge gave a verbal order for the Sheeters to give their consent, but they refused. The child was then placed in Police protective custody, and the hospital was authorized to provide all necessary medical care. A police Captain told a reporter that the JW Parents were "relieved" once all the hoops had been jumped through, and provision had been made for their child's life to be spared. Fortunately, neither surgery nor transfusions were needed.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF LYNN DRUCKENMILLER was a 1973 Pennsylvania court decision. In January 1973, Lynn, 13, needed surgery for unidentified reasons. His Jehovah's Witness Mother, Marilyn Druckenmiller refused to give consent for blood transfusions during the surgery, or for the complications that did develop afterward. A grandfather petitioned for court intervention. The grandfather was granted temporary custody and authorization to consent to all needed medical care. Outcome unknown.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF ELIZABETH ROSSI was a 1973 California court decision. Limited details. When Mr. and Mrs. Gary Rossi refused to consent to blood transfusions for their newborn daughter, who was suffering from anemia, due to their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses, the hospital sought and obtained a court order authorizing the needed transfusions. One or more transfusions were administered to the Rossi newborn, but apparently as soon as the Rossies could remove the baby from the hospital, they did so. They then took the baby to Houston, Texas to the Jehovah's Witness osteopath, named Kenneth Riggle, who practiced at Gulfway General Hospital. However, Riggle testified at a state investigation of his practice that the Rossi baby was practically dead when it arrived, and that all the baby could stand was to be placed under an oxygen tent, where it evidently died soon thereafter. Refer to other 1980s court cases involving this same family.
******************
IN RE VALORIE NORWOOD was a 1973 Indiana court decision. In March 1973, Valerie Norwood, 17, was admitted to Indianapolis' Marion County General Hospital suffering from a kidney infection and severe anemia. Mr/Mrs Ernest Norwood refused to consent to the blood transfusion that the hospital deemed that Valerie needed, so court intervention was obtained. The local court took temporary custody of the teenager, and authorized all necessary medical care. But, as Mrs. Norwood pointed out to a reporter, they nor their daughter were responsible for violating WatchTower rules, since the transfusion was court-ordered.
******************
APPLICATION OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL was a 1973 Wisconsin court decision. A newborn infant of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses Parents, born on September 20, 1973, was suffering from complications from negative Rh factor blood. When doctors at Milwaukee County General Hospital informed the Jehovah's Witnesses Parents that their newborn would need a series of blood transfusions, the parents refused to give their consent. The hospital petitioned a the local county court for guardianship. An emergency hearing was held crib-side, where a judge declared the infant "neglected", and authorized all necessary medical care to save the infant's life. After receiving the needed transfusions, the baby was released to its parents a week later.
******************
IN RE KENNETH GISINGER was a 1973 Ohio court decision. In May 1973, Kenneth Gisinger, 5, and his unidentified Jehovah's Witness Mother, of Wooster, Ohio, were involved in a serious auto accident. Blood transfusions were needed to save Kenneth's life, but his mother refused to consent. Akron's Children's Hospital sought and obtained court intervention.
******************
In the 1960s and early 1970s, a family of Jehovah's Witnesses living in the Morristown, Pennsylvania area, whose last name was "Byrd", lost five or more newborns to Rh factor complications. In/around 1972-3, they somehow were able to transport a newborn all the way to Gulfway General Hospital in Houston, Texas by the time the newborn was only three days old. All of this seems to indicate that these JWs were using a midwife; otherwise, there would have been legal intervention. That fifth child died the day after it arrived in Houston, after Jehovah's Witness osteopath, Dr. Kenneth Riggle, tried to cure the Rh factor problem with UV light therapy.
******************
IN RE BERGERON was a 1972 Kentucky court decision. Mrs. William Bergeron delivered a baby daughter in October 1972 at a Fort Thomas, Kentucky hospital. Due to Rh factor complications, doctors deemed that blood transfusions were necessary to do a complete blood exchange. The Jehovah's Witness parents refused to give their consent, so the hospital sought and obtained court authorization to provide the baby girl with all necessary medical attention. However, while the hospital was doing so, William Bergeron grabbed the baby out of the maternity ward, left the hospital, and traveled to Gulfway General Hospital, in Houston, Texas, where a Jehovah's Witness osteopath, named Kenneth Riggle, promised to treat the baby without any transfusions. Outcome unknown. [See above comments where Riggle and his UV light therapy treatments to cure Rh factor problems, and resulting deaths of JW children, was investigated by the state of Texas.]
******************
IN RE GARCIA and IN RE GARCIA were related 1972 Texas court decisions. In February 1972, a Jehovah's Witness couple named Oscar Garcia and Hermelinda Garcia delivered a baby which had a spinal deformity. When the Jehovah's Witness Parents refused to consent to a blood transfusion, if needed, Bexar County's Green Hospital sought court authorization. Fortunately, no transfusion was needed in the February surgery. However, when a second surgery was needed in March, the parents again forced the hospital and the courts to go to the time, trouble, and expense of obtaining a second court order.
******************
IN RE GIGLIOTTI and STATE v. GIGLIOTTI were related 1972 Rhode Island court decisions. On/about June 1972, Providence's Womens and Infants Hospital was forced to seek and obtain court intervention when Mr/Mrs Peter Gigliotti refused to consent to blood transfusions needed by their newborn son.
Thereafter, Peter Gigliotti attempted to physically prevent hospital staff from administering a blood transfusion to his newborn son. Gigliotti took the bookbag all JWs are known to carry and broke out the window glass to the locked door which prevented him from entering the operating room where his son was receiving the transfusion. Two doctors were able to prevent Gigliotti from interfering until Police arrived and arrested him. Gigliotti was convicted of malicious mischief, and threatened to appeal. Outcome unknown.
******************
In November 1972, an unidentified 12 year-old boy in El Paso, Texas, was admitted to the El Paso hospital to have unspecified emergency surgery on his nose. The unidentified Jehovah's Witness Mother, a divorcee, refused to consent to blood transfusions, and the father's whereabouts were unknown, so the hospital sought and obtained court intervention.
******************
IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN SAMPSON was a 1971 New York appellate decision. Kevin Sampson was the 15 year old son of Mildred Sampson, a Jehovah's Witness. The Commissioner of Health of Ulster County brought a "neglect" proceeding, charging that Kevin Sampson was "neglected" by reason of the failure of his mother, Mildred Sampson to provide him with proper medical and surgical care. Mildred Sampson was not opposed to having the recommended surgery performed upon her son. The county government had even offered to pay all expenses connected with the operation. However, because she was a Jehovah's Witnesses, she steadfastly refused to give her consent to the administration of any blood transfusions during the course of the surgery, without which the proposed surgery could not be safely performed.
Kevin Sampson suffered from extensive neurofibromatosis or "Von Recklinghausen's disease", which has caused a massive deformity of the right side of his face and neck. The outward manifestation of the disease is a large fold or flap of an overgrowth of facial tissue which causes the whole cheek, the corner of his mouth and right ear to drop down giving him an appearance which can only be described as grotesque and repulsive. Fortunately, however, the disease has not yet progressed to a point where his vision has been affected or his hearing impaired. However, the massive deformity of the entire right side of his face and neck is patently so gross and so disfiguring that it must inevitably exert a most negative effect upon his personality development, his opportunity for education and later employment, and upon every phase of his relationship with his peers and others. Although the staff psychiatrist of the County Mental Health Center reports that "there is no evidence of any thinking disorder" and that "in spite of marked facial disfigurement he failed to show any outstanding personality aberration", this finding hardly justifies a conclusion that he has been or will continue to be wholly unaffected by his misfortune. Although Kevin was found to be not psychotic, a psychologist found him to be a "boy (who) is extremely dependent and (who) sees himself as an inadequate personality." The staff psychiatrist reports that "Kevin demonstrates inferiority feeling and low self concept.
Kevin had been exempted from school since 1964 due to his facial disfigurement. Although various tests administered by school authorities showed him to be intellectually capable of being educated and trained to a reasonable level of self-sufficiency, he is, at 15 years of age, a virtual illiterate. (The court failed to comment on why his mother had not "home schooled" Kevin - something that JW parents do quite often. Or, why had the JWs not taught him the basics in their "Theocratic Ministry School", of which, they never miss an opportunity to boast. Did the JWs discriminate against Kevin because of his disfigurement with regard to the JWs' five meetings per week? Was he allowed to participate in field service?)
From all the information made available to the court as the result of extended hearings and various reports, particularly those supplied by those educators who have become familiar with the pattern of Kevin's development, or the lack thereof, the conclusion was inescapable that the marked facial disfigurement from which Kevin suffered constituted such an overriding limiting factor militating against his future development that unless some constructive steps were taken to alleviate his condition, his chances for a normal, useful life were virtually nil. The unanimous recommendation of all those who had dealt with the many problems posed by Kevin's affliction - educators, psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians and surgeons - was that steps be taken to correct the condition through surgery.
It was conceded, however, that insofar as Kevin's health and his life was concerned, this was not a necessary operation. The disease posed no immediate threat to his life, nor had it as yet seriously affected his general health. Moreover, the corrective surgery would not cure him of the disease. In fact, there was no known cure.
However, the surgery could not be performed without substantial risk. Dr. Hoffmeister testified: "I think it's a dangerous procedure. I think it involves considerable risk. It's a massive surgery of six to eight hours duration with great blood loss. This is a risky surgical procedure." When asked if the risk would be much above average he replied, "much, much, much." The surgeon repeatedly emphasized the surgery risk in operating on this patient "even with blood."
Without permission to administer blood transfusions the risk became totally unacceptable. Dr. Hoffmeister testified: " I think the loss of blood would be so extensive, that I personally would not dare to undertake such a procedure having only plasma expanders at my disposal." The surgeons were adamant in their refusal to operate upon Kevin unless they had permission to use blood and to administer during the surgery such blood transfusions as the patient's condition required.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Commissioner's petition, stating in part:
"... I conclude that although the mother's religious objections to the administration of a blood transfusion to her son in the event surgery is to be performed upon his face are founded upon the scriptures and are sincerely held, they must give way before the State's paramount duty to insure his right to live and grow up without disfigurement - the right to live and grow up with a sound mind in a sound body. '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" (Prince v. Massachusetts ...).
... ...
"If the boy has any chance at all for a normal, happy existence, without a disfigurement so gross as to overshadow all else in his life, some risk must be taken. ...
"Thus, while the surgeons conceded that there are risks inherent in the contemplated surgery, in their opinion that risk should not be too great if they have permission to use blood. In any event, when one considers the bleak prospect for this boy's future of the alternative of doing nothing, it is a risk which I believe must be taken. ...
"For the reasons heretofore expressed the court finds the mother's religious objections to the administration of blood transfusions untenable. It is both illogical and impractical for Mrs. Sampson to consent to surgery for her son and then for religious reasons attempt to limit or circumscribe the surgeons in the employment of their surgical skills. ...
"Because of the refusal of Mrs. Mildred Sampson to give her consent to the blood transfusions essential for the safety of the surgical procedures necessary to insure the physical, mental and emotional well-being of her son, the court adjudicates Kevin Sampson to be a neglected child ...
"In addition, the court specifically orders and directs that the mother, Mrs. Mildred Sampson permit Kevin to undergo such surgery as, in the judgment of the Commissioner of Health of Ulster County upon the advice and recommendation of duly qualified surgeons, shall be necessary or required to remedy or correct the facial condition of neurofibromatosis or von Recklinghausen's disease from which he suffers. During the course of such surgery the surgeons are authorized to administer from time to time such blood transfusions as in their judgment may be necessary. The cost of such surgical treatment and hospital care as may be necessary shall be borne by the County of Ulster."
Mildred Sampson appealed the trial court's decision, but lost in that courtroom also. One would have thought she would have been happy with this result given that the JWs could no longer hold her responsible. But, might have the very JWs, who failed to provide basic education to Kevin been the ones to push Mildred Sampson to keep trying to take this opportunity away from her son?
IN THE MATTER OF McDOUGALD I was a 1971 Nebraska court decision. Limited details. In June 1971, 16 year old Tanya E. McDougald of Omaha, Nebraska was admitted to St. Joseph Hospital for an unidentified medical problem. When informed that Tanya's surgery would possibly require the administering of blood transfusions, Tanya's mother, Mrs. George McDougald, informed doctors that she, Shirley McDougald, and her daughter were Jehovah's Witnesses, and that neither would consent to blood transfusions, because " taking blood into the body is sinful." [They obviously had never eaten meat in their entire life.] The Hospital proceeded to petition a local court for guardianship and authority to administer necessary medical treatment. The petition was granted, but for what appears to be a mysterious reason, Tanya was released by St. Joseph Hospital, with a statement that she had "recovered".
IN THE MATTER OF McDOUGALD II was also a 1971 decision, but I suspect it may have occurred in a different state. Limited details. In November 1971, the above scenario repeated itself, just a different hospital, and a different court/judge. Tanya McDougald died in December 1971.
bravenet.com