8 hours ago, Pudgy said:

WOW!

I suppose in the interest of unity I should have tolerated during my entire adult lifetime, which is almost over, the unrelenting discrimination, ostracism, alienation, by the Elders, over and over and over in “the little back room”, being shunned and rejected by the Congregation brothers and sisters, in EVERY Congregation where I had a beard (… except ONE near Pittsburgh, PA, in 1977-1978), and having been sent home in bitter tears when I showed up for field service at a grocery store parking lot rendezvous for having a beard.

In the interest of unity, I should overlook and forget the 60 continuous, unrelenting years of boneheaded stupidity that made my life defensive and hard, denying me opportunities for service and Christian fellowship, and the life distorting, crippling, crushing loneliness I had to endure, each and every day.

Oops!

Silly me.

Your looking at it the wrong way…you are victorious…..but no one’s going to admit it…..the stupidity of man made rules…is being uncovered….

years ago we had a young brother who was 6’5 and he was a pioneer….and he had a ned Kelly beard..( long one ) don’t know how he got away with it.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

First she gets perceived condescension from MM, and now you are going to give her a superiority complex.

Being the oldest should mean more wisdom and respect wouldn’t it…🤭

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Adding to Thinkings list, of which each item is different, so that I think that would have answered your question, is just plain ‘ol human error. Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare (my wife is a retired nurse) knows there is plenty of it. 

In my area, hospitals laid off nurses who would not accepted the Covid shot. This led to collapse of the hospital system, as there were a lot of them, not easily or affordably replaced, so largely not replaced, making the remaining staff take up the slack over which they protested and went on strike. Do you think this worked to increase the safety of transfusion protocol?

Just recently local hospitals were found to be in severe violation of a law that they must not be understaffed. It’s a LAW—how could that have not fixed the problem? It’s as though administrators say, ‘If our nurses quit, the very stones will take care of you!’

Everything is collapsing. And whereas JW’s stand on war, tobacco, alcohol and drug abuse, and compliance with safety laws, place them BY FAR among the safest religions out there, you keep flailing a on a number so relatively tiny that neither Thinking nor myself can think of an example we personally know of. And neither of us are youngsters, especially Thinking.

In a revolving population of several million you are going to find countless examples of anything. But there is such a thing as focusing on the trees so minutely as to not see the forest.

Ha..your older than me…

1 minute ago, Many Miles said:

I believe that. Thanks.

Aaaah condescending at its best 

18 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So what is that supposed to mean?

Are Christians to:

1) Abstain from blood, according to provisions found in Mosaic law?

2) Abstain from blood, according to requirements predating Mosaic law?

3) Abstain from blood, according to requirements predating Mosaic law AND provisions found in Mosaic law?

4) Abstain from blood, according to something else that's different than either of those two things?

What are you saying? I'm trying to understand. You just keep saying "Christ law". What does that mean when it comes to abstaining from blood. Be clear.

Oxford Dictionary……ABSTAIN 

1, Restrain oneself from doing or enjoying something 

2, Formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal 

3, To Refrain from something 

I cannot make it any clearer….

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Well it’s one of them..do you want me to find four more…

9 minutes ago, George88 said:

Regrettably, the situation turned out to be even more devastating. After dedicating over 35 years of their lives in service to Jehovah, a devoted couple eventually divorced and abandoned their faith. Each of them pointed fingers at the other, attributing the blame for this painful outcome.

I’m sad to hear this.

2 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Is that supposed to answer the question:

If you had to name a primary medical issue leading to mortality related to blood, what would be your top five?

Well it’s one of them..do you want me to find four more…

12 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I want to understand what you're saying.

When it comes to what is expected of Christians:

1) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by provisions found in Mosaic law?

2) When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by requirements predating Mosaic law?

3) Or, When it comes to abstaining from blood, are we expected to abide by something else that's different than either of those two things?

I think your better of just sticking to Christ law…..

And to understand Jehovahs view on blood it’s all laid out in the Hebrew scriptures…..

17 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I think you've answered my question. Thanks.

What you state about it being noticeable is interesting. On this issue there are mortality statistics available, but these are likely not understood for what they say to the average person. This is because "cause of death" is usually attributed to underlying cause rather than an intermediate cause, when had the intermediate incident been different the death would have been avoided.

If you had to name a primary medical issue leading to mortality related to blood, what would be your top five?

The contaminated blood scandal 

In the 1970s and 1980s 4,689 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those unintentionally infected their partners, often because they were unaware of their own infection. Since then more than 3,000 people have died and of the 1,243 people infected with HIV less than 250 are still alive. We now know that 380 children with bleeding disorders were infected with HIV.

Many people who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. A large number were unaware of their infection for many years before diagnosis.  It is not known how many were infected.  

Living with a bleeding disorder 

People with bleeding disorders lack a protein that enables their blood to clot, most commonly factor VIII. This means even minor injuries can lead to bleeding that is difficult to treat. 

Until the 1970s the treatment for these disorders required transfusions with plasma which had to be given in hospital. 

This treatment was replaced with a revolutionary new product, factor concentrate, which could be administered at home with an injection. For the first time, people with bleeding disorders could be treated prior to a bleed (prophylactically) reducing the likelihood of a bleed and the resulting joint damage. 

Factor concentrate: the deadly risks 

Factor concentrate was produced by pooling human blood plasma from up to 40,000 donors and concentrating it to extract the required clotting factor. Just one contaminated sample could infect the entire batch. 

Blood and blood products were known to transfer viruses such as hepatitis, so the use of pooled blood products increased the risk of infection significantly. 

The danger of contamination rose further when a shortage of UK-produced factor concentrate meant it was imported from the United States, which used blood from high-risk paid donors, such as prisoners and drug addicts. 

Ignoring the risks 

These risks were ignored by leading clinicians and government who failed to take appropriate action to end their use and return to safer products. Pharmaceutical companies and leading clinicians did not share appropriate information about risks with patients and patient groups. 

In 1975 the then Health Minster, Dr David Owen, announced that funds had been allocated to ensure the UK became ‘self-sufficient’ in blood products, but this never happened. From this time outbreaks of hepatitis began to be reported from haemophilia centres around the country. 

In 1982 the first death of a man with haemophilia infected by AIDS was reported in the US and the first warning of the danger of contracting AIDS from contaminated blood products was published. This was followed in 1983 by other warnings in The Lancet and from the World Health Organisation which said that people with haemophilia should be warned of the dangers. 

The Haemophilia Society 

During this period The Haemophilia Society (THS) issued statements reassuring people with bleeding disorders that the new factor treatments were safe and to continue using them. 

The advice we gave our members was based on guidance from Haemophilia Centre Directors (now known as the UKHCDO) and from the government. We accept that our actions and statements at the time, while well intentioned and based on expert advice, have subsequently been shown to be damaging to the community and false. For this, we have apologised unreservedly. 

Living with haemophilia during the contaminated blood scandal 

Due to widespread ignorance about the HIV virus and a lack of understanding of how it was transmitted, many people assumed anyone with haemophilia was infected with AIDS. This forced many people to hide their haemophilia for fear of stigma and discrimination. Those infected with HIV were often advised by their consultant not to tell anyone of their diagnosis. It was a time of fear and isolation for many people with haemophilia, who did not yet realise how many others were infected. Some families were subjected to appalling abuse, resulting in them being forced out of jobs or having to leave their homes. As a result, many people who were infected or affected by the scandal continue to keep it a secret.  

Financial support 

Until 2022, no compensation had ever been paid to victims of the contaminated blood scandal in the UK. In 2022 Sir Brian Langstaff, Chair of the Infected Blood Inquiry, made an interim recommendation that interim compensation of £100,000 should be paid to everyone currently registered on a UK infected blood support scheme. This was accepted by the government and payment was made in October 2022. While this was welcome news, many groups of people seriously affected by the scandal were excluded from this payment, such as bereaved parents, siblings and children. The government provides ex-gratia support, which began in 1989 for people infected with HIV through contaminated blood products. In 2004 another fund to make payments to people infected with hepatitis C was launched by the government. In 2017 these schemes and trusts were replaced by infected blood support schemes in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. A  summary of financial support can be found here.

Progress towards safer treatment 

By 1984, heat-treated blood products, in which the viruses had been deactivated, started to become available. This, combined with improvements in donor vetting, meant that by 1986 UK patients were receiving safer treatment, although some risks remained. 

Late in the 1990s the use of synthetic (known as recombinant) clotting factors started to become widespread in the UK effectively eliminating the risks from viruses and other contaminants. 

The Infected Blood Inquiry and beyond 

In 2017 Prime Minister Theresa May announced that a statutory public inquiry would be held into the contaminated blood scandal. The inquiry officially opened in 2018 and hearings lasted from April 2019 to January 2023.

Since the inquiry was announced, we estimate that more than 500 people infected and affected by the scandal have died. More will die before the inquiry reaches its conclusions in autumn 2023. This is a tragedy which continues to take and devastate lives. 

THS has been campaigning for a public inquiry since 1988. We welcome scrutiny of our role, as well as that of all other organisations involved. We hope this inquiry will finally deliver closure, justice and recognition of what has happened and the suffering it has caused. 

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

You're not answering the question I'm getting at. Let me rephrase it:

Does Christ's Law require Christians abide by provisions of the Mosaic law when it comes to blood abstention?

You are not listening…..because you don’t like what I am saying .

We are under Christ law….we therefore abstain from blood…..what is it you want me to say?

3 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

So, just so I'm perfectly clear, you believe Christians are bound to provisions of the Mosaic law when it comes to blood abstention?

No..by Christ's Law.

What you are doing here is clouding the blood issue in tangled webs and murky water with the fog of words so as to mislead.

Your arguments don’t make sense Miles….its and emotional issue in modern days times but it’s not all that hard to work out.

3 minutes ago, George88 said:

An Elder had a similar experience with his daughter. The doctors persuaded my dear friend to give his daughter an operation to correct a spinal defect. They assured him and his wife of decades of dedication to Jehovah that the operation was routine. They agreed to the process. When they started the operation a complication unfolded, they immediately came out encouraging the parents to accept a blood transfusion to level the blood loss. The heart of parents losing their 15-year-old daughter came to a realization, and they agreed to that life-saving procedure, a parent's will or faith. 

They gave the daughter over 30 units of blood and despite all that, she died at the table. 

Oh my goodness…..it is a fear of all parents and surgeons and all medical people put such fear into such parents…what a calamity….i hope the recovery spiritually as I know they won’t ever recover from her death,

But Jehovah shows great love and mercy such one's just as he did to Peter..I sincerely hope the elders dealt with them in as Jesus would have…what a sad sad story.

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

To be in harmony means no more than to be consistent with and not contrary to.

Here's something else the society teaches specifically about blood in relation to what predated Mosaic law vs. Mosaic law:

"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref Insight, blood, emphasis added)

Hence, were one to abide by Mosaic law they were also abiding by Gen 9, but everyone abiding by Gen 9 were not necessarily abiding by Mosaic law.

That what the society teaches.

 

 

Yes we are held to a higher standard…you are very confusing ….we are under Christ’s law now wether gentile or Jew.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:

"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

Thanks for this but let’s pull it apart ….what about the sentence where it says 

in harmony with that Law.

also the events that predated the Law …….

well that is what a number of us have been saying….( jehovahs view on blood and his attitude to blood all thru all the scriptures demands respect for blood ) even those predating the law…
I'm sorry for your personal pain in the past but I agree with the above and it’s basically what we have all been saying .

For myself I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

The society teaches the "three things" you refer to come from requirements predating Mosaic law. I guess that's the part you're missing.

Well fill me in…honestly I am genuinely asking.

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

Just now, Many Miles said:

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

There were only three things the elders put on the shoulders of the new Christian’s . And you know them well, idols fornication and abstaining from blood.

I don’t  understand what you mean by the who policy?

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test.

Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred.

I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law.

The stand on blood comes from the mosaic law.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

TTH, based on what you write above, you have an opinion of something you describe as "the occasional price that has been paid". Presumably you're referring to deaths caused by the society's position on blood.

What, in your experience, does "occasional" mean?

For example, how many of this sort of deaths would a single congregation experience over what period of time. 1 per 5 years? 1 per 10 years? 1 per 15 years? 1 per 20 years? 1 per 25 years? 1 per 30 years? 1 per 35 years? 1 per 40 years?

I'm curious what your experience is and how you'd quantify "the occasional price". I understand you'd only be speaking of one man's opinion and experience. But you do have an opinion, because you shared a characterization of it.

It was a bad line and wording, but I don’t think he meant it as it sounded.

I don’t know..I’ve been in the truth for nearly fifty years and I’ve never known anyone who has died from refusing a transfusion. A few times such a thing was reported on by the news papers and one time a mother bled out after birth but I don’t know why.?

I would say it’s very uncommon to die from a lack of blood nowadays and even in the old days I think fear mongering went on and the numbers of death were not as large as reported by the news outlets.

We had a young lad who was surfing and a shark bit his leg clean off…as he was loaded up into the ambulance he made his thoughts on blood be known and they respected his wishes…he’s alive…

I think they are heroes…because they were ready to lay their life down for their God and his principles..and that would have been so excruciatingly hard for that mum and her new born child….

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Sometimes, when you read something, or somebody tells you something, it makes perfect sense. Other times you get the uneasy feeling it’s somewhere somehow you were being observed through binoculars by a duck.

…. there is an actual Latin word for this, but it escapes me at the moment.

You probably remember the scripture that says, paraphrased, “… you must not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk .…”.  The instant I read this scripture, many years ago, I understood why God would command such a thing, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it at the same level of seriousness that I instantly understood that it was intended.

Occasionally over the past 50 years, in discussing other subjects, I would mention that commandment, and was genuinely stunned that others did not also instantly “get it”. It made no sense to them. If you are going to KILL an animal for food … what’s the big deal how you cook it?

The younger animal is food. The mother’s milk is food. What’s the big deal? Neither one knows or is capable of comprehending WHAT is done with their being a resource.

Just as soldiers become soldiers for dozens of different reasons, even among soldiers, sometimes what is a moral necessity for one is incomprehensible for another.

The SYMBOLIC (  … if you will, the SPIRITUAL …) value of blood is unique, because by example and by edict from God, it is a common theme that runs throughout the whole Bible. It’s clear that we have permission to use as food anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies, including (if you can overcome the strong CULTURAL taboos, like when Jerusalem was under siege) people … presumably bled out from war wounds. Some people would rather starve to death …. and have.

The prohibition against blood is consistent in principle throughout the entire Bible, but what convinced me was the example of King David, a soldier who slaughtered men and animals by the thousands … himself … personally … in hand to hand and eyeball to eyeball combat. When he in laying siege to a city remarked he was thirsty, and the only close by water was in a well near the city walls, two of his men risked their lives in a hail of arrows, spears, and rocks to bring him back a bucket of water. 

David did NOT drink the water. He poured it out on the ground, not because it was blood, or even blood fractions, but because it REPRESENTED the lives of his two soldiers, the EXACT same way that blood represents all air-breathing (pneuma=air) souls. 

In 1960, when I first read that, I instantly “got it”, the same way I instantly understood about the “boiling a kid in it’s mothers milk”.

That’s why, for me, it is just as much respect for the IDEA, or SYMBOLISM of respecting that which Jehovah God has clearly stated is his jealously guarded personal property, as well as actual blood.

Some people “get it”.

Some people don’t.

Excellent post..well said .

On 12/8/2023 at 5:53 AM, Many Miles said:

When reading for pleasure my interests tend to be history and biographical. I like fiction on the big screen, especially science fiction. But fiction books were just never a thing for me.

If I'm not reading for pleasure the analytical part of me comes out. I work to keep it at bay. But sometimes I open my mouth, or keyboard the submit reply button without realizing I might be ruining someone's day for no reason.

I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. Ignore people like me.

That was a nice post…

On 12/3/2023 at 8:04 AM, Many Miles said:

Early Christians were a body of individuals united in a common cause of following the Christ as best they could. They understood that no matter their family history God accepted their worship so long as they feared (respected) Him and worked righteousness. Jesus life, death and resurrection served as assurance, it gave them hope to add to love and faith they already had. That was it. Those same Christians also realized there were persons who had yet to learn of Jesus, and likely among them were persons' whose worship God accepted, just like He accepted the worship of Cornelius. Christianity was not a unity intended create a hierarchy to lord over worshipers of God and potential worshipers of God. Christianity was a common cause of helping all of these learn of the hope in Christ, and that God had not forsaken them. 

Today we can theorize about concepts like denomination, but it's an exercise in futility. Nothing has changed about what God expects, and focusing on things like the nit of denominations has potential to detract us from things that really matter, like natural law.

Yes.

See my first paragraph above. Insofar as I know, nothing has changed except humans have transposed a bunch of ideas that distract from Christian unity. It's God place to determine whose worship He accepts, and no one else's.

I would say a lot has changed since then, you are talking about one select group of people ( Christ’s followers )who came out of the Jews who were up until Christ Gods chosen people. That’s it..two groups..

We now have a world of a huge amount of faiths that never existed back then…and what of the Indian faiths who seem to worship all gods..and what of the faiths who see no problem in kissing the cross as they go to war killing their own spiritual brothers…all of them love Jesus…you simplify or try to simplify something that is not at all simple….

Amongst ex Jews on line many of them had been very hurt…and there was this starting of what I now call the Jesus movement …amongst us…off course I understand the pain..I was there…but it’s simply not as easy as you paint it.

And yes we know it is only Jesus who will judge who is acceptable to his worship.

Seeee we JWs think the same as you…and I understand your scars..some have had to stop attending meetings for the sake of their mental health…and I’ve seen that with my own eyes…..personally I don’t think these things can be fixed until that New World Order can be hushered in….i don’t see any great relief in this old system…it shouldn’t be that way…but that just shows we need Jesus to rule totally..so we have to wait….and limp along the best we can.

As to the blood issue personally I can see how Jehovah views blood, so I understand why we abstain from it…let’s put aside the medical view of it but the satanic practices seem to all require the sacrifice and offering up of blood, ether that just be a killing or a killing a drinking of blood…take the era of vampire movies….satan has done all he can to encourage mankind to disrespect blood.

On 12/5/2023 at 1:25 AM, Many Miles said:

Dying is still the leading cause of death. From the day a person's born, the most any medical doctor can do is help prolong the individual's life and quality of life.

When life is lost over something concocted, called "a religious position," maintained despite solid refutation, and then it's double-downed on by threat of being cut off from family and life-long friends should you honestly opt to do the right thing, then morphs through multiple iterations, then conceals critical options (e.g., cryosupernatant plasma for plasma exchange therapy!), it goes through underpinnings like changing socks, then something's wrong.

Yes, I'm completely aware probably the majority of HLC members (if not every single one of them!) are relieved when treatment of young children is left for competent doctors to decide the best treatment options without interference by family during emergencies.

In the post Bethany Hughes medical system we find institutions like SickKids In Toronto, Canada who, with full support of the society, have developed a special letter of understanding available to parents with minor children in the medical system.

This is a document that is signed by treating doctors and the child's parents and is "TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT OF THE CHART". (Upper case in original document) The primary language reads:

"In an emergency, where your child is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm, medical staff will provide treatment that is allowed by the law, which may include blood transfusion."

This document was put together just for JWs, and it was drafted with full support from the society's hospital information services department. When JW parents have minor children in other hospitals HLC members have initiated inquiries as to whether the institution has such a letter of understanding, and if they do not would they consider using one.

Now why would such an initiative be made if not for 1) wanting the child to live and 2) keeping the matter out of the courts and hence under the radar of publicity? What does the initiative to create and then execute such a document say about how devoted the society is to its religious position?

This is a good and just point…I do remember big question marks on this document and nobody really talked about it. I also remember asking the brother as to how I could have a study with someone and teach what I didn’t believe or was not sure of. He explained you could make the statement …this is what the society believes …which I did and obviously some would inquire as to what I believed ….then we hear instructions from the GB we are not allowed to say that or make that statement…

I can remember thinking…..yeah that’s just because they don’t want to be caught out if it was proved wrong….I still say it today…..

Unfortunately legalities often come into play.