Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Pudgy]

40 minutes ago, George88 said:

“ …This principle is not intended to protect them from legal liability in secular courts, but rather to showcase that scientific progress now allows individuals to make conscientious choices that can profoundly impact their own lives.”

G88, I agree with everything you said from which the above quote was taken, except the above quote.

You can “showcase” scientific progress OR you can “Abstain From Blood”

I watched the events evolve incrementally, and know better.

The policy was changed to not be sued into bankruptcy, AFTER losing many law suits about blood restrictions in courts of law … and a LOT of money.

…. the tail wagged the dog, the same as the 1975 fiasco created the “Overlapping Generations” nonsense.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

At the current time JW Theology is being decided by the Society’s accountants, lawyers, and “helpers”.

 The Governing Body is paralyzed by fear of losing money and real estate.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

I think, MM, your not attending meetings BECAUSE of the blood issue is a rationalism born of an entirely different motivation, but then again, i don’t care.

Sam: "Yeah, that's right! I don't care! I'm not trying to solve puzzles here!"

Dr K: "Well, I am. And I just found a big piece!" Despite denials, he presents to me as a man on a mission.

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

they can't accept transfusion of donor red cells without losing fellowship of lifetime close friends and family due to the isolating effect of the sister policy of unilaterally disassociating the person.

 Nah. Overstated. If you cave on the issue or decide you can't conscientiously go along with it, you sit in the penalty box for a while until they let you out to resume the game. You do this even if you are firmly convinced the ref made a bad call.  As long as you don't cuss the ref out publicly or visibly offer him eyeglasses, he will let you back in.

"Ouch!! I'm not so sure about that call!" says Sportscaster Paul from the broadcast booth. They're sending Many Miles to the penalty box!! Oh, wow! It won't go well even with his temporary absence--he is one heckuva player, but--gasp! What's this? Many Miles is not heading to the box! He took off his skates, broke his stick, threw them at the ref, and is heading home! 'It is altogether a defeat that he has done this!'"

We overestimate our importance. If it wasn't them providing headship, it would be someone else who would also reveal human foibles. Get in that penalty box with Pudgy; he's there every time you turn around. He even puts himself there before the ref calls a penalty, and thus reminds me of my own daughter long ago, who responded to my wife's scolding  by putting herself in the corner unbidden.

 

20 hours ago, George88 said:

I don't have a problem when someone declares themselves apostates.

That may be the greatest understatement of all time.

[Many Miles]

26 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Nah. Overstated. If you cave on the issue or decide you can't conscientiously go along with it, you sit in the penalty box for a while until they let you out to resume the game. You do this even if you are firmly convinced, the ref made a bad call.  As long as you don't cuss the ref out publicly or visibly offer him eyeglasses, he will let you back in.

That's very irreverent, and it makes light of mothers and fathers who've lost children over this issue. It's another version of Just play the game we all know we're playing and move on. That doesn't prevent the next preventable death, or the one after that, or the others to follow. Also, I'm not playing a game. Just going along with it is what people do who know a horribleness is done by whatever governance they find themselves under, and they just wait for someone else to come along and fix it, and they don't even talk about it to know if it's right or wrong, or what the reason is for it being done.

There is a conspicuous absence in your response here. I'm sure you know what it is. But that's for you do decide, and it's best that way. In the end, we each have to stand by ourselves.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sam: "Yeah, that's right! I don't care! I'm not trying to solve puzzles here!"

Dr K: "Well, I am. And I just found a big piece!" Despite denials, he presents to me as a man on a mission.

Well, well. Someone looking for puzzle parts thinks they found "a big piece". Impressive. A big piece.

The piece? Presenting as a man on a mission. Sounds kinda medical doctor-ish. Must be the big piece.

If you want to talk about another subject, I'm game, if I know anything to share on the subject. I tend to speak when I have something to add. I tend to remain to myself otherwise.

If I have a mission, it's to share, learn, grow and help anyone I can along the way. Any piece found for that? No? Oh.

At the very least you have to yield that I put information out there to be challenged. Isn't that how people learn from one another?

Make of things as you will. It's best that way, and that's the way it is regardless. I'm just glad you found a big piece. Impressive.

[Thinking]

17 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Super written. What is more difficult to read and understand must be important. That's why WTJWorg has a "simple edition" to present the theological tangles as simple.

It’s not actually …they have to accommodate the many many who have had very little and often no education…..if we need and want more depth well that’s up to us..they can not spoon feed us everything.

we got corrected as apparently a number were complaining about the lack of meat or depth to the studies…and they said..get used to it….but they needed to preach and teach to all sorts of men…..that’s fair enough I reckon.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Shall I persist in preaching and teaching with God's authority, or is the answer sufficient?

Well, now that you’ve established your position in the pecking order, no.

You had me saying, ‘Oh, he’s not such a bad guy after all,’ until that line.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

That's very irreverent

I meant to be colloquial. I did not mean to be irreverent. Comparing life to a game is among the oldest metaphors in the book.

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

it makes light of mothers and fathers who've lost children over this issue.

Those persons understandably might sour on the metaphor, You did not say that you were one of them. 

The fact is, people put their lives on the line for any number of causes—for country, for science, for exploration, even for extreme sports, and they are generally praised for it. Only if the motivation is religious conviction is their loss tainted by accusations they were manipulated. In all other cases, life, including wordplay, goes on.

Not long ago, Juan said some do not like his style of writing. Same here with mine. It was not my intention to dishonor anyone and I don’t think the comment did.

Since you specifically mentioned children, that recalled a blog post I wrote on a 1994 Awake Magazine that dealt with the issue. An excerpt: 

“I also thought it well to take a look at that May 1994 Awake quote which Matt uses to advance the notion JW youths are dropping like flies for their transfusion refusals:

“In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue.”

“Not that I accuse Matt of anything devious. I've no doubt he used the quotation in good faith. It's likely from a web source purporting to be informative, but in reality existing only to denigrate a faith its  author dislikes, trying to make JWs look as fanatical as possible, and doing so for philosophical reasons, rather than anything having to do with medicine or lives. So is the statement taken out of context or not?

“It's a little difficult to tell, for there is no context. The quote is a one-line blurb on the magazine's table of contents designed to pique interest in the articles to follow. The articles to follow describe the cases of five Witness youngsters in North America. Each was admitted into a hospital for aggressive cancer or leukemia. Each fought battles with hospitals, courts, and child welfare agencies determined to administer blood against the patient's will. Each eventually prevailed in court, being recognized as “mature minors” with the right to decide upon their own treatment (though in two cases, a forced transfusion was given prior to that decision). Three of the children did die. Two lived. It's rather wrenching stuff, with court transcripts and statements of the children involved, and those of the participating doctors, lawyers, and judges. In no case do you get the sense that blood transfusions offered a permanent cure, only a possible prolonging of life, ideally long enough for some cure to be discovered (which has not yet happened). One of the children, who did die, was told that blood would enable her to live only three to six months longer, during which time she might “do many things,” such as “visit Disney World.” There's little here to suggest that “thousands of youths are dying for putting God first” who would otherwise live. Frankly, I think the quote is sloppily written. “They are still doing it,” says the quote. Doing what? Dying? Dying in the thousands? Or putting God first without regard for the immediate consequences?”

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Make of things as you will. It's best that way, and that's the way it is regardless. I'm just glad you found a big piece. Impressive.

I think you are not big on the movies, for there is an allusion that you did not pick up. I don’t know how else to account for this bit of pique on your part.

[Many Miles]

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You did not say that you were one of them. 

Need I? Really? Do you really need something like this spelled out with a crayon? People are dying. Children are dying. Is that not worth your time to research and get to know details of the religious position, just to make sure of all things and that the teaching is fine? Really?

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."

That stands as one of the most honest things that's ever been printed by the society in it's entire history. Literally. Yes. You read that right.

Some of us have felt it. It looks like some of us have failed to understand the impact, or were not empathetic. What does that say?

Oh. I forgot. You were busy looking for pieces to a puzzle. I'm so glad you found a big piece. Congratulations. While we have mothers and fathers grieving, you found a big piece.

38 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The articles to follow describe the cases of five Witness youngsters in North America.

And what the society wrote about those few children is all you needed to know. Right? Ever heard of anemia? When a person's organs fail to get enough oxygen those organs begin to suffer irreversible tissue damage. It leads to death. Whatever therapeutics may or may not be successful treating an underlying condition, they have no opportunity to treat the patient if the tissue of their organs have failed to a point of no return. They die. Because of a religious position. That's why they didn't have a chance to live longer. That is why. Play games all you want. I hope you find more pieces to whatever puzzle you're looking to compose. I hope you find what you're looking for. But I hope you never have to see it, or feel it. The humanity in me compels that confession.

[Many Miles]

18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I think you are not big on the movies,...

Yeah. Looks like I've had heavier things to deal with than keeping up with cinematic nuance.

Have you ever helped a mother and father deal with the death of a small child who died because they refused a recommended medical remedy with a proven good outcome and, instead, you were part of talking them into opting for something the society said was okay but was nevertheless a tremendous gamble? Then the child died, and died exactly of what the treating physician said was the primary complication that could have been avoided with the recommended treatment?

Oh. I forgot. You were at the movies. My apologies.

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

My apologies.

Mine too. Maybe if I had the experiences you report I would feel as you do. I have had calamity in my life, but not that one.

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Oh. I forgot. You were at the movies

Isn’t this your 6th or 7th mention of The Fugitive? Though there is tragedy in the world, those not immediate victims continue to go to the movies, to concerts, to plays, to read books, to surf the internet, until in Eliphaz’s words, ‘it becomes your turn.’ Maybe all such activity should end until there is no more pain, but it does not.

[Anna]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Have you ever helped a mother and father deal with the death of a small child who died because they refused a recommended medical remedy

I am sorry you had to go through this. 

I think this must have been some time ago, and perhaps not in the US? If I'm not mistaken, with small children, and children under the age of consent, the decission about blood is taken out of the parents hands by the court, and the HLC elders will not encourage the parents to fight it but to go along with it. I was told this by a HLC elder.

With regard to children who are of the age of consent the doctors will leave the decission to them. 

Just a couple of years ago we had a young woman (she was just a few months shy of 18) in our congregation admitted to hospital with severe anemia. The doctors strongly recommend a transfusion as her numbers were dangerously low. Her father, an inactive Witness for some time, urged her to get a transfusion, but she stood her ground and refused. The doctors reluctantly cooperated with her because she was almost 18 and deemed it a waste of time to drag it through the court. Thankfully the doctors were able to bring her blood count back to normal. Today she is a healthy and happily married woman. All ended well. I think a lot of it had to do with the fad of not eating enough protein. All these young girls jump on the vegan bandwagon and the parents are not aware of just how dangerous it can be.

Of course this was a less serious case in that it was self induced anemia and not something caused by a disease. 

I do get TTH reasoning regarding the choice of treatment. Doctors cannot promise a cure, only perhaps a prolongment of life. Parents are usually given choices and of course recommendations. It is a very very difficult situation and I do not envy any parent who has to go through this. In a way I am glad the choice about blood has been taken out of the patents hands and who knows, maybe the elders on the HLC feel the same way. Certainly the elder I spoke with didn't seem to be upset by the fact....