Comments on: Opportunity Lost http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:54:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jehovah's witness http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-66576 Jehovah's witness Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:52:32 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-66576 In response to Marvin Shilmer’s post, when he speaks of ‘certain forms of constituents from blood’ being accepted this, I assume, he means blood fractions [it is imprecise/confusing] and this would not lead to any shunning as acceptance of blood fractions and certain proceedures are commonly accepted within the Jehovah’s witness community. Such fractions as Erythropoietin [EPO] and clotting factors as well as cryoprecipitate are acceptable where as fresh frozen plasma [FFP] are not. referring to his section where he says 1) Conscientiously accept certain forms of constituents from blood and face harsh religiously organized communal shunning from her close family and friends, but improve her chances of surviving cancer, he also says that 2) Refuse certain forms of constituents from blood and retain her community of friends and close family, and reduce her chances of surviving cancer. taking this to be blood fractions, we don’t refuse blood fractions as an organisation but only if it violates our own personal conscience, so one Jehovah’s witness may decide to accept where another would reject. It is accepted among profusionists/anaesthetists that 10 pints of blood transfused leads to 50% morbidity [may be mortality [death], referred to on http://www.noblood.org What would Bethany have decided had her legal advocate not held a religious loyalty to the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine, the same organization that paid for his legal education and is his regular full time employer? the watchtower society doesn’t pay its members a penny, we donate money to fund the buildings and material costs, we don’t pay for people’s legal education [as far as I am aware] and we do not pay lawyers a wage, people who go to bethel must take a vow of poverty so the bethel benefits from charitable status. along with other benefits. In response to Marvin Shilmer’s post, when he speaks of ‘certain forms of constituents from blood’ being accepted this, I assume, he means blood fractions [it is imprecise/confusing] and this would not lead to any shunning as acceptance of blood fractions and certain proceedures are commonly accepted within the Jehovah’s witness community.

Such fractions as Erythropoietin [EPO] and clotting factors as well as cryoprecipitate are acceptable where as fresh frozen plasma [FFP] are not.
referring to his section where he says

1) Conscientiously accept certain forms of constituents from blood and face harsh religiously organized communal shunning from her close family and friends, but improve her chances of surviving cancer,

he also says that

2) Refuse certain forms of constituents from blood and retain her community of friends and close family, and reduce her chances of surviving cancer.

taking this to be blood fractions, we don’t refuse blood fractions as an organisation but only if it violates our own personal conscience, so one Jehovah’s witness may decide to accept where another would reject. It is accepted among profusionists/anaesthetists that 10 pints of blood transfused leads to 50% morbidity [may be mortality [death], referred to on http://www.noblood.org

What would Bethany have decided had her legal advocate not held a religious loyalty to the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine, the same organization that paid for his legal education and is his regular full time employer?

the watchtower society doesn’t pay its members a penny, we donate money to fund the buildings and material costs, we don’t pay for people’s legal education [as far as I am aware] and we do not pay lawyers a wage, people who go to bethel must take a vow of poverty so the bethel benefits from charitable status. along with other benefits.

]]> By: annointed Eliakim http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-63136 annointed Eliakim Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:35:34 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-63136 The blood issue is now entering a new legal realm other than medical practice. The flip flop of so called divinely acceptable administration of blood products should now be the focus of legal proceedings Ie: why is it that certain blood products that were formally unacceptable through divine inspiration are now acceptable. "Has God changed his mind or did he make a mistake." I am sure any court would like to hear this answered. The blood issue is now entering a new legal realm other than medical practice.
The flip flop of so called divinely acceptable administration of blood products should now be the focus of legal proceedings Ie: why is it that certain blood products that were formally unacceptable through divine inspiration are now acceptable. “Has God changed his mind or did he make a mistake.”
I am sure any court would like to hear this answered.

]]> By: Isaac Carmignani http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-63002 Isaac Carmignani Sat, 30 May 2009 13:31:02 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-63002 WT makes such a mockery of our legal system. They cancel out the checks and balances that are normally built in by such a blatant act as having true believing attorneys advise a sick child. As if they would really give the true pros and cons. They further abuse the system because they know that many judges and persons tasked with enforcing the law will not fully understand the dynamics of the institution and can therefore make assumptions that do not apply in the situation in question, thus letting the WT representatives get away with wrongdoing. WT makes such a mockery of our legal system. They cancel out the checks and balances that are normally built in by such a blatant act as having true believing attorneys advise a sick child. As if they would really give the true pros and cons. They further abuse the system because they know that many judges and persons tasked with enforcing the law will not fully understand the dynamics of the institution and can therefore make assumptions that do not apply in the situation in question,
thus letting the WT representatives get away with wrongdoing.

]]> By: Marvin Shilmer http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-62922 Marvin Shilmer Fri, 29 May 2009 16:32:08 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2009/05/27/opportunity-lost/#comment-62922 Regarding Opportunity Lost I express appreciation for Alice Woolley’s editorial in behalf of patients like Bethany Hughes. What follows is personal opinion based on my decades of experience and current status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I also disclose that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses that has never accepted the current religious position advocated and imposed by the Watchtower organization regarding medical use of donor blood. Bethany had two choices: 1) Conscientiously accept certain forms of constituents from blood and face harsh religiously organized communal shunning from her close family and friends, but improve her chances of surviving cancer, or 2) Refuse certain forms of constituents from blood and retain her community of friends and close family, and reduce her chances of surviving cancer. What would Bethany have decided had her legal advocate not held a religious loyalty to the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine, the same organization that paid for his legal education and is his regular full time employer? Patients are extremely dependant on their close advisors, particularly patients suffering a life threatening disease as Bethany was. These patients are not only very dependant on advisors, they are also extremely vulnerable because of the terrifying circumstance they find themselves. When the patient is a minor this is magnified. It is obscene to see an attorney accept as a client a patient whom he is unable to advise in an alternate direction because of a coexisting loyalty to another client or personal belief. Bethany’s attorneys were Watchtower men (Shane Brady et al). In relation to advising Bethany, the Watchtower men had two choices: 1) Advise Bethany of the medical efficacy of blood transfusion and advocate on her behalf regardless of her choice, and then face loss of employment by Watchtower and harsh religiously organized communal shunning from his close family and friends had Bethany opted for blood transfusion, or 2) Make his advocacy of Bethany conditional on her agreeing to refuse blood transfusion according to the Watchtower organization’s religious position. Regarding Mr. Brady’s first choice, the conflicts were/are his personal attachment to the religious offerings of Watchtower and his employment by Watchtower. Mr. Brady has at no time voiced a willingness to defy the impositions of his religious preferences for sake of advocating for a patient like Bethany Hughes, and neither has he voiced a willingness to jeopardize his position with Watchtower for the same purpose. Regarding Mr. Brady’s second choice, it represents no advocacy at all for a patient facing a life threatening condition, let alone for a child facing such a circumstance. Medical conditions and personal preferences are very fluid. Anything can change at any moment. An attorney that is unwilling to move in concert with reasonably foreseeable changes in patient presentation and/or personal preferences has no business pretending to a patient in the beginning that they are an advocate for THEM. In Bethany’s case, Mr. Brady was an advocate for a cause; not for Bethany. To represent a cause from the sideline is entirely appropriate. But it is inappropriate represent a cause under the banner of patient advocacy. Patient advocacy requires representation based solely on a patient’s preference, including freedom to change that preference, even if that preference is contrary to the advocate’s personal belief system. Mr. Brady is unable to offer this advocacy for a patient like Bethany Hughes and at the same time retain respect from his religion of preference and retain his employment by Watchtower. Bethany Hughes had two guns pointed at her head. Her medical condition and her religion. To opt for the gold standard of medical therapy, she had to accept a bullet from her religion in the form of its harsh organized communal shunning program. To opt for the gold standard of her religion, she had to accept a bullet from her medical condition in the form or refusing a necessary medical intervention. An attorney has no business pretending advocacy of such a patient when he is grasping either of these guns. Marvin Shilmer Regarding Opportunity Lost

I express appreciation for Alice Woolley’s editorial in behalf of patients like Bethany Hughes. What follows is personal opinion based on my decades of experience and current status as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I also disclose that I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses that has never accepted the current religious position advocated and imposed by the Watchtower organization regarding medical use of donor blood.

Bethany had two choices:

1) Conscientiously accept certain forms of constituents from blood and face harsh religiously organized communal shunning from her close family and friends, but improve her chances of surviving cancer, or

2) Refuse certain forms of constituents from blood and retain her community of friends and close family, and reduce her chances of surviving cancer.

What would Bethany have decided had her legal advocate not held a religious loyalty to the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine, the same organization that paid for his legal education and is his regular full time employer?

Patients are extremely dependant on their close advisors, particularly patients suffering a life threatening disease as Bethany was. These patients are not only very dependant on advisors, they are also extremely vulnerable because of the terrifying circumstance they find themselves. When the patient is a minor this is magnified. It is obscene to see an attorney accept as a client a patient whom he is unable to advise in an alternate direction because of a coexisting loyalty to another client or personal belief.

Bethany’s attorneys were Watchtower men (Shane Brady et al).

In relation to advising Bethany, the Watchtower men had two choices:

1) Advise Bethany of the medical efficacy of blood transfusion and advocate on her behalf regardless of her choice, and then face loss of employment by Watchtower and harsh religiously organized communal shunning from his close family and friends had Bethany opted for blood transfusion, or

2) Make his advocacy of Bethany conditional on her agreeing to refuse blood transfusion according to the Watchtower organization’s religious position.

Regarding Mr. Brady’s first choice, the conflicts were/are his personal attachment to the religious offerings of Watchtower and his employment by Watchtower. Mr. Brady has at no time voiced a willingness to defy the impositions of his religious preferences for sake of advocating for a patient like Bethany Hughes, and neither has he voiced a willingness to jeopardize his position with Watchtower for the same purpose.

Regarding Mr. Brady’s second choice, it represents no advocacy at all for a patient facing a life threatening condition, let alone for a child facing such a circumstance. Medical conditions and personal preferences are very fluid. Anything can change at any moment. An attorney that is unwilling to move in concert with reasonably foreseeable changes in patient presentation and/or personal preferences has no business pretending to a patient in the beginning that they are an advocate for THEM.

In Bethany’s case, Mr. Brady was an advocate for a cause; not for Bethany. To represent a cause from the sideline is entirely appropriate. But it is inappropriate represent a cause under the banner of patient advocacy. Patient advocacy requires representation based solely on a patient’s preference, including freedom to change that preference, even if that preference is contrary to the advocate’s personal belief system. Mr. Brady is unable to offer this advocacy for a patient like Bethany Hughes and at the same time retain respect from his religion of preference and retain his employment by Watchtower.

Bethany Hughes had two guns pointed at her head. Her medical condition and her religion. To opt for the gold standard of medical therapy, she had to accept a bullet from her religion in the form of its harsh organized communal shunning program. To opt for the gold standard of her religion, she had to accept a bullet from her medical condition in the form or refusing a necessary medical intervention. An attorney has no business pretending advocacy of such a patient when he is grasping either of these guns.

Marvin Shilmer

]]>