Jump to content
The World News Media

13-year-old boy hospitalized in Catanzaro, Jehovah's Witnesses explain why the parents rejected the transfusion


Bible Speaks

Recommended Posts

  • Member

ITALY
A 13-year-old boy hospitalized in Catanzaro, Jehovah's Witnesses explain why the parents rejected the transfusion
"The fact that we wanted to wait for the green light from the magistrate suggests that, although the situation was serious, there was no imminent danger to life."

Catanzaro - "We would like to point out that, while denying blood transfusions, Jehovah's Witnesses see life as something sacred, they appreciate advances in health care and willingly accept medical care for themselves and for their children." The public information office requires the witnesses of Jehovah Catanzaro, in the news published on April 18 by the Ombudsman for the Minor of the Calabria region, Antonio Marziale, according to which the transfusion was denied to a minor, for To avoid the negative opinion of the parents, the intervention of the Juvenile Court was necessary. "The parents - stated in the note - quickly took their teenage daughter to the hospital to receive treatment. The only request they made to the doctors is that the 13-year-old daughter should not be transfused with whole blood or its four main components, It is also reaffirmed several times and with the conviction of the woman herself.It is important to emphasize, according to Jehovah's Witnesses, that refusing a blood transfusion is very different from refusing treatment.

In general, in fact, transfusions are just one of several viable medical treatments in emergency situations and often are not even the best treatment. Reliable scientific studies show that patients undergoing alternative therapies to blood transfusions, including children, usually shoot at the same or even better than patients who accept blood transfusions. "The note notes that" the position of witnesses of Jehovah with respect to blood transfusions does not obligate medical personnel to any delay in the administration of transfusions that save minor lives considered: doctors know that, in the case of underage patients, if they really believe that there is state of necessity 'have the right' to act even without the need for the authorization of the judge (as confirmed on 15/03/2018 last Florence Children's Court, in its judgment No. 1176). The fact that in this case we wanted to wait for the green light by the judge suggests - and 'wrote - that, although the situation was serious, there was no immediate threat to life. "

The note also states that "in the field of medical care, decisions made by individual Jehovah's Witnesses are absolutely personal and free: they are not imposed by confession." The Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses - who always reads the statement - always cooperates with the authorities, and in this case 'more' than willing to explain in detail to the interested parties their position on blood transfusions in doctrinal and legal medical plan, it would also be a pleasure to put health professionals in contact with a network of doctors and health centers specialized in the treatment of all patients without blood transfusions. " As was said, finally, "some misunderstandings arise only from the lack of knowledge of the actual location of Jehovah's Witnesses in subject transfusions, situation - it is worth repeating - fully compatible with the Constitution".

https://www.quicosenza.it/news/calabria/213987-tredicenne-ricoverata-a-catanzaro-testimoni-di-geova-spiegano-perche-i-genitori-hanno-rifiutato-la-trasfusione

6295710A-EFCC-40AA-BFBA-431792669A24.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 234
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ITALY A 13-year-old boy hospitalized in Catanzaro, Jehovah's Witnesses explain why the parents rejected the transfusion "The fact that we wanted to wait for the green light from the magistrate sug

Posted Images





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    • kiy

      kiy 0

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    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.