Jump to content

Guest Nicole

Quebec coroner investigating death of another Jehovah's Witness after childbirth

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Guest Nicole -
JaniceM -
5
3115

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Guest Nicole

Mirlande Cadet, 46, died of suspected hemorrhage day after giving birth by C-section. 

mirlande-cadet.JPG

Mirlande Cadet left behind two daughters and her newborn son. (Isaac Cadet)

A Quebec coroner is investigating the death of a 46-year-old Jehovah's Witness who died Oct. 3 from complications shortly after giving birth by caesarian section in a Montreal hospital.

A spokeswoman for the coroner's office, Geneviève Guilbault, confirmed that the bureau was launching an investigation into Cadet's death in an email to CBC Montreal.

"Based on information that's been circulating … and other information we received from the hospital, it's been decided that a coroner will investigate the death of Mrs. Cadet," Guilbault wrote.  

The inquest is the second coroner's investigation this month into the death of a Jehovah's Witness following childbirth in Quebec.

Unclear circumstances

Cadet experienced complications after she gave birth to a healthy son by C-section at St. Mary's Hospital on Oct. 2 and required a blood transfusion, according to her brother Isaac Cadet.

It is unclear if Cadet got a blood transfusion, or if she did, when she received it and what the circumstances were that led to its approval.

Blood transfusions are forbidden under Jehovah's Witness doctrine, which holds that the Old and New Testaments command them to abstain from blood.

isaac-cadet.jpg

Isaac Cadet says his family welcomed the news of the coroner's investigation after getting little information from hospital. (CBC)

All Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to sign and carry a card refusing a blood transfusion.

Isaac Cadet questions whether his sister would have signed a card and refused a blood transfusion. He described her as a loving mother to her two other children and a devoted aunt who loved to get family together. 

"I have a lot of doubt that my sister signed that document," Cadet told CBC News.

He welcomed news of the coroner's investigation, saying his family needs to know what happened to its "leader."

"It's a relief because we've tried to find out what happened, tried to access documents, and we weren't allowed. We were told they're confidential," he said.

Mirlande Cadet's husband declined to be interviewed when contacted by CBC Montreal.

Church elders at hospital 'intimidating'

A Quebec coroner is already investigating the death of Éloise Dupuis, 27, who is said to have refused an emergency blood transfusion for a hemorrhage after delivering a baby by C-section at Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis Hospital near Quebec City.

She died Oct. 12.

Coroner Luc Malouin is working to determine whether her refusal was free and informed as required by medical and legal standards.

After her death, Dupuis's aunt, Manon Boyer, filed a complaint with police in Lévis alleging her niece was pressured into refusing consent by a Jehovah's Witness hospital liaison committee.

The committees are composed of Jehovah's Witness elders who are dispatched to a hospital when a member is facing a blood transfusion decision.

According to the faith group, their role is to advocate for bloodless medical procedures and ensure their members' wishes are respected.

Their presence, however, has been criticized by a former Jehovah's Witness, who said it's "intimidating."

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the hospital won't turn over the records for investigation.  This is really sad and may be unnecessary lost of life.  We may need to get out of the blood business and let families decide for themselves what treatment they wish to receive if it's a life or death situation and let God be the judge.  I also don't remember signing anything when I got baptized to declare I'm a JW, but eventually was given a blood card to sign.  However, now I'm not so sure the scriptures mean absolutely no blood when we are eating some blood of the animals and accepting other treatments from whole blood.  The scriptures may indicate blood of someone or something killed must return to God or the animal bled as much as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, JaniceM said:

I wonder why the hospital won't turn over the records for investigation.

I realy don't know how the legal system works in Canada. In my experience as a doctor in Europe though in an ongoing investigation the clinical documents are not released to anybody but only to the investigator and after sometime to the lawyers (in case there have been appointed). In this case the woman's family asked for the documents and obviously (and rightly in my oppinion) there have not been given access. When the investigation will be over they probably would have access to them via a lawyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some strange comments and inferences in this thread. Regardless of what others may think about our stand on blood, some facts are as follows:

  • Jehovah's Witnesses make a personal decision to avoid the use of whole blood in medical management of health issues simply becuase they understand the prohibition at Acts 15:29 to apply ito this practice.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses do not sign a baptism certificate because the baptism itself is seen as a public declaration of their decision to dedicate themselves to God.
  • The so-called "blood card" that Jehovah's Witnesses use is a provision to assist them in dealing with medical authorities in case of an emergency. It serves as an expression of their will in regard to a  personal choice of medical procedure and is no different than carrying information regarding diabetes, an allergy, or any other medical preference or condition. Medical practioners wishing to respect personal choice in such matters have expressed appreciation for such a document, not least because it helps to resolve conflict in balancing their own professional responsibility against respect for an individual,s wishes. It is a personal choice to have one and no one is compelled to carry one as is inferred.
  • The brothers who support Jehovah's Witnesses in a medical emergency are there by choice of the individual experiencing the situation. They work outside of specific situations to raise awareness amongs medical practioners of the reasons why Jehovah's Witnesses take this particular view of a medical procedure, and the existence of alternative methods of managing medical conditions where blood loss trauma is an issue. They also support Witnesses in locating practioners who respect their conscientous stand and have sufficient expertise to treat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank everyone for you comments.  My questioning was because some hospitals do now have JW members assisting in their blood loss programs or as part of their hospital board or operations.  I have surgery next week and more questions lately.  Things have gotten a bit sketchy between what is whole blood and what is a fraction of blood treatment.  If I choose to receive a fraction of blood treatment, can I give a fraction of blood treatment?  If I take a fraction of someone's blood, they would have had to take it initially from their whole blood.  Did God mean no blood or fraction of blood?  It took decades to maybe reason this out.  If blood transfusions were part of early medicine, I suppose the early Christians would have refused or declared their wishes.  I can also see the need to have a medical alert bracelet in case of an emergency which may be better than a card, since you may not always have the card with you or lose it in an accident and maybe no one can speak for your wishes.  Hopefully, the family can get some answers knowing whatever answer there is will not soften the loss of a loved one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      The Congolese woman, Bibiche Tshibola Makola, who is a Jehovah’s Witness by faith, was hesitant to have her own blood taken in advance, frozen and re-transfused into her.
      BENGALURU: A 39-year-old woman, who was diagnosed with a cardiac ailment, approached a city hospital, stating that she was ready to undergo any treatment, provided there was no blood transfusion involved in it. The Congolese woman, Bibiche Tshibola Makola, who is a Jehovah’s Witness by faith, was hesitant to have her own blood taken in advance, frozen and re-transfused into her. For Jehovah’s witnesses, transfusion of blood is against their religious belief.
      After a lot of analysis, surgeons at Fortis Hospital on Bannerghatta Road managed to perform a bloodless open-heart surgery and valve repair. According to doctors, the woman suffered from restrictive cardiomyopathy, where a chamber of the heart is unable to stretch and results in bleeding. The patient came to India for treatment, as many countries and centres refused to carry out the surgery.
      Dr Vivek Jawali, Chief Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeon at Fortis Hospitals said, “Makolo had severe restrictive cardiomyopathy, in which there is restrictive filling of the ventricles. With due respect to her religious beliefs, we recommended her to undergo a bloodless surgery.” 
      The doctors then sat together and had a peri-operative plan. “We put the patient on a series of medications, including blood conservatives that helped increase her haemoglobin level to 14.8 g/dL. The surgery was conducted using all the blood conservation techniques practised at our unit for all patients , It was successful and no blood transfusion was required during the entire procedure.”
      Dr Murali Chakravarthy, Department of Anaesthesia, explained that bloodless surgery is a risky situation and can lead to hemorrhagic shock in the patient. Bibiche’s husband Roger Muamba said, “We were very worried about her treatment. We were very happy with the doctors.”
      Jehovah’s Witnesses against blood transfusion
      They believe, according to the Bible, that one must not ingest blood, even through transfusion. Under Quebec’s civil code, an adult who is conscious and of sound mind, has the right to either accept or refuse medical treatment.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By misette
      Vidéo par écrit « La reconnaissance de notre oeuvre au Québec »-Semaine du 21 janvier.docx
      Vidéo par écrit « La reconnaissance de notre oeuvre au Québec »-Semaine du 21 janvier.pdf

      Your browser does not support the HTML5 video tag.
       
       
      « La reconnaissance de notre œuvre au Québec »
      La prédication dans la province du Québec était un véritable défi. L’église catholique était présente dans pratiquement tous les aspects de la vie publique.
      Au début des années 40, la persécution s’est vraiment intensifiée. De nombreux Témoins ont été arrêtés sous toutes sortes de prétextes. Le colportage sans autorisation était le principal prétexte utilisé. Les Témoins de Jéhovah étaient emprisonnés pour simple possession d’ouvrages religieux. La situation était devenue tellement difficile au Québec qu’on a décidé de faire circuler une pétition, pétition qui a d’ailleurs été diffusée dans tout le Canada. C’était une demande faite au gouvernement du Québec de mettre fin à cette persécution. Chose intéressante : 600 000 personnes ont signé la pétition.
      Les Témoins ont distribué un tract enflammé intitulé : « La haine ardente du Québec ». Ce tract dévoilait ce que subissait vraiment les Témoins, ce que faisait les policiers, les arrestations illégales, les émeutes et dans l’espace de 4 mois, il y a eu 800 nouveaux procès. Donc pour 400 Témoins de Jéhovah, il y a eu 1600 procès. Les affaires portées en justice sont devenues de plus en plus graves car les frères étaient désormais accusés de sédition. S’ils étaient jugés coupables, ils pouvaient être condamnés à 10 voire 12 à15 ans de prison.
      Il y a un frère, Aimé Boucher, qui a été arrêté et accusé de sédition. Aimé Boucher était un frère très pauvre qui habitait une région rurale du Québec. Il est d’ailleurs venu au Tribunal avec sa charrette tirée par un bœuf. Sur le chemin du Tribunal, il prêchait encore et il a été donc arrêté de nouveau. A l’issue du procès, il a été condamné et déclaré coupable de sédition. Son affaire a été portée devant la Cour d’appel et à cette époque, la Cour d’appel du Québec était très hostile aux Témoins. Il a donc perdu en appel. L’affaire a donc été portée devant la Cour suprême du Canada. A cette époque, plusieurs frères et sœurs avaient été accusés de sédition. Donc si frère Boucher perdait son procès, plusieurs frères et sœurs seraient condamnés à de très longues peines de prison
      Frère Boucher a perdu son procès devant la Cour suprême à une voix près. Tous les juges catholiques se sont prononcés contre lui et ils ont jugés que le tract « La haine ardente du Québec» était de nature séditieuse. Nos avocats ont examiné la situation, ils ont prié à ce sujet et ils se sont dit : « Que va-t-on faire ?  On ne peut pas perdre cette bataille». Puis ils ont appris qu’au Canada, il existait une clause très rarement exploitée consistant à demander à la Cour suprême la révision d’un procès. Au cours de la nouvelle audience, l’un des juges catholiques voulait encore débattre de la question de la sédition. Pour être déclaré coupable de sédition, il fallait une incitation à la violence. Notre avocat a donc demandé ; « Regardez le dossier s’il vous plaît. Montrez à la Cour, là où les Témoins de Jéhovah ont incité à la violence ». Ils ont finalement réussi à convaincre la Cour qu’ils avaient tort. Le jugement initial a donc été renversé et frère Boucher a été acquitté.
      Cette victoire a mis fin à toutes les accusations de sédition ainsi qu’aux persécutions brutales car le gouvernement pensait bien gagner cette affaire-là.
      Une autre affaire importante a eu lieu au Québec. C’est le cas d’un prêtre qui a téléphoné à la police fédérale pour lui demander d’interrompre une réunion des Témoins de Jéhovah et d’expulser l’orateur hors de la province du Québec. Les policiers ont obéi au prêtre. Ils sont arrivés sur les lieux de la réunion, ont pris le frère et l’ont escorté jusqu’en Ontario, la province voisine. Interrompre un office religieux était un acte criminel. Pour la première fois, au niveau de la Cour suprême, les 3 policiers qui avaient interrompu l’office, ont été condamnés à indemniser le préjudice moral causé au frère. Cela n’était jamais arrivé auparavant.
      Quand l’affaire a été portée à la Cour suprême, il a été jugé à l’unanimité que la province du Québec était coupable.
      Les textes actuels sur la liberté de religion résultent de ces procès. Chaque avocat canadien, que ce soit au Québec ou au Canada anglophone, doit revoir au cours de ses études en droit, ces affaires juridiques. Ces textes sont à la base de la liberté de religion. Qu’ils traitent de différents domaines, des interventions de la police, de celles du gouvernement, et des actions criminelles. Ces cas ont posé un bon fondement pour les libertés dont nous jouissons aujourd’hui.
      Notre objectif est de pouvoir prêcher la bonne nouvelle et d’attirer l’attention des personnes sur la Bible. Mais nos affaires en justice ont aidé des gouvernements, des Tribunaux, des juges et des fonctionnaires à avoir le bon point de vue sur la liberté de religion.
      Questions du Cahier Vie chrétienne et Ministère :
      Quelles difficultés nos frères ont-ils connues au Québec ?
       
       
       

       
      Quel tract spécial ont-ils diffusé, et quel en a été le résultat ?
       

      Qu’est-ce qui est arrivé à frère Aimé Boucher ?

       
      Quelle a été la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada concernant l’affaire de frère Boucher ?
       
       
       
       
      À quelle disposition légale très rarement exploitée les frères ont-ils eu recours, et qu’en est-il résulté ?
       
       
       
       
      Que s’est-il passé quand, sous les ordres d’un prêtre, des policiers ont interrompu un office des Témoins de Jéhovah ?
       

       
       
       
       
       
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Un grupo de testigos de Jehová realizó lo que podría considerarse como uno de los secuestros más extraños hasta el momento, y es que privaron de la libertad a sus vecinos asegurando que se encontraban huyendo del fin del mundo, de acuerdo con reportes policiales de Alberta, en Canadá.
      Jacqueline Schaffter, juez de la corte provincial argumento que los tres detenidos, dos mujeres y un hombre que hasta el momento no han sido identificados, sufren de un extraño trastorno psicótico el cual hasta el momento no ha sido revelado y por el que deberán llevar un tratamiento para evitar hacerse daño a si mismos o a terceros.
      El extraño secuestro ocurrió en el mes de noviembre del año 2017 cuando cinco personas entre ellas dos menores de edad, fueron obligados a abandonar su hogar y abordar una camioneta junto a los testigos de Jehová, cuatro de los cuales se encontraban completamente desnudos.
      El hombre y su familia lograron escapar y ayudaron a las autoridades a dar con los sospechosos quienes de inmediato fueron arrestados.
      Al declararse culpables por los delitos de secuestro y confinamiento ilegal, los detenidos recibieron como sentencia un año de servicio comunitario y dos de libertad condicional, además de tener que someterse a un tratamiento de consejería.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  

    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Paramedics say one person is dead after two small planes collided in mid-air over Ottawa‘s west end just after 10 a.m. on Sunday morning.
      Ottawa police said that one of the aircraft crashed into a field near McGee Side Road just east of the 417 in Carp in rural west Ottawa. A spokesperson for Ottawa paramedics said an occupant of that plane was pronounced dead on the scene.
      The other aircraft was redirected to Ottawa International Airport and landed safely, sustaining only minor damage. No injuries were reported aboard that plane.
      It’s not known how many people were aboard each aircraft, or how exactly the collision occurred.
      The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is investigating
      Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/4628657/ottawa-aircraft-collision-midair/
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Substitute of Biological Blood:
      These are substances which act like biological blood and are used in cases requiring a blood transfusion.
      Purpose:
      The main purpose served by blood is oxygen carriage to organs of the body. The artificial blood synthesized so far are serving functions varying from carrying oxygen to the function of volume expansion. Thus, volume restoration can be done with the help of these substances. These substitutes are mostly under clinical trials.
      History:
      Blood was considered supernatural having magical properties.  Many of the rituals were performed related to blood.
      Many beliefs are still followed. Several TV programs focused on the theme of blood like the vampires drinking human blood for survival. Jehovah’s witnesses are obligated to not receive or donate any blood-related products according to their beliefs even in case of matter of life and death.
      The history of blood transfusion dates back to very old civilization but documented research on this topic started after William Harvey discovered in the 16th century that blood flows in the arteries and veins. The blood transfusion often proved fatal. So different transfusions were tried like liquids from cows, goats, human milk as well as beer.
      The first cross-matched blood transfusion was done in the 20th century in Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. Later advancements led to the Blood Component Therapy in which blood was separated into different components, which has made whole blood transfusion obsolete.
      Progress in the field led to improvements in the safety of blood transfusion with respect to decreasing transmission of blood-borne diseases such as HIV, Hepatitis B, and C etc.
      Who needs it?
      Artificial blood is used in cases which require a blood transfusion.
      The situations include;
      Patients of hemorrhagic shock: a state of decreased perfusion of organs due to the increased amount of bleeding. In case of emergency situations like roadside accidents In situations when blood donation is not accessible or not available such as remote or far-flung areas To meet the high demand for blood transfusion Types of Synthetic blood:
      Perfluorocarbon-based Hemoglobin-based Stem cells
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By The Librarian
      New research in the USA shows that Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions recover from heart surgery faster and with fewer complications than those who have transfusions.
      Patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses had better survival rates, shorter hospital stays, fewer additional operations for bleeding and spent fewer days in the intensive care unit than those who received blood trans­fusions during surgery, a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine shows.
      Jehovah's Witnesses undergo extensive blood conservation before surgery, including red blood-cell boosting erythropoietin drugs, iron and B-complex vitamins to guard against anaemia. The practice offered a "unique natural experiment" for scientists to study the short and long-term effects of the blood management strategy and may point to ways to reduce need for transfusions, researchers said.
      The study included 322 Jehovah's Witness patients and 87,453 other patients who underwent heart surgery at the Cleveland Clinic from 1983 to 2011. All Jehovah's Witness patients refused blood transfusions. In the other group, 38,467 did not receive transfusions while 48,986 did.
      The authors wanted to look at the difference between patients who receive blood transfusions during surgery and Jehovah's Witness patients, who undergo strict blood conservation practices before, during and after surgery, Koch said.
      While many patients do not have blood transfusions during and after heart surgery, they also do not undergo the same blood conservation practices that doctors use for Jehovah's Witness patients.
      Jehovah's Witness patients had an 86 per cent chance of survival at five years and a 34 per cent chance of survival 20 years after surgery, compared with 74 per cent at five years and 23 per cent at 20 years for non-Jehovah's Witness patients who had transfusions.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By JOHN BUTLER
      Jehovah has clearly and unambiguously prohibited the use of blood for sustaining human life.  Many times, OT and NT.
      Can I question this point please ?
      Did Jesus ever forbid the use of blood to save a human life ?  Can you show me a scripture where JESUS forbids the use of blood to save a human life ? 
      Let us look at a few points here.
      I think it is true that the Jews / Nation of Israel practised something known as Pikuach Nefesh 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      This meant life was precious and should be saved even if it meant going against the Law.
      Add to this that Jesus gave an example which in my opinion goes much deeper than the actual words of the scripture.  Matthew 12 v 9 through 12.
      9  After departing from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10  and look! there was a man with a withered Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  hand! Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. 11  He said to them: “If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. 12  How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath.”
      Surely here Jesus is saying that it is right to go against 'the Law' and /or the principles of it, to save a life. 
      And please tell me, from where do those 'blood bits' come from that the GB say the congregants can use ?  I honestly have no idea on that one. 
      However if those 'blood bits' come from blood itself then isn't that actually using blood ?
      My wife hates cherries in cakes, so she picks them out, but she still eats the cake. If a person uses bits out of blood then in my opinion they are still using blood. 
      Over to you guys. 
    • Guest Nicole
    • By Jesus.defender
      BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
      Watchtower Teaching WT forbids blood transfusions because of Genesis 9:4 ‘But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat’.
      The WT teaches that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood, because it resembles intravenous feeding. This doctrine was invented in 1944.
      Bible Teaching and Historical facts:
      1) Thousands of JWs and their children have died because they followed this WT error.
      QUESTION: Would you really allow your baby to die because of this WT instruction?
      2) Most JWs are unaware that their leaders have a history of making medical prohibitions,then later changing their minds to allow them. Examples include:
      (i) Vaccinations were forbidden by the WT from 1931 to 1952. JWs had to refuse vaccinations because the WT taught that ‘vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made’ (Golden Age, 4 Feb 1931, p 293).
      Awake of 22 Aug 1965 admitted that vaccinations have caused a decrease in diseases(p.20)
      QUESTION: How did the parents of children who died from not being vaccinated, feel when the WT reversed its view in 1952? How many of these children died needlessly?
      (ii) Organ transplants were allowed by the WT up to 1967, but were forbidden in 1967 saying that ‘organ transplants amounted to cannibalism and are not appropriate for Christians’ (WT, 15 Nov 1967, p 702-4, and Awake 8 June 1968, p 21). Hence all organ
      transplants were forbidden for 13 years, during which time many JWs died needlessly.
      Then in 1980, the WT changed its mind to allow them saying that ‘organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic’ (WT, 15 March 1980, p 31).
      (iii) Blood plasma and blood particles were forbidden to be used by JW haemophiliacs (Awake, 22 Feb 1975, p 30). Shortly after, the WT changed its mind to permit certain blood particles to be used, but failed to put it into print for 3 years until 15 June 1978, p
      30 (WT). Only those haemophiliacs who phoned WT headquarters from 1975-78 discovered the change. Others were left to suffer and die.
      QUESTION: How long before the WT changes its view on blood transfusions?
      QUESTION: Why does the WT keep changing its mind on medical issues?
      QUESTION: Is it right for an infallible prophet of God organisation (such as the WT claims to be) to keep changing its mind.
      (iv) In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant. Bone marrow is the very source of blood. However, they would disfellowship you for receiving a bloodtransfusion.
      3) In Genesis 9:4 the context is God forbidding the eating of animal blood (as pagans did), not the transfusion of human blood. A blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding, because the blood so given does not function as food. When one gives a transfusion, it is not a loss of life, but a transference of life from one person to another. It replenishes and saves a life.
      QUESTION: Since blood is not taken in as food to digest, but as life sustaining fluid, is it not clear that transfusion is different from eating?
      4) Leviticus 3:17 ‘You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’ (NWT)
      QUESTION: Why do WT leaders forbid blood transfusions but allow the eating of fat? Why not forbid both? The WT is not consistently interpreting the Bible. Leviticus 17:11,12: ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood’. Blood transfusion does not function as food, but simply transfers life from one person to another as an act of mercy.
      Key: Leviticus 3:17 prohibits eating animal blood, not transfusing human blood.
      QUESTION: Where is loss of salvation mentioned in Acts 15:9,11 for receiving a blood transfusion?
      Key: Acts 15:28,29. A blood transfusion uses blood for the same purpose that God intended, (as a life-giving agent in the bloodstream). Drinking blood is not God’s intended purpose for
      blood
      Conclusion: Even though JWs try to support blood transfusions with Scripture, their real reason for believing it is blind obedience to the WT. If the WT organisation lifted its ban on blood transfusions, JWs would freely accept them if needed.
      For the WT to admit they were wrong would cause too great a stir in their ranks. Therefore any changes must be presented as ‘new light’ in order to make it appear that ‘Jehovah’ is making the changes, rather than a few men on the governing body.
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      The Supreme Court of Canada Thursday heard arguments in a fight over a church’s “shunning” practice, and said it would release a ruling later, but the congregation involved and several other groups argued that the justices had no right to even take part in the fight.
      The fight is between Randy Wall, a real estate agent, and the Highwood congregation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization in Calgary.
      Wall was expelled from the congregation for getting drunk and not be properly repentant, court records said. He pursued a church appeals process, unsuccessfully, then went to court because he said the church’s “shunning,” that is, practice of not associating with him in any way, hurt his business.
      He explained his two occasions of drunkenness related to “the previous expulsion by the congregation of his 15-year-old daughter.”
      A lower court opinion explained, “Even though the daughter was a dependent child living at home, it was a mandatory church edict that the entire family shun aspects of their relationship with her. The respondent said the edicts of the church pressured the family to evict their daughter from the family home. This led to … much distress in the family.”
      The “much distress” eventually resulted in his drunkenness, Wall said.
      See the WND Superstore’s collection of Bibles, including the stunning 1599 Geneva Bible.
      Wall submitted to the court arguments that about half his client base, members of various Jehovah’s Witnesses congregations, then refused to conduct business with him. He alleged the “disfellowship had an economic impact on the respondent.”
      During high court arguments Thursday, the congregation asked the justices to say that congregations are immune to such claims in the judicial system.
      The lower courts had ruled that the courts could play a role in determining if, and when, such circumstances rise to the level of violating civil rights or injuring a “disfellowshipped” party.
      The rulings from the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Alberta Court of Appeals said Wall’s case was subject to secular court jurisdiction.
      A multitude of religious and political organizations joined with the congregation in arguing that the Canada’s courts should not be involved.
      The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms said in a filing, “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind. For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      Previous case law has confirmed the ability of religious or private voluntary groups to govern themselves and dictate who can be a member.
      But previously rulings also reveal there is room for the court system to intervene when the question is one of property or civil rights.
      The Association for Reformed Political Action, described the case as having “profound implications for the separation of church and state.”
      Its position is that the court should keep hands off the argument.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” said a statement from Andre Schutten, a spokesman for the group. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      John Sikkema, staff lawyer for ARPA, said, “The issue in this appeal is jurisdiction. A state actor, including a court, must never go beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court must consider what kind of authority the courts can or cannot legitimately claim. We argue that the civil government and churches each have limited and distinct spheres of authority. This basic distinction between civil and spiritual jurisdiction is a source of freedom and religious pluralism and a guard against civic totalism.”
      He continued, “Should the judiciary have the authority to decide who gets to become or remain a church member? Does the judiciary have the authority to decide who does or does not get to participate in the sacraments? Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere. Here we need separation of church and state.”
      The Alberta Court of Appeal, however, suggested the fight was about more than ecclesiastical rules.
      “Because Jehovah’s Witnesses shun disfellowshipped members, his wife, other children and other Jehovah’s Witnesses were compelled to shun him,” that lower court decision said. “The respondent asked the appeal committee to consider the mental and emotional distress he and his family were under as a result of his duaghter’s disfellowship.”
      The church committee concluded he was “not sufficiently repentant.”
      The ruling said “the only basis for establishing jurisdiction over a decision of the church is when the complaint involves property and civil rights,” and that is what Wall alleged.
      “Accordingly, a court has jurisdiction to review the decision of a religious organization when a breach of the rules of natural justice is alleged.”
       
       
    • By Bible Speaks
      RARE VIDEO OF STEVE: Last night in parts of Canada, dogs started barking at the midnight sky. The canines were responding to a bright purple ribbon of light--also known as "STEVE." The apparition, which occurred during a G1-class geomagnetic storm, was so long-lasting that at least one onlooker had time to capture rare video of the phenomenon. This is a still frame from a video of STEVE captured on April 10th by Matthew Wheeler of Robson Valley BC Canada. .
      .
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Romans 1:20. #OurCreatorJehovahGod?

    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      The parents of a 14-year-old boy with bone cancer won a legal challenge against a Mesa hospital that attempted to override their religious objections to blood transfusions.
      The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled that a lower court's emergency hotline used by hospitals to authorize medical treatment on behalf of patients is not allowed under state law.
      The parents of a 14-year-old boy with bone cancer challenged Banner Cardon Children's use of a Maricopa County Superior Court emergency hotline to authorize blood transfusions on behalf of the child. The parents and boy are Jehovah's Witnesses and objected to blood transfusions on religious grounds. 
      While Banner Cardon's medical-treatment plan initially consisted of alternative therapies to fit the parents' religious views, hospital staff later determined that blood transfusions were medically necessary. 
      Hospital staff called the Maricopa County Superior Court hotline multiple times from October through December last year to seek authorization for the blood transfusions. The court granted three of five requests, according to court documents.
      The parents filed a petition with the Arizona Court of Appeals seeking to halt the transfusions.    
      The parents, identified as Glenn and Sonia H., argued that the Superior Court hotline "lacked jurisdiction" for such emergency medical requests and also argued that hospital staffers did not justify the medical need for blood transfusions. 
      The lower court said that such emergency requests were "standard practice" nationwide and the hotline rotated among Superior Court judges who answered requests after hours. 
      In an opinion written by Judge Kenton D. Jones, the appellate court concluded that the question of whether the lower court had jurisdiction to OK emergency medical treatment was one "of significant statewide importance."
      Jones noted that Arizona law allows a Juvenile Court that has jurisdiction over a child to order a parent or guardian to get medical treatment for a child. However, the appellate court did not find any such jurisdiction for a Superior Court emergency hotline.
      "Our review of Arizona statutes and rules of procedure reveals no provision ... authorizing the superior court to maintain an emergency hotline for the purpose of ordering medical treatment for a non-consenting minor," Jones wrote. 
      Therefore, the lower court's order authorizing medical treatment on behalf of the boy is void, the appellate court said. 
      The parents filed the appellate-court action in November but did not request a stay of the lower court's order. The boy received blood transfusions on Dec. 1 and Dec. 5 before his parents relocated his care to a medical facility in Portland, Oregon. 
      Banner Health officials said the health-care provider has not yet decided whether to appeal the appellate court's decision.
      Representatives of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, which filed a legal brief on behalf of the parents, did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
      A Jehovah's Witnesses website said the religion considers blood transfusions a "religious issue rather than a medical one," citing multiple biblical passages.
      Patients who develop certain types of cancer, such as leukemia, often require blood transfusions as a part of treatment.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Christian es el demandante representativo en una demanda colectiva de $66 millones que se ha entablado contra los Testigos de Jehová en Canadá. Es en nombre de él y de otros sobrevivientes de abuso sexual infantil, quienes acusan a la secta de proteger a los depredadores sexuales de la justicia.
      La demanda, que aún no ha sido certificada por el tribunal, es simplemente la última en lo que se ha convertido en una creciente presión internacional sobre la secta religiosa para cambiar la doctrina que los críticos dicen que protege a los pedófilos.
      Se llama la Regla de los Dos Testigos. Al citar las Escrituras, los testigos de Jehová requieren que haya al menos dos testigos de actos de abuso sexual infantil antes de que se pueda tomar alguna medida contra presuntos abusadores sexuales, a menos que haya una confesión.
      A través de una investigación que se extiende desde Canadá, EE. UU., Inglaterra y Australia, el programa W5 expone cómo la organización desalentó las acusaciones de agresión sexual de ser denunciadas a la policía.
      También revela que los Testigos de Jehová mantienen una base de datos secreta, documentando cada alegato de abuso sexual contra miembros que alguna vez se haya realizado.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  

    • By Kurt
      History Courtroom Charting the Charter Laurier Saumur

      Saumur v Quebec (City of) [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 is a famous constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which struck down a municipal by-law prohibiting the distribution of literature to the public.
      Laurier Saumur (6 Feb. 1921 - 22 Mar. 2007) was born and raised Catholic, but grew disillusioned as a youth and studied the teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He was baptized as a Witness in 1944 and soon began to work as a door-to-door missionary for the Witnesses, first in Montreal and then in Quebec City. At the time, police harassment of Witnesses was widespread in Quebec, and Mr. Saumur had been arrested 103 times for distribution of Witness literature when he decided to challenge the legal basis for the arrests.
      A group of Jehovah's Witnesses, along with Saumur, challenged a Quebec City municipal by-law that prohibited the distribution of literature in the street without the proper authorization of the city's Chief of Police on the basis that it was outside of the municipality's jurisdiction and that it had the effect of religious and political censorship. The case reached the Supreme Court in 1953.
      In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court held that the subject matter of the law was in relation to "speech" or "religion" which were both in the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government. The majority noted that the law had the effect that the chief of police would act in the role of a censor, deciding whether certain literature was objectionable. The result, they observed, would be that unpopular groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses would be censored.
      The dissent focused on the purpose of the law, observing that it was intended to protect the public and keep the streets clean. They found no basis for Saumur's claim that it prevented the Jehovah's Witnesses from their religious practice.
      This decision was subsequently used to dismiss more than 1000 cases against Witnesses in the Province of Quebec. It was one of a series of cases the Supreme Court dealt with concerning the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses under the Duplessis government of Quebec. Previous to this there was the case of R. v. Boucher [1951] S.C.R. 265 according to which mere criticism of the government does not constitute seditious libel. Subsequent to Saumur was the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] S.C.R. 121 which punished Duplessis for revoking a Jehovah's Witness liquor license.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      After being transported to Batroun Hospital suffering traumatic injuries, doctors were baffled after the girl's parents rejected a blood transfusion critical to save their daughter's life.
      BEIRUT: Farah D., the young girl who was involved in a recent car crash, received a blood transfusion Thursday after the Prosecutor of North Lebanon authorized Batroun Hospital Director Ayoub Moukhtar to perform the procedure despite her family's refusal because it goes against their beliefs as Jehovah Witnesses. 
      After being transported to Batroun Hospital on Wednesday suffering traumatic injuries, doctors were baffled after the girl's parents rejected a blood transfusion critical to save their daughter's life. 
      This bizarre development forced Moukhtar to contact his district's Prosecutor, who directed him to go ahead with the grueling operation which involved a set of blood transfusions. 
      The prosecutor argued the hospital was legally bound to save the girl's life.
      "I contacted the prosecutor, who stressed the need to save the girl's life regardless of the parent's religious beliefs, and the hospital duty is to keep the girl alive," he said.
      According to Moukhtar, Farah is now recovering from her injuries.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Bible Speaks
      CANADA STUDIES THE BEHAVIOR AFTER THE DENUNCIATION OF A POLITICS AGAINST JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.
      For this, they will consult with Jehovah's ExWitnesses.
      The press article says:
      This is the report of the medical examiner Luc Malouin the death of Eloise Dupuis, a young Jehovah's Witness died a week after giving birth and who had refused a blood transfusion, causing the member of Taschereau to act.
      The letter sent to the Vice-president of the Commission of Institutions, the member of the Parliament for Verchères Stéphane Bergeron, specifically mentions members of sects who are in emergency medical situations, especially women.
      Although the Liberal Party has a majority in the Institutions Committee, Ms. Maltais hopes that she can convince the majority of the members to study the matter in a parliamentary committee. "Jehovah's Witnesses, former Jehovah's Witnesses, representatives of hospitals and public health could testify, the idea is to understand, because forensic reports will always say that all the rules have been respected. free and voluntary consent when a person has been in a cult for years and is under pressure, "says Maltais.
      Published last week, the coroner's report indicated that Malouin is independent and without undue influence how her religious community Eloise Dupuis had rejected a blood transfusion in October 2016. The 27-year-old resident of San Marguerite, Beauce died in the Hôtel-Dieu de Lévis a week later.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Srecko Sostar
      A group of alleged sexual abuse survivors from across the country have filed a $66-million class action lawsuit against the Jehovah’s Witness, CityNews has learned.
      The victims are seeking $20 million for damages from sexual and mental abuse by elders, $20 million for failing to protect children, and another $20 million for breach of duty of care.
      links:
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Barry W. Bussey: Last week, the Supreme Court was asked to do something courts never do: review the solely religious decision of a church
      On November 2, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to do something Canadian courts never do: review the solely religious decision of a church community. Until now, the courts have recoiled from getting involved in religious disputes—and for good reason.
      The case involves Randy Wall, who was dismissed from a Jehovah’s Witness church for failing to repent of his religious offences: getting drunk on two occasions and verbally abusing his wife. Wall’s appeal to another church entity was unsuccessful. He then appealed to a court of law by means of “judicial review,” on the grounds that the church had denied him a proper hearing. 
      In Canadian law, in a process known as “judicial review,” a person can ask a court to “review” (i.e. hear) whether the decision of a “public actor” (such as a government licensing agency) was unfairly decided. Courts rarely review decisions of “private actors” (such as a church); they generally do so only if a private actor’s decision engages property or civil rights. In Wall’s case, the court had to determine whether the Jehovah’s Witness church’s decision involved property or contractual rights, which would then enable the court to review the church’s decision.
      "The church argued it was a private religious body, not a public body"
      The church argued it was a private religious body, not a public body, and that its decision did not affect Wall’s property or contractual rights. It also argued that its disciplinary procedure was a religious process involving prayer and scripture reading aimed at reconciling the relationship between Wall and the church. The lower courts both held that religious decisions can be reviewed by courts to determine whether a church gave a fair hearing, even if no property or contractual rights were engaged. However, both courts were also of the view that property rights were an issue in the case. The Supreme Court of Canada must now decide whether those courts were right. The Supreme Court reserved judgment after last week’s hearing; we can expect its decision early in the new year.
      Courts like to “fix things.” They naturally want to find resolutions to disputes; this is what they exist to do. However, courts have historically avoided getting involved in religious cases, recognizing that they lack the expertise and authority to settle religious disagreements. They handle legal cases, such as contractual disputes, but not religious cases that raise metaphysical truths, such as the definition of God.
      Wall argued his case did involve a “property right,” because his dismissal from his church meant the church members were no longer willing to do business with him. As a real estate agent, 50 per cent of his clientele were Jehovah’s Witnesses. His business folded from the loss of their support. He says there is a direct line of causation between his loss of church membership and business loss. It’s likely the case that one caused the other, but that doesn’t mean Wall’s claim is a legally enforceable property right. 
      "A church member is not required to patronize the business of a former church member"
      The reality is, Wall chose to limit his business to Jehovah’s Witnesses and took a personal risk in doing so. The church did not tell him to do so, and certainly there is no known legal principle that says a church is responsible for the economic losses that might flow from a loss of membership. A church member is not required to patronize the business of a former member. In the same way, we would not expect a former husband to maintain business with his ex-wife’s family.
      At last week’s hearing, Wall’s legal counsel tried to persuade the court that, if there are no grounds under Canadian law for the court to interfere in purely religious matters, the court should then consider adopting U.K. law, which does allow this type of review. “Good luck!” Justice Rosalie Abella quipped, prompting everyone to burst into laughter.
      That exchange suggested the court was not persuaded that it is time to change the law to allow courts to get tangled up in reviewing decisions of religious bodies. That would be a good thing, as courts don’t have the moral or legal authority or doctrinal expertise to decide such matters.
      This hearing occurred around the time of the 500-year anniversary of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. If we have learned anything since then, it’s that the law does not need to apply to every nook and cranny of our lives – especially our religious affairs.
      Barry W. Bussey is Director Legal Affairs at the Canadian Council of Christian Charities. He blogs at lawandreligion.org
       

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      The judicial committee of a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses asked the Supreme Court of Canada today to rule that Canadian courts do not have the authority to review the expulsion of one of their members — arguing that judicial review by the courts should not extend to decisions by private and voluntary associations that have no effect on the public at large.
      The Highwood Congregation, located in northwest Calgary, brought its appeal to Ottawa after Randy Wall took the congregation to court for expelling him from the church. The congregation’s judicial committee “disfellowshipped” Wall in the spring of 2014 after his family reported to the group’s elders that he had been drunk on two occasions and was verbally and emotionally abusing them — and after determining he was not “not sufficiently repentant” for those actions.
      After three internal and unsuccessful appeals, Wall applied for judicial review of the congregation’s decision-making process, insisting it was flawed and that the congregation’s judicial committee had “breached the principles of natural justice and the duty to be fair.” Both the Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal in Alberta declared that it is within the jurisdiction of the superior court to review Wall’s case.
      The congregation’s appeal of those two rulings, heard by the Supreme Court Thursday morning, has attracted a lot of attention from legal experts and religious communities across the country. Echoing the congregation’s plea today in the packed Ottawa courtroom were 12 religious, political and civil liberties groups — all of them unanimous in arguing the top court should not interfere in the membership decisions of religious bodies.
      The consequences of such interference, they said, would be detrimental to the self-determination of religious groups.
      “It (would) fundamentally alter our nation and not for the better,” counsel for the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said in court.
      “The wish or desire of one person to associate with an unwilling person (or an unwilling group) is not a legal right of any kind,” the group wrote in its written submission to the Supreme Court. “For a court, or the government, to support such a ‘right’ violates the right of self-determination of the unwilling parties.”
      This question of jurisdiction is one that has been explored and decided on by the courts — including the Supreme Court of Canada — in the past. Case law shows the top court has recognized the the autonomous ability of religious and private voluntary associations to govern their own affairs and dictate who can and cannot be a member of a congregation.
      The courts have determined, however, there is room to intervene in specific cases when a membership decision turns on property or civil rights — or is of “sufficient importance to deserve the intervention of the court.”
      Wall — who does not dispute the allegations against him that formed the basis of the congregation’s decision to kick him out — argues his case meets those requirements because his “disfellowship” caused him to lose business clients, suffer “significant economic harm” and experience fraught family relations.
      In return, the congregation argues that neither Wall’s property rights, nor his civil rights, were affected by their decision. Justice Russell Brown also remarked during the hearing that “one does not have a justiciable right to earn a living.”
      The congregation also argued that it did not ask or force its members to boycott Wall’s business — but people choose to do so in line with their religious convictions. Counsel for the congregation also said that “the door is not closed” to Wall and he can be reinstated in the congregation in the future.
      More generally, the congregation argued that it would be inappropriate for the courts to review the internal decision-making processes of religious groups because those processes are ecclesiastical.
      In a news release, the Association for Reformed Political Action — one of the 12 intervening groups — said the case before the Supreme Court has “profound implications for the separation of church and state” and it believes the court should maintain a hands-off approach to membership decision-making by religious groups.
      “Secular judges have no authority and no expertise to review a church membership decision,” the association’s director of law and policy, André Schutten, wrote in the statement. “Church discipline is a spiritual matter falling within spiritual jurisdiction, not a legal matter falling within the courts’ civil jurisdiction. The courts should not interfere.”
      The Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association took a slightly more nuanced position, arguing in its factum that “there will inevitably be cases where judicial intervention in the decisions of religious groups is ‘warranted'” but courts “should intervene … only in the rare case where required by a prevailing public interest.”
      Thursday’s hearing was heard by all nine justices on the Supreme Court bench. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the court will reserve its decision after today’s hearing.
      Overflow seating was set up in the front hall of the Supreme Court to accommodate all the people who came to see the hearing live.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Mrs Mortimer was undergoing a hip operation when she refused the blood transfusion
      A Jehovah's Witness lost her life after she refused a blood transfusion during a major hip operation due to her religious beliefs.
      Barbara Mortimer, 69, went against doctors' advice and sadly died on May 24, 2017, shortly after a hip replacement.
      A final hearing was held at The Old Courthouse in Hatfield yesterday (Wednesday, October 18) before Coroner Geoffrey Sullivan.
      The court heard that in January of this year, Mrs Mortimer visited her GP Mark Penwell with "severe left hip pain."
      Doctor Penwell said: "She was struggling to walk with it, even using a stick.
      "The only useful intervention was a hip replacement."
      He admitted however, that he had concerns about Mrs Mortimer, of Portland Road, Bishop's Stortford, who would decline any blood products due to her being a Jehovah's Witness.
      Mrs Mortimer also suffered what was thought to be a heart attack in 2006 and acute coronary syndrome after having chest pain in 2010.
      For her hip, Mrs Mortimer was referred to consultant orthopaedic surgeon Rajeev Sharma.
      He said: "She came to see me in the clinic on Thursday, March 23.
      "She came in with a diagnosis of hip arthritis on one of the sides.
      "She had an X-ray that showed the joints were worn out."
      Risks associated with the procedure including displacing the hip, heart attack and most commonly infection, were discussed with Mrs Mortimer.
      Mrs Mortimer chose to ungergo surgery, but was taking aspirin at the time which thins the blood. There was also a risk that she would need a blood transfusion during the operation.
      Steps included administering tranexamic acid, swabs soaked in adrenalin and a spinal aesthetic as opposed to general, as these all help to prevent and restrict blood loss.
      Mr Sharma said: "We needed to be sure our surgery is in such a manner to prevent bleeding.
      "It was safe to proceed providing we take all the necessary precautions."
      The procedure went ahead with Mrs Mortimer's haemoglobin levels being within an acceptable range.
      But during the operation after the joint was dislocated, the living part of the bone began to bleed.
      The bleed then became "exponentially massive," according to Mr Sharma following the removal of hard cartilage.
      The adrenalin swabs, an alternative method to stopping the bleed due to Mrs Mortimer's belief's, were inserted to constrict the blood vessels as well as a plastic membrane.
      Mr Sharma said: "We continued with the procedure, it was the best way to stop the bleeding.
      "I could not think why such a lot of bleeding would take place.
      "Was it the aspirin? Would it have had a significant effect on her or was there an anomaly in the pelvic bone?"
      Following the surgery, Mr Sharma spoke with Mrs Mortimer's family.
      "The recommended blood products were declined," he said.
      "We were struggling to keep her alive if we can't give her any blood. Persistent refusal was risking her life."
      Mrs Mortimer faced the decision of accepting blood products or hope that the fluids given to her post-operation would stimulate cell production after such a huge blood loss.
      She died during the early hours of the morning at Rivers Hospital in Sawbridgeworth.
      Mr Sharma was challenged in court by Counsel Kate Smith, who asked whether further enquiries should have been made prior to the hip replacement due to her age, religious beliefs, medical history and the fact she was taking aspirin.
      Ms Smith presented a booklet in court regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and surgery.
      It said "should avoid any medication that could increase blood loss," referring to aspirin which thins the blood and makes the likelihood of needing a blood transfusion more likely.
      Mrs Mortimer signed a refusal form indicating her religious convictions that "no blood transfusions are to be administered in any circumstances".
      Mr Sharma said in "hindsight" there are things that would have been done differently but at that stage all the safety precautions had been made.
      The operation was also not considered to be life-threatening.
      He was also challenged whether Mrs Mortimer needed to be on aspirin. The decision to take this course was made working on the basis that she had suffered a heart attack – later found to be untrue.
      Coroner Geoffrey Sullivan, said: "I cannot see a short form conclusion.
      "The adequate way to my mind is a narrative verdict to encompass blood loss [from the] surgical procedure and declining of blood products.
      "She was admitted to Rivers Hospital, she had advanced decision not to accept blood products, and asked to consider accepting blood products, but declined to do so."

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Bible Speaks
      New Judicial front against Watchtower
      In The Quebec Court, Canada, a lawsuit has been filed for 66 million Canadian dollars, against the organization of Jehovah's witnesses in Canada and the United States, on behalf of alleged victims of child abuse while they were Jehovah's Witnesses.
      We do not hide that opponents, who are led by professional apostates, are being organized as a group, to attack the finances of the Watchtower, trying for all the means to sink it economically.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      TORONTO.- La demanda acusa a la organización religiosa de tener reglas y políticas que protegen a los que abusan sexualmente de menores y ponen a los niños en riesgo.
      “La política y el protocolo de la organización para hacer frente a las denuncias de abuso sexual está gravemente dañada y resulta en más daño a las víctimas de abuso sexual y en alegatos legítimos de abuso sexual que no se denuncian”, dice el documento.
      “Esta es una cuestión que la comunidad en general debe preocuparse, y no sólo los testigos de Jehová”, dijo Tricia Franginha. Agrega que sus primeros 14 años de vida como Testigo de Jehová fueron llenos con abuso sexual.
      “Como resultado de los procedimientos, cuando se presentan acusaciones de abuso, a estos delincuentes sexuales se les dejan en libertad”, dice Franginha. “Como la mayoría de la gente sabe acerca de los testigos de Jehová, es que ellos son los que vienen a su puerta los sábados por la mañana, cuando sus hijos están en casa y por lo que saben, esa persona ha ofendido más de una vez”.
      Todavía ninguna de las acusaciones en esta demanda ha sido probada en el Tribunal Superior de Ontario. Un portavoz de los Testigos de Jehová dijo que mientras la demanda ha sido presentada, la organización aún no la ha recibido oficialmente, por lo que no pueden comentar los detalles.
      “Los Testigos de Jehová aborrecen el abuso infantil y nunca protegerían a ningún perpetrador”, fue la explicación el portavoz Mattieu Rozon. La organización también dice que los ancianos de la congregación cumplen con las leyes de reportes de abuso infantil.
      Franginha dijo que cuando ella fue a buscar ayuda, fue callada.
      “Cuando tenía alrededor de los 12 años, me dijeron que debía tner dos testigos y que tenía que respetar a mis padres – callarme y no hablar de ello”, explicó.
      La necesidad de que dos testigos corroboren las denuncias de abuso es señalada en la demanda. Las personas que han sido abusadas sexualmente deben presentar dos testigos creíbles de su abuso, explica Franginha, quien añade que los testigos deben ser otros Testigos de Jehová en buen estado en la iglesia.
      “Esto, obviamente, nunca sucede”. “La naturaleza misma del crimen es que es secreto”.
      La demanda también alega que la policía no es llamada cuando las acusaciones de abuso sexual salen a la superficie y en su lugar son manejadas por los veteranos de la iglesia dentro del Salón del Reino.
      “Es nuestra información, basándonos en personas que nos contactaron, que los sistemas que tienen no protegen contra el abuso sucedido, y cuando se hacen denuncias, se toman medidas inadecuadas para asegurar que la queja llegue a las autoridades apropiadas” dice Bryan McPhadden, ayudante de McPhadden Samac Tuovi, que representa a las víctimas.
      Las víctimas buscan $20 millones por daños por abuso sexual y mental perpetradas por personas mayores, $20 millones por no proteger a los niños y otros $20 millones por incumplimiento del deber de cuidado.
      La demanda se espera que tome años para abrirse paso a través de los tribunales.
      Si usted cree que califica para unirse a la demanda colectiva, puede comunicarse con los abogados en www.mcst.ca.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      A group of alleged sexual abuse survivors from across the country have filed a $66-million class action lawsuit against the Jehovah’s Witness, CityNews has learned.
      The suit accuses the religious organization of having rules and policies that protect child sex abusers and put children at risk.
      “The organization’s policy and protocol for dealing with allegations of sexual abuse is seriously flawed, and results in further harm to victims of sexual abuse and results in legitimate allegations of sexual abuse going unreported,” it alleges.
      “This is an issue that the wider community should be concerned with, and not just Jehovah’s Witnesses,” says Tricia Franginha. She says her first 14 years of life as a Jehovah’s Witness were filed with sexual abuse.
      “As a result of their procedures, when abuse allegations come forward, these sexual offenders are left at large,” Franginha says. “As most people know about Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are the ones who come to your door on Saturday mornings, when your kids are home, and for all you know, that person has offended more than once.”
      None of the allegations in this the suit have been tested in Ontario Superior Court. A spokesperson for the Jehovah’s Witness says that while the suit has been filed, the organization hasn’t officially received it yet, so they can’t comment on the details.
      “Jehovah’s Witnesses abhor child abuse and would never shield any perpetrator,” says spokesperson Mattieu Rozon. The organization also says congregation elders comply with child abuse reporting laws.
      Franginha says that when she went for help, she was shut down.
      “When I was around 12, I was told that I didn’t have two witnesses and I needed to respect my parents – not to talk about it,” she says.
      The need to have two witnesses corroborate allegations of abuse is singled out in the suit. People who have been sexually abused must present two credible witnesses to their abuse, explains Franginha, who adds that the eyewitnesses must be other Jehovah’s Witnesses in good standing in the church.
      “This, obviously, never happens,” she says. “The very nature of the crime is that it’s secret.”
      The suit also alleges that police are not called when allegations surface and instead they’re handled by church elders inside Kingdom Hall.
      “It is our information, based on people who contacted us, that the systems in place don’t guard against [abuse] happening, and when allegations are made, inadequate measures are in place to ensure that the complaint reaches the proper authorities,” says Bryan McPhadden, laywer at McPhadden Samac Tuovi, which is representing the victims.
      The victims are seeking $20 million for damages from sexual and mental abuse by elders, $20 million for failing to protect children, and another $20 million for breach of duty of care.
      The lawsuit is expected to take years to wind its way through the courts. If you believe you qualify to join the class action suit, you can reach out at www.mcst.ca.
    • Guest
      By Guest
      U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is finishing up the third round of NAFTA negotiations alongside counterparts from Mexico and Canada. 
      They’re talking cars. Right now, a law known as the “rules of origin” states that for a car produced in NAFTA countries, 62.5% of its total value must originate in those countries. BUT there aren’t any country-specific mandates. Expect the U.S., which feels like it’s getting stiffed in vehicle manufacturing, to demand a minimum level of U.S.-made parts.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Recourse to secular courts
      Religious laws apply to a believer's spiritual life. They don't trump Canada's Criminal Code, civil law or other statutes. 
      Sometimes, secular courts are even called upon to judge whether a faith-based decision is fair.
      On Nov. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear from an 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  a decision made by a Jehovah's Witnesses' judicial committee. Elders disfellowshipped — or expelled — Randy Wall when they decided the Calgary man was not sufficiently repentant for two drunken incidents where he allegedly verbally abused his wife.
      This decision by elders of the congregation required Wall's wife and children to shun him. Wall, a real estate agent, alleges the shunning caused him to lose a large number of Jehovah's Witnesses clients. Courts are sometimes are asked to judge the fairness of a religious rule or decision. The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear the case of a Jehovah's Witness who was expelled for alleged verbal abuse of his wife. (Chris Wattie/Canadian Press)
      In 2007, 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  who took action against her ex-husband for refusing to grant her a religious Jewish divorce, known as a get. "The consequences to women deprived of a get and loyal to their faith are severe," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote.
      "They may not remarry within their faith, even though civilly divorced. If they do remarry, children from a second civil marriage are considered illegitimate and restricted from practising their religion."
      Full article: 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
  • Forum Statistics

    59,879
    Total Topics
    107,457
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,071
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    ediño anaya
    Newest Member
    ediño anaya
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.