TO EQUATE LIFE-SAVING HOSPITAL CARE TO "RAPE"
EQUATING DOCTORS - NURSES TO "RAPISTS"
"Our Kingdom Ministry" is an "insider" monthly newsletter published by the WatchTower Society which is handed individually only to active Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witness families historically have been expected to store at least one copy for their family's future reference, while their local Kingdom Hall library also maintains copies in binders. In pre-internet 1990, the WatchTower Society's Legal Department and Public Relations Department had little expectation that archived OKMs would ever be readily available to outsiders.
However, with the development of the internet, the WatchTower Society has been forced to provide online access to some of its more recent publications. Included is the November 1990 OKM, where is found a very interesting article entitled, "Are You Ready to Face a Faith-Challenging Medical Situation?"
The article opens with this warning, "Keep this information where you can quickly find it as needed."
Given the fact that one of the FIRST THINGS that WatchTower Society lawyers and media spokespersons tell judges and reporters during medical emergencies is that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept all offered medical treatment -- WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS -- this insider "medical" article opened with this seemingly contradictory statement:
Even if you do not accept medical treatment as your preferred form of health care, what will you do to protect yourself from an unwanted blood transfusion should an accident leave you unconscious and you are rushed to a hospital?"
Apparently, in 1990, there were policysetters at WatchTower Society World Headquarters -- who were NOT lawyers and media spokespersons -- who knew that there were some Jehovah's Witnesses who "do not accept medical treatment."
2. "If you should find yourself in a hospital for any reason, what will you do to maintain integrity if someone there tells you that you will die without a blood transfusion? Will you hastily accept that this claim truly represents your condition? Are you fully convinced that you do not want blood? Are you ready to face this challenge to your faith and 'abstain from blood'? -- Acts 15:28, 29.3. Successfully resisting an unwanted, spiritually contaminating blood transfusion starts with a firm conviction. Such a conviction must be based on a clear understanding of what the Bible says about blood. Otherwise, you can, in the emotion of the moment, easily be intimidated by someone who claims to know more about the situation than you do. Would you be misled into thinking that maybe doctors know more about blood than God does? Surely, in these circumstances you will want to be "firmly resolved" to do "what is right" in Jehovah's eyes, no matter what mere humans may say. (Deut. 12:23-25) But do you have to face this challenge all by yourself? -- Eccl. 4:9-12.
This now online OKM article, contains even more "landmines". Later, in paragraphs 30-37, in barely couched language, the WatchTower Society advises its Jehovah's Witness members to LIE to judges, doctors, hospital administrators, and reporters -- PLUS TEACHES THEM EXACTLY HOW TO DO SO, INCLUDING PROVIDING THEM WHAT TO SAY: (emphasis ours)
30. You should know that there are some questions that doctors and others pose that are not always asked with good motive. The one most frequently asked by doctors (and by some judges) is:
-- "Would you rather die (let your child die) than accept a 'lifesaving blood transfusion'?"
31. If you say yes, that would be correct in a religious sense. But that reply is often misunderstood and at times even produces adverse court decisions. You must remember that you are not in the ministry in this situation. Rather, you are talking about needed medical treatment. Hence, you must adapt to (DECEIVE) your audience, medical or legal. -- Ps. 39:1; Col. 4:5, 6.
32. To a doctor, a judge, or a hospital administrator, "yes" can mean you want to be a martyr or want to sacrifice your child for your faith. Telling them about your strong faith in the resurrection in this situation will not usually help. They will brand you a religious fanatic, unable to make rational decisions when life is at stake. In the case of children, they will see you as a negligent parent who refuses so-called "lifesaving" medical treatment.
33. But you are NOT denying medical treatment as such. You simply differ with the doctor as to WHAT KIND of treatment. This position will often change the whole picture for them and you. Besides, it is misleading for them to make it appear as if blood is safe and is the ONLY "lifesaving" treatment. (See How Can Blood Save Your Life?, pages 7-22.) So you must make that point very clear. How can you do it? You might answer:
-- "I do not want (I do not want my child) to die. If I wanted (wanted my child) to die, I would have stayed home. But I came here to get medical treatment so as to (to have my child) live. What I want is alternative nonblood medical management of my (my child's) case. There are alternatives available."
34. Several other questions often asked by doctors or judges are:
-- "What will happen to you if a transfusion is forced by court order? Will you be held responsible?"
-- "Will accepting or having a transfusion forced on you cause you to be put out of your religion or be denied eternal life? How will you be viewed by your congregation?"
35. One sister responded to a judge that in such a case she would not be responsible for what he decided. While correct from one point of view, the judge took it to mean that since she would not be held responsible, then he would take the responsibility for her. He ordered a transfusion.
36. You must understand that in asking these questions, some are usually looking for a way around your refusal to accept blood. Do not inadvertently give it to them! So how would we avoid that misunderstanding? You could reply:
-- "If blood is forced on me in any way, it would be the same to me as being raped. I would suffer the emotional and spiritual consequences of that unwanted attack on me for the rest of my life. I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent. I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape."
37. The strong, graphic impression must be made that a forced transfusion is to us a repugnant violation of our bodies. It is no casual matter. So hold your ground. Make it clear you want alternative nonblood medical management.
Is it any wonder that FOR DECADES, one experienced Trial Judge after another has been played THE FOOL by WatchTower Society attorneys and their dying clients?
Also, we ask again, How much "personal choice" does the WatchTower Society give its Jehovah's Witness members?
HISTORY OF THE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE BLOOD TRANSFUSION - "RAPE" ANALOGY
"Some have claimed that beneficence properly understood really does not call for interference here, on the grounds that while a forced transfusion might save the JW's life, it would do so at the cost of leaving him miserable because he is convinced that he is eternally damned. Jehovah's Witness teachings, however, do not support that claim. JW's insist that blood transfusions are unsafe and almost always medically unnecessary, but they seem unanimous that anyone who is forced to undergo one is faultless and suffers no spiritually adverse consequences. The Jehovah's Witness who 'strenuously' objects to a blood transfusion but it given one anyway is no more guilty of sin than a woman who 'strenuously' objects to being raped is guilty of fornication (Watchtower, 1991, 6/15 p.17)." -- In Defense of Hard Paternalism, Danny Scoccia, 2008.
One WatchTower researcher has alleged that WatchTower Society lawyers began using this repugnant analogy even before the WatchTower Society outlawed blood transfusions in 1945. That researcher claims that prior to 1945 that "forcible vaccinations" were compared to "forcible rapes" by WatchTower Society attorneys. We are still looking for documentation of such.
WatchTower Society of Canada Lead Attorney, W. Glen How is known to have used the "rape analogy" as early as the 1960s, including during his 1965 interview with the anonymous author of the January 1, 1966, Washington Law Review article, "Religious Freedom and Compulsory Blood Transfusion for Adult Jehovah's Witness".
In 1964, WatchTower Society of Canada Lead Attorney, W. Glen How represented Stuart Anderson and Willimina Anderson, of Asbury Park, New Jersey, during the New Jersey Supreme Court case FITKIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. WILLIMINA ANDERSON. In addition to "greenlighting" Anderson's FLEE from the hospital, during oral arguments, when the hospital's attorney stated that it was his understanding that Jehovah's Witness patients and their families did not find court-ordered transfusions objectionable, Glen How told the Justices: "We would not consider it a moral sin as far as the individual is concerned, but we would consider it just as objectionable as a rape."
In May 1967, Miriam Myllyniemi, age 15, was kidnapped from British Columbia's St. Paul Hospital where she was being treated for complications caused by a congenital kidney defect (which needed surgery), by her Jehovah's Witness Mother, Dorothy Lois Myllyniemi, age 37, of Penticton. The kidnapping occurred after the court had denied the JW Mother's request for return of custody. At that hearing, Lois Myllyniemi had used Glen How's RAPE ANALOGY.
Also, only a few days earlier, when nurses attempted to administer Miriam's fifth blood transfusion since January 1967, Miriam attempted to pull out her IV, and fought four nurses, while Dorothy Myllyniemi and local JW Elder James Cameron attempted to physically stop the nurses.
JW Leader, Laurier Saumer, and WatchTower attorney Glen How BOTH LIED and said they knew nothing of the whereabouts of the Myllyniemis, except that they were okay (yes, a scene from THE GODFATHER). Glen How hypocritically complained that the five doctors who testified that Miriam Myllyniemi should remain in the custody of the British Columbia Children's Aid Society, which would consent to necessary blood transfusions both prior to and during the necessary surgery, had been picked by the BCCAS, and tesified exactly as it wanted.
On the one-year anniversary of her "escape", WatchTower officials boasted to the media that Miriam Myllyniemi was still alive. Thereafter, the mother and daughter appear to disappear from public records.
At the same time that Canadian news media was reporting the Miriam Myllyniemi case, a 26-year-old Jehovah's Witness Divorcee named Frances Standal took her 5 year-old son, Gregory Gordon Standal, from Vancouver's Lions Gate Hospital. Gregory G. Standal also suffered from the same congenital kidney defect. The Standals did not even wait for a court hearing before using the WatchTower Society Underground to flee Canada to Stockton, California, where surgery guaranteed to exclude blood transfusions was performed at Oak Park Community Hospital. Once again Glen How and local Jehovah's Witness leaders did their best Sergeant Schultz imitations, "I know NUTH-THING -- NUTH-THING". INTERESTINGLY, there are hints at a possibility that DIVORCEE Frances Standal and her two children were American citizens, which makes one wonder whether they were hiding out in Canada from a non-JW father???
In 1973, in a Texas court proceeding regarding his newborn son whom he had abducted from a Florida hospital and transported to Texas, a Jehovah's Witness Father named Guy Lacy, while represented by WatchTower Society of Canada Lead Attorney, Glen How, compared law enforcement and child protection authorities to the GESTAPO, and equated blood transfusions to RAPE.
September 1, 1973
Questions From Readers
Is a person free from accountability for violating God's law about the sanctity of blood if he receives a transfusion as a result of a court order that overrides his decision not to take blood? -- U.S.A.
This would depend upon the circumstances. No court order, of course, can set aside the law of Jehovah God, the Supreme Lawgiver. (Acts 5:29) Obviously a Christian could never justify his committing murder or extortion or submitting to adultery even though a court ordered him to do so.
What, then, could bring accountability in such cases of court-ordered transfusions? A patient's failure to speak with conviction when he had the opportunity, and then later failure to offer resistance, could contribute to his receiving an unwanted blood transfusion. One factor that has had a vital bearing on the decision of some judges has been the conviction of the patient, his feeling of accountability before God. Therefore, in cases where there is no indication that the patient will resist a court-ordered blood transfusion, judges have often been inclined to yield more readily to the appeals of doctors and hospitals.
In a number of cases, Jehovah's Christian witnesses when faced with the possibility of a court order for transfusion, have taken steps to avoid breaking God's law. Some have been able to transfer their family members or relatives to other hospitals, where treatment that did not violate God's law was administered. Should the condition of the patient be so critical as to make survival a virtual impossibility were he removed from the hospital for even a brief period, this avenue would manifestly be closed.
Of course, in some cases a person may have exhausted all mental and physical means to prevent such violation of God's law; he may even be unconscious. If, despite his every effort, a transfusion is forced on him, he must leave the matter in Jehovah's hands, trusting in his mercy. His position in this case is comparable to that of a woman who may be raped despite her continuous screams and physical efforts to resist her assailant. According to the Mosaic law, such a woman was guiltless. (Deut. 22:25-27) However, if she failed to scream, she was not blameless. (Deut. 22:23, 24) Accordingly, God would expect Christians today to take every step possible (that is not contrary to God's Word) in order to avoid being party to a violation of His law on blood.
EDITOR: Non-JWs should know that the WatchTower Society has a decades-old S.O.P. of signaling to its membership via "couched language" within "phony" QFRs how Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to act.
Paragraph 3 teaches JWs that they must be prepared to "witness" to doctors, nurses, reporters, judges, etc. about the teachings of the WatchTower Society, and to do so meaningfully.
Paragraph 4 is the "intentionally not left to last" final recommendation that hospitalized spouses, children, etc. be "kidnapped" from hospitals pursuing the use of blood transfusions. In the 1970s, when "bloodless" hospital programs were few and far between, the WatchTower Underground would then move those extracted patients to "friendly" hospitals many miles away, and sometimes located in other countries.
The final paragraph, while keeping the RAPE ANALOGY fresh in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses, is intended to teach JWs that so long as they FOR SHOW resist, scream, and struggle when a blood transfusion is being started, then they won't be held accountable for such, and in fact, will be treated by other JWs and WatchTower Society officials as both a "victim" of Satan's schemes, and a "hero" for resisting such. Never forget that the WatchTower Society is slicker than snot.
"In one case, the husband of a [Jehovah's Witness] woman who was compelled to receive a transfusion reported that after one month his wife was still distraught. For her, the trauma was 'as if she had been tied to a bed and gang raped by the doctors and the judge.'" -- Interview with Arlen Knight, August 4, 1975; cited by John Paris, "Compulsory Medical Treatment," p.28.
IN THE MATTER OF SUSAN ANN FRYE was a 1977 Pennsylvania state appellate court decision. In June 1977, a Jehovah's Witness Wife and Mother of two children, Susan Ann Frye, age 24, was admitted to Pittsburgh's Montefiore Hospital suffering severe blood loss from a bleeding lesion. Having refused the blood transfusions needed to preserve her life, non-JW Husband, Trevor Frye, petitioned a local Judge for authorization to save the life of his wife and mother of his two young children. Judge John Flaherty refused. Trevor Frye then petitioned Judge Cercone, who decided that the state had an interest in preserving the life of a parent of two young children. Necessary life-saving blood transfusions were court authorized.
Susan Frye had told Judge Flaherty that she would be disfellowshipped by her congregation simply for having received blood transfusions. Afterwards, one of the local JW Elders assured inquiring reporters otherwise, "She will not be expelled, because the transfusions were forced on her. ... if a transfusion were forced on an individual, if all efforts to oppose such were made, the person would be no more responsible for the blood in his body than would a raped woman who resisted to the utmost be guilty of fornication. ... While the context of the Bible's prohibition against blood includes idolatry and fornication, there is no way of concluding that a transfusion constitutes the sin for which there is no forgiveness ... ."
[Jehovah's Witnesses] pose "medical and emotional problems for doctors because nobody wants to have one of these patients die on his operating table" for lack of blood. [Dr. Ronald] Lapin maintains a hotline telephone for [Jehovah's] Witnesses with medical problems, and says it has rung almost 20,000 times in five years. "What we mostly try to do is make peace between the Witness and the local doctor. We try to convince the Witnesses that doctors are not all ogres," he said. "The main thing doctors are worried about is, are they going to get sued? The answer is no. Witnesses don't sue. We have never been able to find any case where a Witness has sued for not utilizing blood." What a Witness will sue over is being given a transfusion during surgery, even if it saves his life. "They have sued for that," Lapin said. "They consider It a moral and a physical rape." Lapin says much of his success with members of the religion stems from one thing: "I have never gone back on my word to a Jehovah's Witness. I don't have the right to tell them that what they believe is wrong. I practice medicine, not morality." -- Associated Press, December 26, 1979.
"Dr. Lowell Dixon, medical director at the Jehovah's Witness world headquarters in New York, says a blood transfusion forced on a church member is parallel to a rape or an assault. He says no doctor would advocate transfusion by force on an adult Jehovah's Witness. The situation is different for children because the law considers a child too young to have religious convictions and the courts may order the child taken from its parents and given a transfusion. In the last year, 15 court orders have been issued in Canada taking a child from its Jehovah's Witness parents. There are some diseases such as leukemia -- cancer of the blood -- which doctors say can only be treated by blood transfusions. But Dixon believes the death rate because of refusing transfusions "is not nearly as high as it is often held out to be." -- The Leader-Post, Regina, Saskatchewan, February 25, 1980.
CROWN v. PETER CRAMB, DENNIS CYRENNE, and BERNADETTE CYRENNE was a 1980-81 Ontario, Canada criminal negligence prosecution relating to the death of 12 year-old Sara Cyrenne, of Manitouwadge, Ontario. Sara Cyrenne suffered from acute autoimmune hemolytic anemia, a rare blood disease in which white blood cells destroy oxygen-carrying red blood cells. The Cyrenne Family were Jehovah's Witnesses, and Peter Cramb was a local WatchTower Cult leader. In March 1980, the Cyrennes led by Peter Cramb removed Sara Cyrenne from McKellar General Hospital, in Thunder Bay, to prevent her from being given a court-ordered blood transfusion. Sara Cyrenne DIED only a few hours later.
Bernadette Cyrenne later testified in criminal court that she would not permit Sara to have a blood transfusion because it would have been "the moral equivalent of rape." Bernadette Cyrenne testified that her daughter would have been "raped on her death bed", if she had been given a blood transfusion. "I wanted to protect her from medical rape," eventually claimed Bernadette Cyrenne. One Canadian newspaper even captioned their report, "Mother Says Transfusion Like Rape".
***"... the Bible links abstinence from blood with such things as abstinence from fornication. Hence, since Christians would resist rape -- a defiling sexual assault -- so they would resist court-ordered blood transfusions -- also a form of assault on the body." -- THE WATCHTOWER magazine, June 15, 1980.
GEORGETTE MALETTE v. DAVID SHULMAN ET AL was a 1980-91 TYPICALLY STUPID CANADIAN WRONGFUL LIFE court case DECIDED AGAINST THE DOCTOR WHO SAVED THE LIFE OF THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESS PLAINTIFF. In June 1979, typically stupid French Canadian Jehovah's Witness Georgette Malette, age 57, arrived at the ER of Kirkland Hospital in Ontario. The only survivor of a head-on collision, Malette's husband had DIED in the accident. Dr. David Shulman ordered first glucose, and then Ringer's lactate as replacement for lost blood. In the meantime, a French language NO BLOOD card was found in Malette's purse. HOWEVER, while signed, it was NOT COMPLETED. It was not witnessed, and it was not dated.
Malette's condition continued to deteriorate, and both Shulman and a surgeon believed that a blood transfusion was necessary to keep Malette from dying. Hours later, Malette's daughter arrived at the hospital and did everything possible to stop the continuing life-saving blood transfusions. However, knowing that the daughter had no legal authority over her mother, Shulman continued the necessary transfusions. Malette survived thanks to Shulman and his staff.
As "thanks", the Jehovah's Witnesses sued Shulman, the hospital, etc. The DUMBASS Canadian judge had everything he needed in the INCOMPLETE "No Blood card" to throw out of court this RIDICULOUS WRONGFUL LIFE lawsuit, but what do you think happened in Canada? He awarded Georgette Malette $20,000.00 due to "battery" by Dr. Shulman.
Malette's DAUGHTER, who did her best to allow her own mother to DIE, told the Toronto Star that when Malette recuperated and was told that she was alive because she had been administered life-saving blood transfusions, Malette's initial reaction was the feeling of being "dirty, like she had been RAPED".
In 1983, in a courtroom in Springfield, Illinois, a reported 80 supportive Jehovah's Witnesses CRIED during a hearing forced when the Jehovah's Witness Parents of a newborn refused to give their consent for life-saving blood transfusions. That newborn's ignorant Jehovah's Witness Father read a prepared statement that included the RAPE analogy.
The Leader - Post
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
November 10, 1983
"Religious Group Wants End to Legislation"
Calling it rape and an excuse for medical experimentation, Jehovahs Witnesses asked for an end to legislation giving government the right to order blood transfusions for their children. Speaking at the final day of public hearings in Regina into Saskatchewans Family Services Act, representatives of the religious denomination said they had been unfairly targeted because they don't believe in that form of treatment.
Glen How, an Ontario lawyer representing Jehovah Witnesses, said the Saskatchewan legislation allowed social workers to snatch babies away from parents and hand them back dead. He maintained there is no evidence blood transfusions save lives and suggested transfusions have been responsible for several deaths of Jehovahs Witness children taken by government. Decisions regarding the use of transfusions should be left with parents and not social workers, he said. Jehovahs Witnesses seek the best medical treatment for their children and accept alternatives such as artificial blood. It is not a matter of neglect, How said. The government does have grounds to step in and apprehend a child from its parents in the case of extreme religious groups that deny all medical treatment to their children, he said.
Ruth Moryski said she and her, husband John were told they would be responsible for murder if they didn't consent to their son Trevor being given a transfusion after he suffered internal injuries in an accident. Moryski said they brought their son to a Regina hospital and asked he be given alternative treatments, but were told they were not available. Suddenly RCMP, social service workers, and hospital administrators were around us, arguing with us, trying to pressure us, and nothing was being done to treat Trevor. They were just letting Trevor lie, Moryski said.
They were unable to convince the hospital staff and Trevor was made a ward of the court and given blood transfusions. Our son said he didnt want blood. He said, I dont want to die, but I know it is against God and I dont want it, Moryski said. We view this forceable act as rape on our son, she said. Reading from a piece of paper, Trevor Moryski said the blood transfusion made him feel dirty and used. I think the act should be changed, he said. ...
February 5, 1984
"Kentuckian Gets Wife's Custody After Religion-Medical Dispute"
OWENSBORO. Ky. (AP) An accident victim who received a blood transfusion despite her religious beliefs will be restored to the custody of her husband when she is well enough to be transferred to another hospital, a Judge has ruled. The two are Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith objects to transfusions. The decision brought applause in the courtroom Friday from about 200 church members who attended the hearing.
Five church members testified in support of Harold "Butch" Austin of Beaver Dam, Kentucky, as he attacked a court order giving temporary guardianship of his wife, Lola, to Owensboro-Daviess County Hospital.
DISTRICT JUDGE George Triplett who signed the order Jan. 27 after Lola Austin, 27, was critically injured in an auto accident, ruled after more than five hours of testimony. Triplett said he would lift his order as soon as she is well enough to be transferred to a hospital in Evansville, Ind., where three doctors have agreed to treat her in accordance with her wishes.
Austin called the judge's ruling "a partial victory." "It won't be a complete victory until we get some kind of legislation to prevent this sort of thing from happening again," he said. "It's kind of like asking someone not to rape you, and they do it anyway," Austin said of the transfusion. "We're very hurt and emotionally upset because of it"
NO FAMILY members were present when hospital attorneys sought and obtained the temporary-custody order. Doctors gave Mrs. Austin a transfusion Wednesday, after which her condition was upgraded from critical to serious. She carried a medical advisory card directing that no blood transfusions be given her and relieving medical authorities of liability for any consequences of her decision.
Lois Cook, Mrs. Austin's mother and the first witness, said she knew of her daughter's religious objection to a transfusion, but supported the procedure. "It was to save her life," said Cook, who is not a Jehovah's Witness. "I wanted what was best for her."
Another newspaper article reported that Harold Austin had labeled blood transfusions as "spiritual rape".
In the 1985-90 California LUNSFORD v. REGENTS blood transfusion lawsuit, in which Jehovah's Witness Parents, James Lunsford and Lori Lunsford, were awarded $500,000.00 after their three-year old son, Casey Lunsford, was administered necessary life-saving blood transfusions during kidney transplant surgery, in March 1984, Lori Lunsford attempted to explain her and her husband's lingering depression and inability to earn a living by comparing their son's latest series of blood transfusions to "RAPE" and "MORAL RAPE". What about the 25 blood transfusions that Casey Lunsford received in September 1982, or the unknown number of transfusions daughter Sunshine Lunsford received in June 1986? Why did not the previous 1982 "rapes" to Casey Lunsford prevent the Lunsfords from voluntarily taking their son and daughter back to the exact same hospital for additional surgeries and other treatments?
"[Jehovah's] Witness literature sometimes views forced [blood] transfusion as analogous to rape, which may be forcibly resisted, and there are oral reports (but no written reports, to my knowledge) of occasional [Jehovah's] Witness violence to prevent transfusions." -- James F. Childress, Civil Disobedience, Conscientious Objection, and Evasive Noncompliance: A Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Illegal Actions in Health Care, The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Volume 10, Issue 1, February 1985, Pages 63-84.
In 1985, in Oakville, Ontario, Canada, 12 year-old Lisa Dorothy Kosack was permitted to DIE without a continuing medical fight by an ignorant ass Canadian Judge named David R. Main. Lisa D. Kosack was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children shortly after arrival and testing at the ER. Chemotherapy began shortly after admission, which likely tells a story not otherwise disclosed. When the accompanying necessary blood transfusion was started, Lisa Kosack later claimed to have verbally rejected such because her parents were not around.
The next day, when the hospital sought judicial validation of their decision to transfuse Lisa Kosack that previous evening, Justice David Main, age 45, came to the hospital to conduct the hearing so that this 12 year-old girl could attend every session while lying in her hospital bed. At most, this hearing should have taken only a couple hours. A look at Main's biography gives a good hint at his "agenda".
In January 1986, at a court hearing held at Ottawa General Hospital, the Ottawa-Carlton Children's Aid Society was granted interim custody of a three week-old Baby Girl who had been born two months premature to a Jehovah's Witness Couple who now were refusing to consent to life-saving blood transfusions. This was the first child of this young Jehovah's Witness Couple from Aylmer, Ontario. Donald Kirkland, co-ordinator of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Ottawa, and the family's representative at the hearing, proclaimed, "For us, it's like RAPE when someone forces a transfusion on our child."
The Satanic POS named Donald Kirkland proclaimed that although he was hopeful that the Baby Girl would live, he couldn't help but expect the worst. "This is the fourth child in the area seized and given a blood transfusion. The other three were given back dead." Would YOU like to know the context of Donald Kirkland's OUTRAGEOUS accusation that it was everyone BUT HE AND HIS SATANIC SIBLINGS who were responsible for these deaths?
Just the previous day, a 15 year-old Jehovah's Witness Boy named Daniel Kennett had DIED at Winnipeg's Health Sciences Centre, after he and his Jehovah's Witnesses Parents, Steven Kennett and Velina Kennett, of Devlin, Ontario, had refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions. Child and Family Services of Central Winnipeg had obtained a custody order the day before Danny Kennett's DEATH, but the Kennetts, represented by WatchTower/How affiliated Attorney *Jerrold L. Gunn, had immediately obtained an order to block CFS from consenting to life-saving blood transfusions. While the parties were litigating all that the next day, word arrived from the hospital that they could stop, because Dan Kennett's kidneys had failed, and his death was imminent. (W. Glen How buddy and 33 degree Shriner-Mason Multi-Millonaire Jerry Gunn*, who also represented other JWs, eventually did prison time in United States for Ponzi scheme.)
In July 1986, in Calgary, Canada, a premature newborn girl weighing only 14 ounces was seized from her Jehovah's Witness Parents after they refused to consent to necessary life-saving blood transfusions. Guardianship was continued after a hearing in September. WatchTower Cult leader David Splane told reporters, "[Blood transfusions are] considered the moral equivalent of rape." David Splane further assured reporters that the unidentified Jehovah's Witness Parents and child would suffer no sanctions from their congregation, because "all this is being done against their will."
Despite the fact that no state then had a so-called "mature minor" doctrine, in 1986, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE Leonard Edwards II of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, in California, IMPROPERLY considered the "maturity" of a 14 year-old cancer patient who, with her Jehovah's Witness Parent's consent, refused to allow blood transfusions. "D.P." further threatened to flee the hospital if the judge ruled against her. Conceding to the 14 year-old's demands, Judge Leonard Edward wrote:
"D.P. testified she would resist having a blood transfusion in any way that she could. She considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape. She asked the Court to respect her choice and permit her to continue at [the hospital] without Court ordered blood transfusions. ...
The Vancouver Sun
July 24, 1986
"Blood Transfusion Compared To Rape"
A court-ordered blood transfusion given last week to a 14-year-old Jehovah's Witness was the "moral equivalent of rape", a spokesman for the boy's parents said Wednesday. The Nanaimo teenager is now in satisfactory condition in Victoria General Hospital's intensive care unit, where he is recovering from a crushed chest and shattered pelvis.
Fred Fitch, a member of the Greater Victoria Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committee, said Trevor Brownlee was extremely upset and guilt-ridden after he received a transfusion against his parents' wishes. He said Brownlee was carrying a card stipulating he not be given transfusions when he was struck by a car July 12 while walking along the Trans-Canada Highway in Cobble Hill.
"It was a rape of his person because it was forced upon him," Fitch said. "We would feel the same way if somebody was to rape our wife or our daughter. He was very upset that they did that to him and fearful they will do it again."
The B.C. Supreme Court in Victoria made Brownlee a ward of the state July 13 after his parents tried to prevent the staff of Victoria General from administering a blood transfusion. The boy's parents regained custody on Tuesday. ...
Brownlee's parents, who wouldn't speak directly to the media, are also worried their son may contract hepatitis or AIDS through the transfusions. They are angry the hospital did not consider an alternative to the transfusion, such as a blood substitute called Flusol that is available in the U.S, he said. The substitute is used in a Los Angeles hospital that caters to Jehovah's Witnesses.
EDITOR: Yes, readers are encouraged to research the quickly outlawed dangerous "Flusol" -- then recommended and probably financed by the WatchTower Cult.
"Finally, a forced blood transfusion has been analogized to the traumatic violence of rape." -- Fact Finding Faith, M DiPietro, 1987.
IN RE ERNESTINE GREGORY was an ultimately Supreme Court of Illinois case which had been "cherry-picked" by the liberal establishment to establish the "mature minor doctrine" in the state of Illinois. Because Ernestine Gregory was expected to eventually die from her illness, it was decided for public relations reasons that Gregory would be represented by the ACLU rather than the WatchTower Society -- although the WatchTower Society was thoroughly involved behind the scenes, and submitted an amicus curiae brief.
In February 1987, a 17 year-old African-American Jehovah's Witness named Ernestine Gregory was admitted to the University of Chicago Hospital for treatment of acute nonlymphatic leukemia -- a malignant disease of the white blood cells. Jehovah's Witness Mother, Rosie Denton, and her daughter Ernestine Gregory refused to consent to blood transfusions required for treatment of her leukemia.
UC hospital contacted the Cook County state's attorney's office, which went into Juvenile Court seeking the appointment of a temporary guardian who could consent to the required blood transfusions. At that temporay custody hearing, Gregory's own UC doctor testified that Gregory seemed to be "mature, competent, and sincere in her religious beliefs", and that she apparently "understood the consequences of refusing the recommended treatment". However, Gregory's UC doctor was forced to admit that he would be "astonished" if Gregory survived for an additional month without blood transfusions.
Bolstering the case for Gregory being declared a "mature minor", even the UC hospital official who was being presented as the guardian who could take custody of Gregory testified that Gregory had "independently" decided to refuse blood transfusions.
The ACLU argued that Gregory was a "mature minor", who was refusing blood transfusions for "deeply held religious reasons", and that Gregory "understood that she would die without such".
On cross-examination, Gregory's Jehovah's Witness Elders admitted that if the blood transfusions were court-ordered, then no "sin" nor fault would be attributed to Gregory, and that no marking nor shunning would occur afterwards, but rather, Gregory would be treated as a "victim" (HERO), and would be fully supported by her fellow Jehovah's Witnesses.
However, Gregory's JW/ACLU attorney came back and prompted one A-A JW Elder to declare that, "just because the person exonerated you in having participated in it, it wouldn't mean that the trauma wasn't there. Forcing anyone to violate his consideration [conscience?] is the most painful indignity that an individual could have perpetrated against him." That A-A JW Elder then finally remembered to analogize a JW Patient who had been administered a court-ordered blood transfusion to a "rape victim".
Ernestine Gregory TESTIFIED that she would NOT RESIST blood transfusions if such were ordered by the court.
Following the script, Juvenile Court Judge Harry Aron ruled that Gregory was a "mature minor", BUT decided that it was in Gregory's best interests to receive the transfusions, and court-ordered such.
In its infamous May 22, 1994 AWAKE! article, the WatchTower Society dishonestly portrayed Gregory's subsequent medical treatments as an unexpected bushwhacking resisted by Gregory: "At the hospital two doctors were standing by, transfusion equipment set up, and as soon as the court's decision came in, the transfusion was forcibly given to Ernestine in spite of her vigorous protests." In actuality, when Gregory learned that the judge had ordered the required blood transfusions, Gregory asked to be sedated.
Six weeks later, in April 1987, Juvenile Court Judge Harry Aron called the case for reconsideration. Ernestine Gregory testified that "she had studied her faith for several years, and that she had been baptized at age 16, which made her an adult in the eyes of her church." Tellingly, the ACLU could find only a single psychiatrist who was willing to tesify that the 17 1/2 year-old Gregory merely had "the maturity of an 18 to 21 year-old".
The court delivered its final ruling six weeks later -- likely waiting to see if Gregory was still alive. The judge gave the liberals what they needed -- ruling that Gregory was "mature", and had arrived at her decision to refuse blood transfusions "independently". However, the court retained its earlier decision that Gregory was "medically neglected", adjudged Gregory a ward of the court, and appointed a guardian with the right to consent to blood transfusions when "advised of such necessity by any attending physician."
Readers must understand that this Juvenile Court Judge had to leave the ACLU/JWs something to "appeal", while establishing a "mature minor" ruling which could be fully affirmed by the state Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine that any other trial level judge could have done a better job in the context of a life-and-death scenario. The full Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions are easily located online for those further interested in this case.
Despicably, the WatchTower Society portrayed Ernestine Gregory's survival as a miracle granted by Jehovah, when they had done everything they could to stop the medical treatment which Jehovah used to save Gregory's life. Readers will be thankful to learn that Ernestine Gregory was still alive in southside Chicago as of 2015.
In June 1989, in Georgia, 16 year old Jehovah's Witness Gregory Alan Novak was seriously injured in a single auto accident after he fell asleep at the wheel. He was transported by ambulance to Kennestone Hospital, where it was determined that Novak had sustained numerous injuries, including fractures of both legs and multiple lacerations. Eventually, Novak had to be administered court-ordered life-saving blood transfusions.
As "thanks" for saving his life, Greg Novak and his Jehovah's Witness Mother, June Lowery Novak, filed multiple civil lawsuits totaling $19 MILLION against the hospital and various doctors.They had been encouraged and were represented by WatchTower Society Legal Department attorneys, Donald T. Ridley and James M. McCabe.
Earlier, WatchTower Society attorney James McCabe had proclaimed, "We view court-ordered transfusions the way other people view a rape. ... The church will certainly bear responsibility for its actions before God, but that doesn't relieve the individual of all the horrors and problems a forced transfusion would visit upon them, like wondering for the next four or five years if they are going to come down with AIDS or some other disease." We guess Novak would have been better off DEAD!!! IDIOT!!!
IN THE MATTER OF BABY CABAN was a 1989 New Jersey court decision. "Baby Caban" was born six weeks premature at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden, New Jersey, in October 1989. When doctors informed the unidentified Willingboro, New Jersey Jehovah's Witnesses Parents (surnamed CABAN), that "Baby Caban" might need a blood transfusion to save his life, the Jehovah's Witness Parents refused to give their consent even if it meant that the newborn would die. The hospital then petitioned the local court for authorization to provide all needed medical care. Jehovah's Witness Attorney Carl. A. Price stated that the Caban's religious beliefs equated the ingestion of blood with rape and adultery. The court granted the petition authorizing transfusions only in the emergency situation that such were needed to save the newborn boy's life. In making his ruling, the judge cited PRINCE, and stated: "Parents may choose to become martyrs themselves, but they cannot make martyrs of their children. The right to belief is absolute, but the exercise of that belief is not." Outcome unknown.
In 1989, outside a courtroom in Nashville, Tennessee, WatchTower Society World Headquarters spokesperson, Fred Rusk, provided the news media with a statement which portrayed as "the victims" the Jehovah's Witness Parents who were refusing to give consent for their newborn daughter to receive life-saving blood transfusions. Fred Rusk's statement equated blood transfusions to a "forcible rape", and declared the legal proceedings to be a "moral atrocity".
THE HARTFORD COURANT
January 1, 1989
Worshipers Try to Stop Transfusion
NEW YORK. A Suffolk County Jehovah's Witness remained in critical condition Saturday after her husband and fellow worshipers were arrested for trying to prevent doctors from giving her a blood transfusion.
Denise Nicoleau was still suffering complications after delivering a girl by Caesarean section on Thursday, said Richard Semple, a spokesman for Brookhaven Memorial Hospital, East Patchogue. It has not been determined if she will require another transfusion, Semple said. Nicoleau's daughter was said to be in good condition.
The woman's husband, Herriot Nicoleau of Moriches, her brother, David Peele of Centereach, and Jehovah's Witness official Gary DeCanio of Setauket, were arrested at the hospital Friday night and charged with criminal trespass. Along with a dozen other Jehovah's Witnesses, they surrounded Nicoleau's bed, and sought to block medical personnel from carrying out a court order allowing the transfusion. The woman's husband could not be reached for comment, but Gary DeCanio said "it was possible" that worshipers would repeat their protest if another transfusion is ordered for Nicoleau, who is in her 30s.
Citing religious reasons, the Nicoleaus had requested prior to the delivery that the hospital perform no blood transfusions, even as a lifesaving measure. Ed Kornrieche, a lawyer for the firm representing the hospital, said the welfare of the newborn and Nicoleau's health prompted them to seek the court order. "Although it's true that she did not consent to the transfusion, the state's interest in protecting her and her baby overrode her desire in this regard," Kornrieche said.
But Donald Ridley, attorney for the Nicoleaus, and a Jehovah's Witness himself, said the court-ordered transfusion constituted "medical rape"." To force this on her without her consent is a violation of her body. It's morally equivalent to rape in their mind. She doesn't want to die, but she wants to obey God's directive to abstain from taking blood," Ridley said.
In a separate media interview after his arrest, Nicoleaus' brother, David Peele, also accused the doctor's of performing "an act tantamount to rape".
IN RE NATHANIEL KRAFT was a 1990-91 Michigan court case to protect the welfare of Nathaniel Kraft, who was born 12 weeks premature in August 1989, at Bronson Methodist Hospital. The Jehovah's Witness Parents, Harold Kraft and Delia Kraft, of Homer, Michigan, refused to consent to necessary blood transfusions. The hospital contacted Michigan CPS, which filed a neglect petition with the local court. Nathaniel Kraft was appointed a guardian who could consent to "necessary" blood transfusions, which means that the Jehovah's Witnesses Attorney will challenge the "neccessity" of every single transfusion. In June 1991, Delia Kraft labeled the latest court order by Probate Judge Carolyn Williams to be a "moral raping" of her son.
The Palm Beach Post
February 15. 1990
Jehovah's Witness Improving After Judge Orders Transfusion
A Port St. Lucie girl who was critically injured when a car struck her bicycle last week is improving after a judge ordered a blood transfusion over the objections of her parents. Bobbie Arnold, 11, was upgraded from critical to serious condition at HCA Medical Center of Port St. Lucie Wednesday five days after her parents signed documents forbidding doctors from performing a blood transfusion. Robert and Barbara Arnold are Jehovah's Witnesses, a religion that forbids blood transfusions. The Bible says blood is "the soul of the flesh" and should not be used by man.
On Monday, Dr. George Rittersbach, who heads a team of doctors treating the girl, asked Circuit Judge Scott Kenney to authorize the transfusion because Bobbie's condition had deteriorated. Bobbie, who suffered a liver laceration, wrist and leg fractures and chest injuries in the accident Friday, would be in danger of dying without a transfusion, Rittersbach said in an affidavit Kenney ordered the transfusion about 9:15 p.m. Monday after meeting with an attorney for the hospital for three hours. Doctors performed the transfusion later that night, hospital spokesman Russ Den nis said.
A family friend who answered the door at the Arnolds' Gulfstream Avenue home Wednesday said the family was "too emotionally drained" to talk about the case. Peter Elderbaum, who has been in daily contact with the Arnolds since the accident, said they are glad Bobbie's condition has improved. "But they are very saddened by the fact that the hospital, while it had other options, chose to violate their rights as parents and the child's rights as a patient.
"They feel a forced blood transfusion has the same psychological and emotional impact as being raped. It's basically a forced invasion of the body." Peter Elderbaum said the hospital could have given Bobbie transfusions of "plasma-volume expanders" (various liquids that can be used as substitutes for the water content of blood).
EDITOR: Was there really a JW Elder in Florida named "Peter Elderbaum", or did some chickencrap make that name up when he realized how stupid he was going to look in the newspapers when he repeated the WatchTower Lawyers' orders?
"Opposing doctors were labeled 'bloodthirsty physicians', the divesting of parental authority was compared with the 'recruitment of the Hitler Youth', while one of the [WatchTower] Society's legal counsels qualified the forced transfusions in Canada as a form of 'rape.'" -- The Blood Transfusion Taboo of Jehovah's Witnesses, R Singelenberg, Social Science & Medicine, 1990.
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES EXPLAIN OPPOSITION TO BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
Many people feel almost a moral obligation to donate their blood to help others, but Jehovah's Witnesses say they are forbidden by the Bible from accepting it -- even to save their own lives. Use of blood or blood products, Jehovah's Witnesses say, is banned in Chapter 9 of the Book of Genesis, Chapter 17 of Leviticus and Chapter 15 of Acts of the Apostles.
"The creator has indicated to us that life is in the blood and that life belongs to him. Ours is a scriptural view," said William E. Livas, minister-representative of the Jehovah's Witnesses and member of the religious organization's Hospital Liaison Committee.
Receiving a blood transfusion is a means of consuming blood as far as Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, explained William G. Evans, an overseer of the denomination's Buffalo congregations, and a member of the Hospital Liaison Committee. "You just bypass the stomach," he said.
The issue made headlines recently when Joanne Mangione, 30, died after rejecting a blood transfusion that medical workers said was needed to help her fight complications resulting from childbirth.
Sisters Hospital went to court to clarify the rights of Mrs. Mangione, a Licensed Practical Nurse, because a member of the hospital's medical staff said a transfusion might be needed to save her life after she developed pneumonia and adult respiratory distress following a Caesarean section. Her subsequent death was attributed to pneumonia-related infections.
Mrs. Mangione's death was the second tragedy for her family in a little more than a year. Her brother, Rudolph Manzella Jr., 31, was charged in October 1989, with the fatal shooting of Erie County Sheriff's Deputy William Dillemuth and the wounding of Deputy David Carlson at his Clarence home.
Attorneys for the hospital and Mrs. Mangione eventually agreed that she had the right, based on a recent State Court of Appeals decision, to refuse a transfusion.
As far as the Jehovah's Witnesses are concerned, Mr. William E. Livas said, a "forced blood transfusion" is regarded as "the moral equivalent of rape."
Excerpted (edited) from The Buffalo News, Staff, Dec 19, 1990.
"Transfusing an older child with awareness and acceptance of the transfusion principle is the moral equivalent of rape. A parent who therefore permits his child or infant to undergo a blood transfusion would be sanctioning a vicious violation of the person, thereby seriously compromising the child's best interests. Here, of course, the phrase 'best interests' extends far beyond the child's interest in the preservation of her mortal body. Of greater interest is preservation of the child's soul." -- Well and Good: Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, John Edward Thomas, Wilfrid J. Waluchow, 1990, p153.
***"And since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex -- rape." WatchTower Society's BLOOD brochure, p. 21, 1990.
IN RE THE MATTER OF PATRICIA DUBREUIL was a 1990-93 Florida state Supreme Court decision which resulted from the saving of Patricia Dubreuil's life by a blood transfusion made necessary by the loss of blood during the caesarean delivery of her fourth child, Michael Dubreuil, in 1990. Typically, the Dubreuils reportedly moved far away while the WatchTower Society's and ACLU's attorneys fought the local Broward County Hospital for committing the "crime" of saving the life of a Jehovah's Witness Mother of four children. In this case, the FOOL of the week was Watchtower Society Circuit Overseer, John Gibbard, who provided local reporters with the soundbite, "We compare forcing blood into someone as being tantamount to rape."
WatchTower Society lawyers and spokespersons SCREAM that the decision to refuse blood transfusions is the constitutionally-protected "personal choice" made (just coincidentally by every Jehovah's Witness on planet Earth) after a Jehovah's Witness's personal study of the Bible. Well, here is some more of that "Bible study". How much "personal choice" has the WatchTower Society left to its members?
June 15, 1991
Questions From Readers
How strenuously should a Christian resist a blood transfusion that has been ordered or authorized by a court?
Christians today must also be steadfast, firmly resolved not to violate divine law, even if that puts them in some jeopardy as to secular governments. The highest law of the universe -- God's law -- requires that Christians abstain from blood, just as they are commanded to avoid fornication (sexual immorality).The Bible calls these prohibitions "necessary things". (Acts 15:19-21, 28, 29) Such divine law is not to be taken lightly, as something to be obeyed only if it is convenient or presents no problems. [THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY'S A/K/A] God's law must be obeyed!
We can appreciate, then, why the young Christian mentioned [previously] on page 17 told a court that "she considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape." Would any Christian woman, young or old, passively submit to rape, even if there were a legal grant that the fornication by sexual assault be carried out?
Similarly, the 12-year-old quoted [previously] on the same page left no doubt that "she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed." She was firmly resolved to obey the divine law.
[The WatchTower Society now proceeds to teach its Jehovah's Witness members to FLEE FROM HOSPITALS which have obtained court orders to administer life-saving blood transfusions.]
Jesus withdrew from the area when a crowd wanted to make him king. Similarly, if a court-authorized transfusion seemed likely, a Christian might choose to avoid being accessible for such a violation of God's law. (Matthew 10:16; John 6:15) At the same time, a Christian should wisely seek alternative medical treatment, thus making a genuine effort to maintain life and to regain full health.
If a Christian did put forth very strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God's law on blood, authorities might consider him a lawbreaker or make him liable to prosecution. If punishment did result, the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness. (Compare 1 Peter 2:18-20.) But in most cases, Christians have avoided transfusions and with competent medical care have recovered, so that no lasting legal problems resulted. And most important, they have maintained their integrity to their Divine Life-Giver and Judge.
In 1991, in Indianapolis, Indiana, where an "unmarried" Jehovah's Witness Mother had refused to consent to a life-saving blood transfusion for her illegitimate newborn, the WatchTower Society's local Hospital Liaison Committee spokesperson told a reporter that transfusing an unwilling Jehovah's Witness or their child was "spiritual rape". This HLC spokesperson probably had been counseled by the HLC head, a local physician, NOT TO BE STUPID ENOUGH to parrot the WatchTower Society's full RAPE analogy. That JW physician's motto was: "What Brooklyn doesn't know won't hurt them".
IN THE MATTER OF RYAN BROCKWAY was a 1991 New York state appellate court decision in which the Jehovah's Witness Parents, Todd Brockway and Manya Brockway, were represented by Carolyn R. Wah, one of the WatchTower Society's corporate attorneys. In September 1991, the Brockways took their 14 month old son, Ryan Brockway, to Crouse Irving Memorial Hospital for what was later diagnosed as a rare form of prostate cancer that requires aggressive medical treatment. Doctors informed the Brockways that blood transfusions would be necessary as a result of the aggressive chemotherapy. The Brockways refused to give their consent based on their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses. The hospital then sought guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. The trial court granted the hospital's petition declaring Ryan to be "neglected". The Brockways then appealed. The New York appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling. At the hearing, WatchTower attorney Carolyn Wah repeated the WatchTower Society's ridiculous claim that administering a blood transfusion to an unwilling patient (14 months old in this instance) was the equivalent of forcibly "raping" the patient.
"It is said that the Jehovah's Witnesses of the 1930s opposed immunisation, and later opposed organ transplants, on grounds similar to those on which they now oppose transfusion. ... To a sensitive doctor, few situations are more unpleasant than transfusing a baby of Jehovah's Witness parents against the latter's objections. On the one hand, the parents may see this as akin to rape (Jehovah's Witness elders, personal communication). On the other hand, failing to transfuse may violate all of medical tradition and ethos." -- Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusion of Infants, New Zealand Medical Journal, August 1992, p307.
"When judges are called upon to issue court orders hastily, often they have not considered or been reminded of the many dangers of blood, including AIDS, hepatitis, and a host of other hazards. You can point these out to the judge, and you can also make known to him that you, as a Christian parent, would view the use of another person's blood in an effort to sustain life as a serious violation of God's law and that forcing blood upon your child would be viewed as tantamount to rape. You and your child (if old enough to have his own convictions) can explain your abhorrence for such bodily invasion and can appeal to the judge not to grant an order but to permit you to pursue alternative medical management for your child." -- OUR KINGDOM MINISTRY, September 1992, p.6.
IN RE JAMES FRIEDEL was a 1992-95 ultimately SUPREME COURT OF CANADA court case in which that highest court re-affirmed the rights of children to necessary medical treatment over the rights of their parents to their religious beliefs. James Friedel was born in June 1992 to Jehovah's Witness Parents Michael and Evemarie Friedel. When those JW Parents refused to consent to a necessary blood exchange transfusion, the Ontario hospital applied for judicial intervention. Ontario CPS was granted temporary custody of James Friedel, and consented to the necessary medical care. Michael Friedel later screamed to the news media that his son had been "basically raped.". The WatchTower Society of Canada appealed the case to the SCC, where that court affirmed the status quo that children could not be subjected to their parents' dark ages religious beliefs. The SCC did rule that such decisions should be medically necessary as determined by a court hearing. Typically, the WatchTower Society and the Jehovah's Witnesses declared their defeat to be a major victory, and the ignorant liberal Canadian media portrayed the decision as such.
"[Jehovah's Witnesses] consider a blood transfusion to be "like a forcible rape, an inflicting, penetrating assault on (their) bod(ies), against (their) will, injecting an unwanted fluid into (their) bodies." -- Jean C. Rainbow, Chairman, Greater Palm Beach Hospital Liaison Committee for Jehovah's Witnesses, July 27, 1992. Cited in "In re Dubreuil: Is an Individual's Right to Refuse a Blood Transfusion Contingent on Parental Status" JL Bamonte, C Bierman - Nova L. Rev., 1992.
In 1992, a 63-year-old Japanese Jehovah's Witness named Misae Takeda underwent liver cancer surgery at University of Tokyo hospital. After the surgery, and while Misae was still under sedation, she was given a blood transfusion directly contrary to her clearly expressed wishes. Efforts to keep the unauthorized transfusion secret were exposed when a hospital employee apparently leaked the matter to a news reporter. (That "hospital employee likely was a JW whom first reported the matter to WatchTower HQ, who told that JW to take it to the newspapers in order to safeguard both he/she and the WatchTower Society. See our CONFIDENTIALITY page.)
Typically, the WatchTower Society of Japan instructed Misae Takeda and her Jehovah's Witness Family to sue the hospital and doctors. On the witness stand during the trial, Misae Takeda described in a trembling voice the emotional trauma she experienced as a result of the betrayal. "I felt violated, like a woman who had been raped." Wasn't it simply a "miracle" that that Jaspanese JW felt EXACTLY as did JWs all across the planet!
The Tokyo District Court ruled in favor of the physicians and, thus, against the right of informed consent. In February 1998, the High Court reversed the decision of the lower court. Misae Takeda had died in August 1997.
"To the [Jehovah's] Witnesses, a blood transfusion is the moral equivalent of fornication; hence, forcing a blood transfusion upon them would be morally and emotionally equivalent to rape by the physician. For a [Jehovah's] Witness to passively agree to being raped would be unacceptable under all circumstances regardless of the consequences. (compare Deuteronomy 22:23-27)." -- Blood Transfusions: A Patient's Right to Refuse, Robert D. Orr, M.D., Ethics Center Update, September 1992.
"The way I feel is that if I'm given any blood, that will be like raping me, molesting my body. I don't want my body if that happens. I can't live with that. I don't want any treatment if blood is going to be used, even a possibility of it. I'll resist use of blood." -- In the Matter of A.Y., child of P.Y. and J.Y., Newfoundland Supreme Court Unified Family Court, July 19, 1993.
This was a case where everyone understood that 15 year-old Adrian Yeatts was terminal. Court proceedings allowed the hospital/doctors to demonstrate due diligence, and allowed the Jehovah's Witnesses and the WatchTower Society to beat their chests and prove their faith, and gain publicity for their cause. However, this gifted "mature minor" decision and overly deferential decision gave the WatchTower Society of Canada what it misleadingly characterized as a precedent setting "mature minor" victory. For the following eight weeks, Adrian Yeatts received futile "bloodless" medical treatment while attending doctors and nurses watched the teenager slowly die. As it turns out, Adrian Yeatts was not even a baptized Jehovah's Witness. Almost as an afterthought, Adrian Yeatts was baptized at the hospital only hours before his death.
In May 1993, a Jehovah's Witness named Leslie Linart, age 35, was seriously injured loosing half of her blood in an automobile accident in San Bernardino county, California. At the hospital, a semi-conscious Leslie Linart refused to give doctors consent to administer the blood transfusions needed to save her life. Rather than sit by and watch her daughter die, as her daughter's Jehovah's Witnesses family and friends were willing and anxious to do, Leslie Linart's mother, Carma Lou Saathoff, of Temecula, California, who was NOT a Jehovah's Witness, sought and obtained temporary medical guardianship of her daughter, which allowed her to consent to all medical treatment needed to save her daughter's life, including life-saving blood transfusions. Husband, Brent Linart, also a Jehovah's Witness, was outraged. "I know Leslie was ready to die for this," said Brent Linart, age 39. "She's been raped." Another newspaper article reported, "Many followers equate forced transfusions with rape and say they'd rather not live. 'We don't want people to die', said Jully Linart, Leslie's sister-in-law, who is a Jehovah's Witness. 'But given the choice of death or violation, we choose death.'"
In the April 22, 1994 issue of the AWAKE! magazine, a 17 year-old Jehovah's Witness female was cited as an example for all other hospitalized Jehovah's Witness Teens in that when the possibility of blood transfusions was discussed during her pre-surgery conference, she supposedly "told the doctors that she would 'scream and holler' if they attempted to transfuse her", and that as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, she viewed any forcible administration of blood to be as repulsive as rape.
In 1994, in Great Britain, a 15 year-old Jehovah's Witness girl described as a "new convert" suffered from thalassaemia. "New convert" proclaimed to a judge that compelling her to undergo blood transfusions was like "rape", and "having someone else's blood is having someone else's soul". The judge was not impressed, relating that the girl's integrity and commitment, while admirable, was that of a child. He ruled that she was not "Gillick-competent".
"I would equate a forced blood transfusion with rape." -- Dena S. Davis, "Does 'No' Mean 'Yes'"? The Continuing Problem of Jehovah's Witnesses and Refusal of Blood Products, in Second Opinion 19, 3 (1994): 34.
"... in 1977, as a protective-services employee of the state, I took custody of a ten year-old African-American child from a Jehovah's Witness family in Virginia. You may be aware that Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed to blood transfusions on religious grounds, even to save a life. ... Jehovah's Witnesses can look upon a child like this as a rape victim -- someone upon whom a physical battery was [committed.]" -- Cracking the Monolith, William W. Rankin, 1994, p3.
IN RE FA. In 1994, in New South Wales, Australia, a 91 year-old Jehovah's Witness female [FA] had been a nursing home resident for about 13-14 years. She suffered from severe dementia, which set in shortly after she had converted at the age of 70. At the time, she had been hsopitalized with a broken hip. The hip surgery could not be performed until her haemoglobin level was improved with blood transfusions, which required the approval of the Guardianship Board.
The Board was contacted by three Jehovah's Witnesses Elders, two who were members of the Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committee. They advocated on behalf of FA against the proposed blood transfusion, which they said was contrary to the beliefs that she had held as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. At the later hearing, one on the members of the Hospital Liaison Committee told the Board that for a Jehovah's Witnesses in possession of his or her faculties, a blood transfusion was "tantamount to rape".
"Although Jehovah's Witness readily seek other medical care, the transfusion of blood is prohibited due to their religious convictions. (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Acts 15:28,29). The non-consensual administration of blood transfusions is described as the 'moral equivalent of rape. In their minds transfusion therapy is not a minimal bodily invasion but a gross physical and spiritual violation.' It is the blood itself which is regarded as objectionable therefore consent given by the court is no less emotionally devastating and damaging to the child than consent given by parents." -- S Papps "Ex Parte orders for medical intervention on Jehovah's Witnesses: the risk of injustice" Butterworths Family Law Journal Dec 1994, 136; "Parental beliefs and medical treatment of children: a response" Butterworths Family Law Journal June 1995, 228.
On October 30, 1995, two Canadian Jehovah's Witness Attorneys representing the WatchTower Society of Canada testified before THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS of the LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA, regarding Bill 20 -- The Child and Family Services Amendment Act.
They were: Donald Kirkland and Allan Ludkiewicz. Here is a mere excerpt from their lengthy testimony in which they advocated as minutely as suggesting exchange of single words in the proposed legislation. The testimony of Donald Kirkland and Allan Ludkiewicz also included this despicable use of the RAPE ANALOGY:
"I have been in the Hospital Liaison Committee program of Jehovah's Witnesses for more than 20 years. Until I became associated with Glen How & Associates, I was the co-ordinator of the Hospital Liaison Committee in Ottawa. In reality, when physicians and state agencies realize that going to court includes a full and fair procedure, what is their reaction likely to be? I can verify it is -- well, just a minute. If it is not as simple as getting a judge to rubber-stamp a doctor's request conveyed through a social worker, maybe we had better stop and think about this.
If also the doctor is now in the position, when you appear before a court, you must be prepared to demonstrate necessity, not just claim. It has to be more than speculative. It must be substantive so that a judge can determine and be prepared for cross-examination for parents to bring in their witnesses and so on.
So, in a practical sense, not only is it correct under the constitution, but in helping parents, doctors, children, social workers, it is a great improvement because the focus is on solution. That is the role of the Hospital Liaison Committees in supporting doctors and families. Our focus is on solving these situations, not going to court and putting parents through the trauma of, under many legislations, being declared unfit parents. Of course, then, as well, legislators and state agencies and judges are beginning to realize that the family that has to live with the consequences of state-imposed treatment against their wishes and in violation of their religious conscience, it is like a rape victim. It is a grievous assault on the individual.
We support the families in the sense that great spiritual damage has been done to them. But with the analogy of a bodily assault such as rape, you can help people overcome the trauma they have experienced, but no one can erase the scar that will always be there. ...
In November 1996, a 34-weeks pregnant, 40 year old African-American Jehovah's Witness named Bettye Joyce Beal fell at her Washington Park, Missouri, home. The fall caused Betty Joyce Beal to hemorrhage internally, PLUS caused an abruption of the placenta -- an interruption of the baby's blood and oxygen supply. Beal was taken to Belleville Memorial Hospital, where Bettye Beal and her recent second husband, Roger Beal, refused to consent to life-saving blood transfusions for either herself or their yet-to-be born child. Eventually, 103 minutes later, Aviz Jalyn Beal was delivered via an emergency caesarean section, but stop breathing at some point, and was placed on life support. It took Bettye Beal twelve more hours to slowly bleed to death. Bettye Brock Beal threw away her career as a special-education teacher, and left both an adult daughter and a son still in junior high school from her previous "Brock" marriage.
IN RE AVIZ JALYN BEAL was a 1996 Missouri court decision. Belleville Memorial Hospital failed to administer needed blood transfusions to the newborn baby, or seek court intervention to do so. Instead, Aviz Beal was transferred to Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital. There, officials at Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital sought and obtained court authorization to administer blood transfusions to the newborn baby. About 33 hours after delivery, Aviz Beal joined his mother on the list of WatchTower martyrs. Unfortunately, the newborn had no voice in that decision.
Roger Beal proclaimed to reporters, "The baby was not going to eat blood. His mother wouldn't have had it any other way. ... Who is to stop God from having his way? My wife died a hero's death, faithful to Jehovah God." Roger Beal further reported that he, Bettye Beal's mother, and Bettye Beal's two children had all had the opportunity to hold Aviz Beal, and tell the newborn "Hello","Goodbye", and "We will see you again in Paradise". Interestingly, a week or so later, Roger Beal invited a reporter into the couple's home where that reporter noted that an empty cradle sat in the corner of the Beals' dining room. A card in the cradle read, "The Handiwork of God".
A month later, a local reporter interviewed Todd Arthur Hofmeister, R.N., who was a Jehovah's Witness then employed by local Barnes-Jewish Hospital to help it establish its' bloodless surgery center. Todd A. Hofmeister recited the WatchTower Cult's proof texts used to prohibit the "eating of blood". The scientific/medical genius Todd Hofmeister further explained, "No matter whether you eat blood or take it in through a vein, it's being used for nutritional purposes."
A spokesman for the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn, N.Y., the headquarters of the Jehovah's Witnesses, said that Betty Joyce Beal "obviously was a very religious woman and dedicated and was looking long range at everlasting life. We will take every medical step short of a blood transfusion.We view a forced blood transfusion as the equivalent of being raped."
Any Evidence or Even An Assertion of a JW Having Committed Suicide After Being Transfused?
So, Who Told Authors That??? Serious Problems Extremely Rare???
Authors Redeem Themselves!!!
"... it is unacceptable to give blood products to a [Jehovah's] Witness without their express consent. [Jehovah's] Witnesses who have been given blood in this way describe it as being akin to rape, and it is a well-recognized cause of suicide among Witnesses. ... Serious problems with the treatment of [Jehovah's] Witnesses are in fact extremely rare. ... Often family members or friends will press hard for the withholding of blood, but do not assume that the patient is a devout [Jehovah's] Witness without hard evidence." -- Perioperative Management for House Surgeons, P.R. Hambly, M.C. Sainsbury, 1996, p134.
"A forced blood transfusion would have a long lasting, traumatic effect," explains Carl Bruce, head of Hospital Information Services for Jehovah's Witnesses in Brooklyn Heights, NY. "The analogy we've used is a rape, because we've been violated." -- EMERGENCY / ED MANAGEMENT, "When religious beliefs conflict with care: 'Seek understanding first.'", September 1, 1997.
In 1998, in Victoria, Australia, Sharin Qumsieh, age 20, was admitted to Mercy Hospital for delivery of her first child. Qumsieh successfully delivered a healthy baby boy, but her post-delivery state rapidly declined through haemorrhaging. A radical hysterectomy was performed at the Mercy Hospital and she was later transferred to the intensive care unit of the Western General Hospital. She was very anaemic through blood loss and under heavy sedation.
Sharin Qumsieh was a strongly committed Jehovah's Witness who believed that she should abstain from blood transfusions. To her, an imposed transfusion of someone else's bodily fluid was the equivalent of rape or abortion.
On the action of her own JW Husband, Qumsieh was placed under temporary guardianship. Court-ordered blood transfusions were given, and Mrs Qumsieh responded to treatment. She was discharged from that hospital about one week later.
"Forced blood transfusions are as psychologically traumatic and morally repugnant to Jehovah's Witnesses as rape is to women." -- Law, Blood Transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses, Medicine and Law, JLH Letsoalo, 1998.
In 1998, an unnamed young married Jehovah's Witness Couple living in Lebanon, Western Australia, experienced tragedy when the 20 year-old JW Mother suffered excessive blood loss after delivery of her first child. Rather than lose his new wife and the mother of his first child, the 27 year-old JW Husband and Father consented to necessary life-saving blood transfusions. It was a certainty that he would face being disfellowshipped, and that such might even threaten the marriage that he was attempting to save.
Peter Price, spokesperson for Hospital Information Services at the Jehovah's Witnesses' national headquarters in Sydney, said that the church would regard the woman's situation as an assault against her will "akin to rape". "Just as with a victim of rape, we would see that she needs all the emotional and spiritual and physical support we can extend to her." The husband's future was a different story.
"Mrs Q is a devoted Jehovah's Witness and accordingly believes that the medical use of blood products is wrong, to the point that blood transfusions are considered by her to be morally equivalent to rape and abortion." -- Stewart, Cameron --- "Advanced Directives, the Right to Die and the Common Law: Recent Problems with Blood Transfusions"  MelbULawRw 6; (1999) 23(1) Melbourne University Law Review.
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
The Jehovah's Witnesses' submission raised the issue of blood transfusions and freedom of religion. It argued that legislation allowing doctors to give blood transfusions to children without the consent of the parents is contrary to the principles of the Religion Declaration:
This legislation ("the blood laws") allows doctors, in some cases a single doctor, to force blood transfusion upon children of Jehovah's Witnesses without consent and against the wishes of the parents. There is no opportunity to obtain a second opinion, or to have another doctor treat the patient using tested procedures that do not require the use of blood. ... Jehovah's Witnesses view a forced blood transfusion as the moral equivalent of rape. They consider such action an assault on their physical, religious and emotional person. They feel violated. Where a blood transfusion is forced upon their child, Jehovah's Witnesses will do all they can to comfort and console the child (or family member). They will continue to love and care for the child. But it will still leave a permanent emotional scar on the family, and probably also on the child as it grows up.
"Doctors have accepted that [adult] Jehovah's Witnesses, whose faith forbids them from having blood transfusions, must be allowed the right to die if they do not consent to life-saving treatment. However, children must be given blood where necessary irrespective of the parent's wishes.
In 1999, in a special THANKSGIVING DAY article, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin featured the Song Family of the Waialae Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Only one week previous, family patriarch, Elder Henry Song, had been the first Jehovah's Witness in Hawaii to undergo "bloodless" open-heart triple-bypass surgery. "Don't mistake us for faith healers," said son, Elder Christopher Song. We want the best medicine." Although the surgery had been handled by the hospital's "bloodless" program and doctors, which negated any possibility of transfusions, someone had prepared Elder Chris Song to compare forced blood transfusions to rape for this reporter. Fittingly, the reporter ended the article with this seemingly innocent note: "The patriarch of the Song family would normally be cooking a turkey today."
Orange County Register
July 30, 2000
[WRONGFUL LIFE LAWSUIT]
A woman whose religious beliefs forbid her to receive a blood transfusion is suing [the Univesity of California, Irvine] over [medical] treatment she received at the behest of her two eldest children. Their mother lay crumpled on a bed in the intensive care unit a few doors down, hooked up to a ventilator and sedated into unconsciousness.
Doctors admitted Marina Ferreira to UCI Medical Center on July 12, 1999 with pneumonia, congestive heart failure, pulmonary hemorrhage, and acute renal failure. Her [three] adult children were brought into a small conference room down the hall with three doctors, a social worker and a Jehovah's Witness Hospital Liaison [Committee member] to hear what they already knew: Their mother was dying. The two daughters [-- one a Jehovah's Witness and the other a Catholic --] sat side by side crying, but not willing to comfort each other. They were so furious [at each other that] they couldn't even look at each other.
Marina Ferreira, 65, had been a Jehovah's Witness for 23 years, a follower of a religion that abstains from blood transfusions. Now as she lay dying her [three] children were fighting -- two for her life, one also for her soul. Her youngest, Carol Quiroz, 27, is also a [Jehovah's Witness]. The two oldest, Rolando Ferreira and Xinia Turnbull, are Catholics. Now, in the small hospital conference room, Ferreira and Turnbull were saying their mother had told them privately that she wanted a transfusion if it could save her life. Quiroz called them liars.
But UCI Medical Center Risk Manager Nance Hove believed they were telling the truth, and so would a court that ordered the transfusion. ... "I asked my mom, 'Are you ready to die?' " said Xinia Turnbull. "My mom told me that she was not ready to die. But then she would change her story with my sister."
But Ferreira says Hove listened to the wrong side of the family. Her youngest daughter, Carol Quiroz, was the only one she had designated as legally able to make medical decisions for her. And Quiroz did not approve a blood transfusion decision, according to the lawsuit filed this month in Orange County Superior Court.
... Now a fully recovered Marina Ferreira is suing the Univesity of California, Irvine. She says her religion dictates that what her [two] eldest children did was tantamount to rape. She has considered suing them, too, and says she only hugs them because she has to. "It's like they were traitors. The love a mother has for her children lasts forever, but I feel my heart is wounded by what they did," Ferreira said in Spanish.
A native of Peru, Ferreira became a Jehovah's Witness while living in Costa Rica when Quiroz was just 4 years old. She raised her youngest child in her new faith, but Turnbull and Rolando Ferreira, teenagers at the time, remained in the first religion their mother taught them. "I think the hospital scared them by telling them I was dying," Ferreira said. "They didn't understand my point of view about it. They never really have, and the hospital pressured them into doing it."
Quiroz said she knows her brother and sister believed they were doing the best thing for their mom, and she has recently started talking to her sister again. But the wounds have not healed. "It's so hard when it's your brother and sister," Quiroz said. "You love them, but bad things still happened."
"In Jehovah's Witness publications, the administration of an unwanted transfusion is likened to assault or rape." -- Descombes HM, Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2001.
In 2002, during the Bethany Abigail Hughes tragedy in Canada, WatchTower Society lawyer David Gnam referred to court-ordered necessary blood transfusions as, "It's an assault," he said. "If you are assaulted once, does that mean further assaults don't have consequences?" The liberal newspaper which reported such may very well have modified the exact language.
Who was assaulting who? Another newspaper reported: "On one occasion, hospital staff members had a physical confrontation with the [Jehovah's Witness] mother, [Arliss Carroll Hughes] as she tried to stop a transfusion. 'They were fighting with the doctors, and my wife tried to pull the I.V. line out, said the JW father. 'My daughter has something that was inserted by an operation into her chest and it's hooked to an artery. If that was torn out, she could bleed to death.' Though he's been a Jehovah's Witness for 20 years, the father [Lawrence Hughes] wants the [blood transfusions] to continue, because he doesn't want his daughter to die."
It was Lawrence Hughes who explained during one court hearing that he, his family, and all Jehovah's Witnesseses were taught that being administered a blood transfusion against one's will was the "same as rape".
April 15, 2005
Similarities Evident as Religious Teens Testify
Are Jehovah's Witness Youths Just Parroting Adults in Blood Tranfusion Fights?
... the story being played out in B.C. courts is that of a 14-year-old Okana'gan girl who has cancer and does not want potentially life-saving blood transfusions. The girl, who can not be identified because of a court order, is a Jehovah's Witness and believes that blood transfusions are forbidden by God.
Both her parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and so is her lawyer, Shane Brady. (Brady is also a lawyer for the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which describes itself as "a legal organization in use by Jehovah's Witnesses" and an elder in a Jehovah's Witness congregation.)
"It -- a blood transfusion -- is no different than somebody getting sexually assaulted or raped or robbed or something. You'd feel violated because it's not anybody else's property, it's you," the young woman said in a written statement to the court.
The statement is stunningly evocative, especially for someone so young. But it's also familiar to those who follow court battles undertaken by other Jehovah's Witnesses, their children, and the Watch Tower Society.
"How would I feel about a blood transfusion?" 16-year-old Bethany Emily Hughes asked rhetorically in response to Brady's question to her in an Alberta court in 2002. "I would feel violated. Similar to someone being raped, I suppose. Because someone who's being raped, they've been violated and defiled in a way that only they can know."
In 1993, 14-year-old Adrian Yeatts, another Jehovah's Witness with cancer, told a Newfoundland Supreme Court justice, "If I'm given any blood, that will be like raping me, molesting my body, if that happens." ...
At some point in the coming weeks or months, one 14-year-old British Columbia girl may be wheeled into a hospital. If this happens, a tube will be fitted into her body and she will be given a stranger's blood. It will be done against her will, and that of her parents; she may have to be restrained. The girl is a Jehovah's Witness and she has cancer in her leg. Doctors say that a blood transfusion is not necessarily a matter of life or death, but they need a "safety net" in case chemotherapy does not work. This medical worry, so well-intentioned, overrides the girl's freedom to practise her religion as she sees fit.
The state will not let her be identified; it wants to protect juveniles from publicity. It will also "protect" her from her parents, and remove her from their care if it has to. For her part, the girl told the court that a forced blood transfusion would make her feel "sexually assaulted, or raped, or robbed". The judge, a woman, sympathised but ruled that no matter how she felt now, she would have to accept the blood.
I put this real-life case to a number of my graduate students at the University of British Columbia. I expected some sympathy for the girl and her parents. But I found none. "The girl has obviously been brainwashed," said one journalism student. "Why else would she refuse something that could save her life?" Another student said that the girl falls into the same category as the old and the infirm on life support. "They are not able to decide for themselves."
I do not know any Jehovah's Witnesses. When they come to my door, I politely decline to engage in conversation. Sometimes, they come with their entire families, including children, and it is hard to turn them away. It is with this same zeal that they adhere to the Scriptures which says, in Genesis: "Only flesh with its soul -- its blood -- you must not eat."
Excerpted/edited. Claude Adams, April 2005.
CAN YOU SMELL THE COFFEE?
(This is the Canadian court case which the two previous segments address.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
S.J.B., by her Litigation Guardian, K.B. and D.A.S., Appellants (Shane H. Brady, Counsel)
The Director of Child, Family and Community Service for the Province of British Columbia, Respondent
April 11, 2005
 The appellants submit that the Director overriding the child's choice of medical treatment constitutes a gross breach of her right to dignity, personal autonomy, privacy and choice in decision going to her fundamental being. They note that at trial, upon being questioned by Meyers P.C.J., the child said that if she was forced to be transfused she would feel "extremely, extremely violated" and that it was no different to her being the victim of a sexual assault, a rape or a robbery. The appellants submit that denying the child her right to decide her treatment merely because she has not yet attained the age of majority is unfair and arbitrary, and does not meet the requirements of substantive fundamental justice.
 The father subsequently contacted a social worker, Mr. Eric Stellingwerff, by telephone. He told the social worker that if the child's condition worsened, he did not think the court should be necessary since the child and the family were willing to allow Dr. Dix to follow whatever treatment plan he thought necessary. He emphasized they would like to leave the options up to Dr. Dix, whom they trusted. ...
 The social worker and the father continued to discuss the matter by way of telephone on January 6, 2005, when Mr. Stellingwerff again told him that at some point there would be a need for a consent to be given, should the child require blood products. While the father did not say he would consent, he continued to take the position it would be up to Dr. Dix to decide what the course of treatment would be.
 On the day before the hearing, Dr. Dix met with the child at her request. She told him she would be writing a letter to the Court to explain her position with respect to blood transfusions. She wanted Dr. Dix's reassurance that by doing so, she would not be jeopardizing their relationship. He gave her that reassurance. On the several occasions that Dr. Dix spoke privately with the child about her potential need for a blood transfusion, while she always indicated she would refuse to consent to such treatment, she also passionately and repeatedly expressed to him her desire not to die.
 ... In the circumstances, and particularly in light of the Director's counsel's meeting with the family on February 15th, I infer that the child, and certainly the family, was well aware of what such an emergency application involved and having been served with the materials, made a deliberate decision to consult with but not to retain counsel.
 While the transcript reveals the mother to be both an intelligent and strident individual, she made no mention of any need to adjourn, even when asked directly by the trial judge. Rather the thrust of the mother's submissions at the hearing concerned her desire to impress upon the trial judge that he should read the child's letter, possibly meet with her, appreciate her thoughtful refusal to be transfused, and finally consider the child's likely future emotional reactions to being the subject of a forced transfusion. While a telephone conversation supplanted the personal meeting she suggested with the child, each of the mother's requests was satisfied by the trial judge who rose to the occasion with demonstrable sensitivity and respect for the child and her family.
 Both Dr. Dix and Dr. Fryer testified to the urgent need for an order authorizing the provision of blood or blood products to the child. ...
"WE ARE NOT A CULT!!! "WE ARE NOT A CULT!!! "WE ARE NOT A CULT!!! "WE ARE NOT A CULT!!!
In April 2006, 14 year-old April Cadoreth, who suffered from Crohn's disease, was hospitalized after suffering an episode of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The loss of blood had decreased her hemoglobin count, but her condition stabilized. Four days later, April suffered another internal bleed, which decreased her hemoglobin count even further. In the opinion of the medical personnel, this created an imminent and serious risk to her life or health. Her doctors wished to give her a blood transfusion, but both she and her Jehovah's Witness Parents refused to consent to the receipt of any blood or blood products on religious grounds. The hospital was forced to seek assiatance from CFS, who applied for judicial intervention.
Based on the evidence presented at the court hearing by both sides, the applications judge was satisfied that there was "immediate danger as the minutes go by, if not death, then certainly serious damage." The judge assumed for the purposes of the hearing that April had "capacity" and that her wishes were to refuse the blood transfusion. In addition to the evidence of her father and the hospital personnel as to April's wishes, the judge also took into account the "Advance Medical Directive" executed by April earlier that year. Nonetheless, the Judge granted the treatment order, concluding that the blood transfusions would be in April's "best interests". He held that the "best interests" test governed this decision even for minors with capacity, if they were under 16 years of age. April was then given three units of blood.
According to the WatchTower Cult book, GOD'S KINGDOM RULES!, page 163, "April later likened the experience to rape."
INTERESTINGLY, a newspaper also has quoted April Cadoteh as more specifically stating: "There almost are no words to say just how brutal of an act [blood transfusion] is. I once compared it to almost being raped. There are no options for you, there's nothing you can do about it and it's very hard to deal with."
The WatchTower Society of Canada pushed this case to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was DISMISSED in 2009. The ONLY WINNER was the WatchTower Society of Canada, who for some UNKNOWN REASON was awarded their LEGAL FEES of approximately $500,000.00, which was paid by the government of Manitoba. If Manitoba's taxpayers had even half of a backbone, they would have been raising HELL.
The Times (UK)
February 23, 2007
Babies Seized After Jehovah's Witness Mother Refuses Blood For Sextuplets
The birth of Canada's first sextuplets should have been cause for celebration. But their struggle for life has provoked a ferocious battle pitching Church against State and a child's right to life against parents' rights to practise their faith. When the four boys and two girls were born nearly three months prematurely in early January, they were hailed as a miracle. The mother, on being told that she was carrying multiple foetuses, had been offered "selective reduction", a procedure to remove several foetuses to help to ensure the survival of the others. She refused. At birth, the babies weighed less than two pounds each, and measured less than an outstretched adult hand. They were put into incubators, but within a week two had died. Doctors told the parents that the surviving infants desperately needed blood transfusions if they were to survive, but once again the parents refused. The babies' parents, still unnamed, it now emerged, were Jehovah's Witnesses.
Beyond evangelising, Jehovah's Witnesses are commonly known for one other thing: their fervent opposition to blood transfusions. In their faith, it is nothing less than akin to rape. The belief is based on the Witnesses' interpretation of several verses in Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts that forbid Christians from ingesting blood.
Unable to persuade the parents to allow the procedure, the hospital in Vancouver applied to the British Columbia government to take the surviving babies into protective custody so that the transfusions could be administered. The authorities complied and custody of the three most sickly infants was transferred to the state. The parents, while grieving over the loss of two of their children, were livid with the authorities for removing what they saw as their parental rights. They applied for a court order to return the babies to their care. But in the meantime two of the babies in custody were given transfusions -- to save their lives, their doctors say.
In his affidavit to the court, the children's father argued that their rights had been trampled on and demanded that the children be returned to their care. He added that he and his wife had been forced to leave the hospital while the transfusions were taking place, unable to bear seeing doctors "violating our little girl". But, as their lawyer showed up to appeal against the custody order, the court suddenly reversed its decision and handed the babies back. That was three weeks ago but still almost nothing more is known about the babies' condition, other than that they are "progressing". The parents may again have custody, but they are now preparing to take the provincial government to court over their failure to let them put evidence to a court before allowing the transfusions to proceed. Yesterday, the supreme court of British Columbia postponed the hearing until April so that lawyers could study a weight of documentary evidence.
Legal experts expect the government to argue that the babies' lives were in immediate danger, and they had no option but to act immediately. The case has shocked largely secular Canada, a country not famed for religious extremism. Representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses have urged the public and media not to make "stereotypical assumptions" about their faith based on the case. Canada's constitution enshrines the right to freedom of religion. But prominent ethicists argue that this cannot apply to children too young to hold beliefs, never mind to express them. "While the parents are at liberty to make martyrs of themselves, their children are not," Eike-Henner Kluge, a bioethicist at the University of Victoria told the Globe and Mail. The hearing in April will decide on the legal matter of whether the parents were denied their moment in court and not on their religious rights. Whatever the outcome, the life-saving transfusions cannot now be reversed. ...
Gary Botting is a Calgary lawyer who was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, but has since left the group. "A blood transfusion is tantamount to rape, and that is the parallel they use," he said.
"This line of reasoning continued in subsequent cases, whereby a 15 year old Jehovah's Witness was compelled to undergo blood transfusions she described as being 'like rape' ..." -- Re S (A Minor) (Consent to Medical Treatment)  2 FLR 1065., cited Children, Medical Treatment and Human Rights", Monash University Law Review, 2009.
"Administration of blood to a competent patient, against their will and in conflict with their genuinely held beliefs, had been likened by [Jehovah's] Witnesses to rape." -- Religious Practice, Blood Transfusion, and Major Medical Procedures. Hivey, Pace, Garside, Wolf. PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, October 2009. (BRITISH)
In 2012-13, in Wisconsin, a 15 year-old Jehovah's Witness named Sheila W. was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, an illness in which the patient's immune system attacks the bone marrow. She declined to undergo life-saving blood transfusions, and her Jehovah's Witness parents supported her decision.
When the county petitioned for temporary physical custody, the court held a hearing at the hospital and appointed a temporary guardian to decide whether to consent to the recommended transfusions. Citing the biblical passage Acts 15: 28-29, Sheila told a Dane County judge that a life-saving blood transfusion would be "devastating to me mentally and physically," and was "the equivalent of a rape".
With the guardian's consent, an undetermined number of blood transfusions were administered to Sheila. Sheila appealed, but the order to appoint the guardian expired while the action was pending and the Court of Appeals dismissed the case as moot.The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday.
Justice David Prosser wrote, "Permitting a minor to refuse lifesaving medical treatment comes uncomfortably close to permitting a minor to commit suicide."
In September 2006, in Dublin, Ireland, yet another unmarried African Jehovah's Witness immigrant delivered an illegitimate bastard before then suffering life-threatening blood loss. Refusing to consent to necessary life-saving blood transfusions, Irish taxpayers were further forced to pay for legal procedings to obtain court permisssion for the hospital to save the ingrate's life. One Irish newspaper reported:
"The decision has outraged Ireland's Jehovah Witness community, who said the ruling by the High Court was 'akin to rape'. The Dublin branch of the community held an emergency meeting last night to discuss the ruling."
"To force a blood transfusion on an adult who is flatly refusing treatment is akin to rape," said Brendan Farrell of the Dublin hospital liaison committee.
"If she wakes up and discovers that she has had a blood transfusion against her will, it will have a devastating impact on her spiritual welfare," said Mr Farrell.
WHAT A DUMBA$$!!! Would he prefer that she not wake up at all, and leave her newborn baby alone in a country where that baby had no other relatives?
One year later, and this matter was still making the rounds of Ireland's legal system, except that the Jehovah's Witness African immigrant had added charges that the hospital had committed assault and trespass on her person, and had breached her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This African immigrant reportedly also had refined her "rape experience" tale, that during the terrifying blood transfusion process, she had been surrounded by people, that she had wanted to fight the medical staff off before the transfusion was given, but was unable to, that she had been held and sedated before the transfusion was administered.
UNBELIEVABLY, when ruling in this African immigrant's court case, the female Judge EXCUSED the African Jehovah's Witness's use of the "RAPE ANALOGY" as being merely an unfortunate language choice. The female judge claimed that the African Jehovah's Witness's primary language was "French", and that in French, "rape" was a term used for any non-consensual touching.
At some point, modern society needs to take a heavy dose of common sense, and put this FOOL and her illegitimate bastard on a slow-boat back to the Congo. When the Irish have become too lazy to solve such problems inside Ireland, then the world knows that the war has been lost. It appears that Ireland's Judiciary is out of control. (See GAUKHAR THOMPSON v. DELANEY'S RESTAURANT).
"Da foot bone connected to da ankle bone. Da ankle bone connected to da leg bone."
WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS!!!
"Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to the Biblical command to 'keep abstaining from blood'. They consider blood to be as holy as life itself. ... To better understand the strong feelings involved in transfusions, one may consider the context of the Biblical command to abstain from blood. The same paragraph also likens this command to the Christian command to abstain from adultery. Forced adultery, namely rape, is a severe insult to a person and leaves scars that may last for the rest of life. The person may even not be able to continue as he/she did before. In the same manner, forced blood transfusion is a severe insult on the integrity of a Jehovah's Witness and leaves scars similar in severity to those of rape." -- Basics of Blood Management, Petra Seeber, Aryeh Shander, 2012.
"Surgeons and anesthesiologists face a special challenge when caring for members of the Jehovah's Witness church. Jehovah's Witnesses possess strong beliefs against accepting blood products. In some cases, individuals or their community will accept non-cellular components of blood, such as albumin, intravenous immunoglobulin, clotting factors, and the use of non-blood primed equipment for extracorporeal circulation or intraoperative scavenging, if the circulation is uninterrupted. Unlike Christian Scientists, Witnesses do not reject most aspects of modern medicine though do request accommodations for their sincerely held religious conviction to abstain from accepting blood products, based upon their interpretation of biblical passages. ... The church teaches that those who have involuntarily received impermissible blood have been violated in ways that are morally equivalent to rape ..." -- Ethical Issues in Anesthesiology and Surgery, Barbara G. Jericho, 2015.
In September 2013, in Sydney, Australia, a 17 year-old minor Jehovah's Witness Male, who was being treated for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, and needed accompanying blood transfusions, had threatened to rip the IV needle from his arm, and said it would be "akin to rape" if he was given a blood transfusion while under anaesthetic. A Supreme Court judge had ruled in April that the boy had to have the transfusion, but his Jehovah's Witness Parents had unsuccessfully appealed that decision -- hoping to establish a "mature minor" court ruling in Australia.
One Australia newspaper reported that the child's Jehovah's Witness Father had written a Bible verse about "abstaining from blood" on a whiteboard in the child's hospital room. The Children's Hospital said the boy had a "cocooned upbringing", and that his Jehovah's Witness family had "little exposure to challenges of their beliefs from outsiders", so what they may have thought was best, was not necessarily correct.
"The experience of a forced transfusion was often metaphorically likened to rape." -- Refusal of Medical Blood Transfusions Among Jehovah's Witnesses, HK Ringnes, H Hegstad, Journal of Religion and Health, 2016.
In August 2018, in Melbourne, Australia, yet another pregnant unmarried minor Jehovah's Witness female was court-ordered to receive a life-saving blood transfusion if such became necessary during the induced delivery.
The child psychiatrist testified that he did not believe the girl had the decision-making capacity to be considered as having "Gillick competence" -- a term used to describe whether a child ("mature minor") can consent to their own medical treatment. The child psychiatrist testified that by engaging in pre-marital sex that the girl had been through considerable disruption and trauma in her life, and had "transgressed a major value of her family and her community. ... You could imagine that she feels very frightened and worried about further punishment."
The girl's OBGYN told the court that she was concerned about the girl's "naivety" that if anything happened, "she would be protected by her faith".
The girl's Jehovah's Witness Mother, who had refused to consent to the hospital administering blood to her daughter, told the court that receiving a blood transfusion would have a significant impact on the girl's wellbeing. "Being forced to have that done against her will would be something like having violence done to her, or being raped," she said in a statement read to the court. Would it have been better if her wayward daughter had died during delivery, and had left her with another life to foul up?