http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2003/nov/14/515859965.html



================================================== ================
Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness

By Cy Ryan

SUN CAPITAL BUREAU


CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has been asked to decide if
Valley Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas was wrong in giving a
blood transfusion to a critically ill baby against the religious
beliefs of the baby's parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Nancy Savage, attorney for the hospital, told the court Thursday
that an emergency situation existed for the premature infant that was
born weighing 2 pounds, 11 ounces.

It administered a blood transfusion and then asked a judge if the
hospital could be named temporary guardian of the child and his twin
brother so they might administer further blood transfusions.

Jason and Rebecca Soto refused to give permission for the
transfusion and were never notified the hospital was going to court to
get an ex-parte order giving it temporary guardianship over the two
children.

Donald Ridley, attorney for the Sotos, argued the hospital had no
right to seek a guardianship.

"These kids had guardians," he said. "The issue was making the
appropriate decision for health care."

Ridley, of Pawling, N. Y., said the hospital, if it was concerned,
should have notified Child Protective Services, which could have acted
as a "buffer" between the hospital and the parents. The twins, born in
June 2001, are now doing fine, the court was told.

The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend of
the court brief that said the religion has no objections to
conventional medicine and they do not believe in or practice faith
healing. Attorney Jerry Mowbray said the Witnesses obey a scriptural
directive to "Keep abstaining from blood."

Mowbray, in his brief, urged the court to show "respect for
parental child rearing authority and for religious freedom."

Rebecca Soto, the mother, checked into the hospital nearly a month
before the birth, which was considered high risk. One of the twins
weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces at birth; the smaller twin was born
apparently stillborn but later recovered a heartbeat.

The hospital decided the smaller baby needed a transfusion; the
parents believed a transfusion was not needed.

After the transfusion was performed, the hospital filed a court
petition asking to be named temporary guardian of both children, which
was granted.

The Sotos were not notified until the next day of the court order.

Two days later Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle agreed to
extend the hospital's temporary guardianship of the smaller boy for 30
days but did not allow it for the bigger boy. No transfusions were
given during the 30 days. The Sotos were represented at that hearing.

Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the
transfusion to protect itself from liability.

Savage said this was an emergency situation and "that's why the
hospital got the guardianship."

The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good
doctors..

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311180538.5db1083b@posting.google.c om...
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2003/nov/14/515859965.html ================================================== ================ Ruling sought on transfusion for baby of Jehovah's Witness By Cy Ryan SUN CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court has been asked to decide if Valley Hospital Medical Center in Las Vegas was wrong in giving a blood transfusion to a critically ill baby against the religious beliefs of the baby's parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Nancy Savage, attorney for the hospital, told the court Thursday that an emergency situation existed for the premature infant that was born weighing 2 pounds, 11 ounces. It administered a blood transfusion and then asked a judge if the hospital could be named temporary guardian of the child and his twin brother so they might administer further blood transfusions. Jason and Rebecca Soto refused to give permission for the transfusion and were never notified the hospital was going to court to get an ex-parte order giving it temporary guardianship over the two children. Donald Ridley, attorney for the Sotos, argued the hospital had no right to seek a guardianship. "These kids had guardians," he said. "The issue was making the appropriate decision for health care." Ridley, of Pawling, N. Y., said the hospital, if it was concerned, should have notified Child Protective Services, which could have acted as a "buffer" between the hospital and the parents. The twins, born in June 2001, are now doing fine, the court was told. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses filed a friend of the court brief that said the religion has no objections to conventional medicine and they do not believe in or practice faith healing. Attorney Jerry Mowbray said the Witnesses obey a scriptural directive to "Keep abstaining from blood." Mowbray, in his brief, urged the court to show "respect for parental child rearing authority and for religious freedom." Rebecca Soto, the mother, checked into the hospital nearly a month before the birth, which was considered high risk. One of the twins weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces at birth; the smaller twin was born apparently stillborn but later recovered a heartbeat. The hospital decided the smaller baby needed a transfusion; the parents believed a transfusion was not needed. After the transfusion was performed, the hospital filed a court petition asking to be named temporary guardian of both children, which was granted. The Sotos were not notified until the next day of the court order. Two days later Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle agreed to extend the hospital's temporary guardianship of the smaller boy for 30 days but did not allow it for the bigger boy. No transfusions were given during the 30 days. The Sotos were represented at that hearing. Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the transfusion to protect itself from liability. Savage said this was an emergency situation and "that's why the hospital got the guardianship."

"Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors..


My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your
children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return
the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the
constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***?

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to
good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a child
from parental neglect?

--Rich

"Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:3fba35b5@news.infowest.com... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors..
===============
AMEN! The parents would have allowed the child to die to please the
Watchtower Society. I'm happy the child lived. He now has a chance at life
no matter how "controlled" by the WTS it may be.

This should be done in all cases where the parents aren't mentally and
emotionally qualified to make the decision due to religious mania, mental
retardation, religious fundamentalism, emotional disorders, control by a any
cult, religious order or group claiming to speak for "god."
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to
good doctors..
My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***?
=================
The state WILL take the kids and support them until the age of 18 if the
parents refuse to take proper, or at least minimal care of them. Killing
your child by preventing life saving treatments goes beyond religious
beliefs.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.com>... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***?


Should the state take my kids away if my religious beliefs include
something about the sanctity of incest? What if I exercise the
Biblical admonition to "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the
point that I break some bones? Am I still constitutionally protected
(whatever that means)?

How about if I am part of some goofy cult that believes you need to
starve the "demons" out of a misbehaving child by locking them in a
closet without food or water?

Find a better example of "the constitution being violated".

Mark, MD

"~* Yippy *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fba8896@news.heartoftn.net... "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? ================= The state WILL take the kids and support them until the age of 18 if the parents refuse to take proper, or at least minimal care of them. Killing your child by preventing life saving treatments goes beyond religious beliefs. --

Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.
and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interfere
with the religious beliefs of parents.

"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message
news:h6adnfenWafwHyeiRVn-jA@ilhawaii.net... "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a
child from parental neglect? --Rich

where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion is
limited to parents and not to their children?

"~* Yippy *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fba87c7@news.heartoftn.net... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:3fba35b5@news.infowest.com... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to
good doctors.. =============== AMEN! The parents would have allowed the child to die to please the Watchtower Society. I'm happy the child lived. He now has a chance at
life no matter how "controlled" by the WTS it may be. This should be done in all cases where the parents aren't mentally and emotionally qualified to make the decision due to religious mania, mental retardation, religious fundamentalism, emotional disorders, control by a
any cult, religious order or group claiming to speak for "god."

I see.. well all JW's belive the same, therefore you are calling 6 million
people, more than one million in the states mentally and emotionally unfit
to be Parents.

"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:y6Aub.275353$Te.2180679@news.easynews.com... Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents. and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interfere with the religious beliefs of parents.
========================
When the religious beliefs of the parents cause the DEATH of the
children,... yes. Once a child is already born you don't have to right to
kill the child using religion as an excuse. That's the law, if you don't
like it you are welcome to leave the USA. Try Iraq, or Palestine....

Will you next start claiming that the bible allows people to sell their
daughters into slavery, so that too should be allowed? Or how about stoning
them to death at the Village Gate if they're disobedient - as Jehovah said
to do?
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:R6Aub.1214322$Id.180986@news.easynews.com... I see.. well all JW's belive the same, therefore you are calling 6 million people, more than one million in the states mentally and emotionally
unfit to be Parents.
===============
Yes, if they're willing to allow an innocent child to die because of the
misinterpretation of the blood scripture. Misinterpreted by a small group
of aged men with no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek no less. No one else
agrees with these old men, no one else can make a connection between eating
and drinking blood and a life-giving transfusion. When the words of these
MEN are more important than the life of their child, these people have
serious problems and the court should step in. You're not talking about
sacrificing a chicken or goat here - you're talking about a human child.
--
Nellie & Egg Plant.....
Numbers 23:24 Here God tells them they will not lie down until they eat
the flesh of their prey and DRINK THE BLOOD OF THE SLAIN!!!!
---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<---<---<{@ ---<---<---<---{@ ---<---<

"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:F6Aub.1214307$Id.180989@news.easynews.com... "Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message news:h6adnfenWafwHyeiRVn-jA@ilhawaii.net... "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be
to good > doctors.. > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a child from parental neglect? --Rich where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion
is limited to parents and not to their children?

Dead children have no religion.

--Rich

Is Egg Plant just a nickname for Kane, the darling
never-spanked potty mouth rabid atheist who hates all
parents? While I would agree about saving a child
whose life is materially threatened without a
transfusion, I would not revel in our society
having to violate religious conviction in this way.

Kane however, would be gleeful as it feeds
his Child Protection "rescue fantasy".

And he doesn't believe in the Constitution anyway.
(Except when it serves his purpose)

> Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the transfusion to protect itself from liability.

Did ya notice that they got the guardianship
AFTER the transfusion? They had better have
really VERY solid proof that LIFE was in
danger, because taking such action BEFORE
a court order is a liability by itself.

Did ya notice that much more was said about
LIABILITY than about the life-and-death
urgency and proof that it was needed?

Doctor Mark, when a baby is born
underdeveloped, HOW do blood transfusions
really help?

At that immediate time, isn't the amount
of blood less than a high priority for
the infants system?

Aren't there other more pressing concerns
like kidney function and pulmonary dysfunction?

What circumstances would warrant such an
urgent need for a blood transfusion?

Please also comment on the fact that
no other transfusions were in fact ever needed.

Does that indicate anything?

I've read of a few cases where Doctors have
called Child Protection on parents who wanted
a second opinions. In at least one of these
cases, the first doctor was extremely pushy
about their solution being the ONLY one, and
amazingly the second opinion differed and was
proven by the results. It sure seems like some
doctors misuse the Child Protection threat as
a coercive method to squelch parents wanting
a second opinion.

ER nurses sometimes abusively call or threaten
to call Child Protection in order to "ride herd"
or "lord it" over people too. One RN in Missouri
last year made up quite a rediculous fairy tale
and called it in to Child Protection, rather than
follow the doctors directions (relayed by mother)
to have him paged immediately upon arrival.

The target mother was badly chosen.
There is now one less RN in Missouri.

What do you ""know"" about spiral fractures
in kids, Doctor Mark?

Ever heard of Paterson's research from
10 years ago?

Greg in Iowa

"Greg Hanson" <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:35120b16.0311182312.2ae9f526@posting.google.c om... Is Egg Plant just a nickname for Kane, the darling never-spanked potty mouth rabid atheist who hates all parents?

* Sorry,... but the answer is no. I don't know how Kane is.
--
MiKrobez & Egg Plant......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

The Worldwide Problem of Child Abuse and Jehovah's Witnesses
Is it Really a Pedophile Paradise ? What is the truth, what is the myth?

Myth 1: Jehovah's Witnesses protect children within their organization
against confessed or convicted child molesters.

The Truth is.
A confessed or convicted pedophile is allowed anonymity within the
Watchtower Organization. When a confessed or convicted pedophile moves from
one congregation to another, elders are supposed to send a letter to that
person to the new congregation. However, only the elders in the congregation
are privy to this information. No one within the congregation would be
informed of the pedophile's presence. Even the wives of the elders are not
to be given this information. This can be a real danger for children,
putting them into contact with a confessed or convicted pedophile.

There have been occasions when elders purposely withheld their children from
being around "known" pedophiles while other unknowing "publishers" (members
of the congregation) in the same congregation have had their children
molested because of not being informed of the pedophiles past.

"Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message news:<c-udncVAjJAwiSaiRVn-gQ@ilhawaii.net>... "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:F6Aub.1214307$Id.180989@news.easynews.com... "Rich Shewmaker" <rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote in message news:h6adnfenWafwHyeiRVn-jA@ilhawaii.net... "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message news:d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.c om... > "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... > > The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good > > doctors.. > > > > > My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your > children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return > the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the > constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? Where in the Constitution does it say that the state cannot protect a child from parental neglect? --Rich where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion is limited to parents and not to their children? Dead children have no religion. --Rich


I see so we are talking about dead children and not lives ones.. got it!

mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5ee850fe.0311181442.e80a4a@posting.google.com>... Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.com>... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? Should the state take my kids away if my religious beliefs include something about the sanctity of incest? What if I exercise the Biblical admonition to "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the point that I break some bones? Am I still constitutionally protected (whatever that means)?

It seems, that against the founding father wishes, they can intervene
when ever they want to.

How about if I am part of some goofy cult that believes you need to starve the "demons" out of a misbehaving child by locking them in a closet without food or water? Find a better example of "the constitution being violated". Mark, MD

Once again, it seem the state will determine what religious pratices
you follow
and which one you shouldn't.
and if they do.. then they are violating a parents right to freedom of
religion.

and amendement should be added therefore to the constition..

only adults have freedom.. your child does not.

"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion islimited to parents and not to their children?

And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions
on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but
had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent
cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the
detriment of a child's welfare.

On the other hand, if a Jehovah's Witness who is not a minor
wishes to refuse transfusions (and comes in conscious enough to
make an informed decision), the hospital will make no effort to
get any kind of court order to contravene their wishes.

If they come in unconscious, the assumption is that they want to
live no matter what any persons accompanying them might say -
unless someone happens to have a living will and medical power of
atty.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interferewith the religious beliefs of parents.

No: the parents may believe what they want to, refuse all the
transfusions they want to ... but they can't inflict those
beliefs on children.

If I believed that God told me to kill you, and cops prevented it
and the state locked me up -aren't they interfering with my
religious beliefs?



Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote:
Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the transfusion to protect itself from liability.Did ya notice that they got the guardianshipAFTER the transfusion? They had better havereally VERY solid proof that LIFE was indanger, because taking such action BEFOREa court order is a liability by itself.

The presumption of the courts is that the objective of a hospital
is to save lives.
Doctor Mark, when a baby is bornunderdeveloped, HOW do blood transfusionsreally help?

Oxygen transport is critical for infants. RBC transport oxygen,
so if the kid is anemic, they aren't getting enough oxgen to
their vital organs (blood is a vital organ ... try living without
it).

Infants, BTW, have a higher concentration of RBC than adults, for
several reasons. For one, they eventually destroy the surplus
and stach the iron for later. Also, it compensates for their
poor lung capacity.
At that immediate time, isn't the amountof blood less than a high priority forthe infants system?

No.
Aren't there other more pressing concernslike kidney function and pulmonary dysfunction?

Both of which are made worse by anemia, and helped by
transfusions. The best lungs in the world can't help you if you
don't have enough RBC to carry sufficient oxygen.
What circumstances would warrant such anurgent need for a blood transfusion?

Anemia with respiratory distress.
Please also comment on the fact thatno other transfusions were in fact ever needed.

If the anemia is due to blood loss at delivery, usually only one
transfusion is needed, to bring the hematocrit back to normal
levels for a newborn. It's an amazingly small quantity of blood
- the usual adult donor can provide transfusions for 6-10
newborns.
Does that indicate anything?

That there was no ongoing blood loss: no hemolytic anemia due to
blood type mismatches, no intestinal bleeding.



Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message news:<35120b16.0311182357.48d84d66@posting.google.com>... Ridley argued that the hospital received the guardianship after the transfusion to protect itself from liability. Did ya notice that they got the guardianship AFTER the transfusion? They had better have really VERY solid proof that LIFE was in danger, because taking such action BEFORE a court order is a liability by itself. Did ya notice that much more was said about LIABILITY than about the life-and-death urgency and proof that it was needed? Doctor Mark, when a baby is born underdeveloped, HOW do blood transfusions really help?

The transfusion is necessary in the case of marked anemia, because
such a state can put the kid into cardiac overdrive (dangerously
increased cardiac output), it can lead to less-effecient oxygenation,
taxing the already compromised ability of the lungs to do their job.
At that immediate time, isn't the amount of blood less than a high priority for the infants system?

All the systems need to be addressed at the same time; you can't just
say, "Let's intubate him now and worry about fluid status, sepsis,
anemia, feeding issues and all the other stuff later."
Aren't there other more pressing concerns like kidney function and pulmonary dysfunction? What circumstances would warrant such an urgent need for a blood transfusion? Please also comment on the fact that no other transfusions were in fact ever needed. Does that indicate anything?

It may indicate that there was something called fetal-maternal
transfusion at the time of delivery. If this happens, it's analogous
to draining off a huge portion of the baby's circulating blood volume.
It can be life-threatening in the acute, but once corrected it
doesn't come back.
I've read of a few cases where Doctors have called Child Protection on parents who wanted a second opinions. In at least one of these cases, the first doctor was extremely pushy about their solution being the ONLY one, and amazingly the second opinion differed and was proven by the results. It sure seems like some doctors misuse the Child Protection threat as a coercive method to squelch parents wanting a second opinion.

Those doctors who abuse their obligation to report suspicious behavior
to CPS face censure and loss of license...as well they should.
ER nurses sometimes abusively call or threaten to call Child Protection in order to "ride herd" or "lord it" over people too. One RN in Missouri last year made up quite a rediculous fairy tale and called it in to Child Protection, rather than follow the doctors directions (relayed by mother) to have him paged immediately upon arrival. The target mother was badly chosen. There is now one less RN in Missouri.

Excellent.
What do you ""know"" about spiral fractures in kids, Doctor Mark?

Quite a lot, thank you. I'm a pediatrician.
Ever heard of Paterson's research from 10 years ago?

Not specifically, but if you provide a reference, I'll gladly look it
up.
Greg in Iowa


Mark, MD

"Mark" <mlowry3@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5ee850fe.0311190701.3f47a148@posting.google.c om... Greegor@hotmail.com (Greg Hanson) wrote in message
news:<35120b16.0311182357.48d84d66@posting.google.com>... ER nurses sometimes abusively call or threaten to call Child Protection in order to "ride herd" or "lord it" over people too. One RN in Missouri last year made up quite a rediculous fairy tale and called it in to Child Protection, rather than follow the doctors directions (relayed by mother) to have him paged immediately upon arrival. The target mother was badly chosen. There is now one less RN in Missouri. Greg in Iowa

I suspect there are some details altered in this little story. In the first
place, nurses and doctors are required by law to report ANY SUSPECTED child
abuse to CPS. No licensing board would suspend a nurse for that action
alone.

Secondly, many patients come to the emergency room saying that "the doctor
said to have him paged immediately on our arrival." We recognize these
statements for the nonsense that they are. If a doctor wants such
notification, he calls US, he doesn't "relay by the mother." Doctors expect
us to do our job--initial assessment, completion of diagnostic studies,
etc., and THEN we call the patient's doctor.

Perhaps this doctor did tell the mother to have him paged, but no nurse
would ever be punished for not doing so.

--Rich

"Tsu Dho Nimh" <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:0asmrv8igib3j3t71djf3as51874in6cf0@4ax.com... "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion
islimited to parents and not to their children? And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the detriment of a child's welfare.

You seem to be saying that advances in medicine reduce the parental rights
to religious expression.

And, parents make decisions every day, that the child might not make, based
upon their religious convictions. We expect adults to make these sorts of
decisions, even if we might not have made the same decision ourselves. You
and I might not even agree with the decisions, but it is the right of the
parent to make them, not an obligation of government to make these decisions
for us.



On the other hand, if a Jehovah's Witness who is not a minor wishes to refuse transfusions (and comes in conscious enough to make an informed decision), the hospital will make no effort to get any kind of court order to contravene their wishes. If they come in unconscious, the assumption is that they want to live no matter what any persons accompanying them might say - unless someone happens to have a living will and medical power of atty. Tsu Dho Nimh -- When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or your kid and run for your life.

mlowry3@bellsouth.net (Mark) wrote in message news:<5ee850fe.0311181442.e80a4a@posting.google.com>... Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL) wrote in message news:<d222de3e.0311181138.1e6d1e9f@posting.google.com>... "Frank" <Frank@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<3fba35b5@news.infowest.com>... The Blood transfusion was clearly the right thing to do. Thanks be to good doctors.. My opinion at this point is the following. If the state take your children away from you based on your religious beliefs.. why return the kids? Let the state raise them feed them and clothes them. If the constitution is to be violated. then way do it half-***? Should the state take my kids away if my religious beliefs include something about the sanctity of incest? What if I exercise the Biblical admonition to "spare the rod and spoil the child" to the point that I break some bones? Am I still constitutionally protected (whatever that means)? How about if I am part of some goofy cult that believes you need to starve the "demons" out of a misbehaving child by locking them in a closet without food or water? Find a better example of "the constitution being violated". Mark, MD

Sad as my remark would seem...yes it will still be a violation.

Unless you can find a statue in the constitution or even
amendendments of exclusion. The goverment should not dictate
parameters of religious beliefs or practice.
The moments it does, the state is establishing a religion.
think about this, back to the JW case...

It seems that the states is prohibiting JW children to follow their
parents religion. It is that simple.

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311190401.60846089@posting.google.c om... It seems, that against the founding father wishes, they can intervene when ever they want to.

## When the child's life is at stake, why not? Once a child is born the
parent has the responsibility to do the best for the child where survival is
concerned.
Once again, it seem the state will determine what religious pratices you follow and which one you shouldn't. and if they do.. then they are violating a parents right to freedom of religion.

## So had someone tried to stop the religious fanatic in Nashville TN who
was convinced her god told her to put her child in the over and 500F ...
that would have been interfering with her freedom of religion? There was
no one there to save the child. By the time the smoke alerted a neighbor it
was too late. The youngster died a horrible death in the oven. The woman
truly believed god told her to do this..... it was HER religious belief that
she did the right thing.
and amendement should be added therefore to the constition.. only adults have freedom.. your child does not.

## Children aren't mature enough to make life and death decisions.
--
Koketta..........
"Welcome to the Watchtower God's Organization. Here
is the list of correct personal decisions. You may deviate
from them if you wish, but you'll be branded as spiritually
weak, and if we don't like you we'll do (disfellowship) you for not having
the right attitude. Enjoy your freedom." (Kirll)
~~~ }<(((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((Ô> ~~~ }<{{{{{(o>
~~~ }<{{{o>

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vrnbjq3pnvg37b@corp.supernews.com... Who decides that the parent is making the poor decisions?

* Anyone who CARES about the child in question's life, the Drs, the courts,
Child Protective Services, non-JW family members who love and care about
said child.

What if government decides that YOU are making poor decisions?

* If I am so incapacitated by religious mania or any other mind-affecting
affliction that will cost my child's life, then they are doing the right
thing to appoint a better qualified person to make the decisions.
If a parent has a religious conviction that they must treat illness with herbs and spices, or whatever, then can government step in and intervene
in the religious conviction fo the parent?

* In what circumstance? If the herbs will mean certain death for the child
I would hope someone sensible and caring steps in - wouldn't you? If you're
talking about treating a common cold or cut finger wit herbs and spices,
that's a different story. These are not life threatening conditions.

Isn't this a step towards government making laws respecting an establishment of religion? Which religions can government intervene upon?

* Any where a child is allowed to die from the parents neglecting proper
care and treatment.
I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their
right of religious freedom that is at stake. And, if they are in danger of
losing their religious freedom, then how long will it be before I lose my right
to religious freedom?

* No one cares about the parents religious beliefs or lack thereof. It's
the life of the child that comes first. They have all the religious freedom
they can handle here in the USA. They can worship Satan or a turtle for all
anyone cares.
Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs
in the balance.

* I disagree. Once born the child is a valued human being in it's own
right, including a right to continue to live - the parents have no right to
deprive this child of this life when it can easily be saved.

What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively to protect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government
will move again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have moved
so far as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice.

* That's panic-speak. Outlaw religion in America? LOL!!!!
When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that they have "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that
the parents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in
Child Protective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is not being beaten.
--
Egg Plant.......
SUBJECT: Best Bumper Sticker of the Year:
If you can read this, thank a teacher....
If you are reading it in English, thank an American Veteran
º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~ º¤º°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vrncocg4hmnf89@corp.supernews.com... We expect adults to make these sorts of decisions, even if we might not have made the same decision ourselves.

* They have no right to make a decision where an already born child will die
because of it. What gives them to right to speak for a child who can't
speak for itself when the decision will cost the youngster it's very life?

You and I might not even agree with the decisions, but it is the right of the parent to make them, not an obligation of government to make these
decisions for us.

* I would WANT the gov to make the decision to SAVE my life if I was unable
to speak for myself. Unable due to a young age and immaturity - or as an
incapacitated adult unable to speak for myself.
--
Egg Plant......
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education
and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a
poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
- Albert Einstein -
===========================

It frightens me that you would give so much power to government. We may as
well drop our babies off at the government collection points immediately
upon the birth of the child.

I do not think this parent/these parents are the sharpest knives in the
drawer, don't get me wrong. I just wonder if government really knows better.
Given the things that it so frequently screws up, I would guess that it is
not much better than these particular parents.

I don't buy into the JW religion at all, but it is a recognized religion. It
is just as valid as any other religion, and if it says that its members must
not receive blood, then that is what its members will do, even if it can
lead to the death of one of thier own. It is a sad death to be sure, maybe
even a preventable death with medical intervention. But, it is an illness we
are dealing with here, and the church members have faith that God will heal.
If God fails to heal, oh well.

When we allow government to impose religion in public schoolsupon children
that would otherwise not experience religion, we have a problem. We have the
same problem when we allow government to prevent a religion from practicing
freely. If we are going work so strenuously as to keep religion from
government, then we should work just as strenuously to keep government from
religion, no matter how we feel about the religion itself.

If any religion at all is bad for gorvernment, then it must also be true
that any government is bad for religion. And if mixing government and
religion is bad for the non-religious, then it is bad no matter which way
mixing is going. That is, adding religion to government is equally bad as
adding government to religion. This is true even when the religion is
blindly blocking medical treatment, and it is especially true when there is
no guarantee that the medical treatment that being blocked will even be
effective.




"~* Egg Plant *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc0ae7@news.heartoftn.net... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vrnbjq3pnvg37b@corp.supernews.com... Who decides that the parent is making the poor decisions? * Anyone who CARES about the child in question's life, the Drs, the
courts, Child Protective Services, non-JW family members who love and care about said child. What if government decides that YOU are making poor decisions? * If I am so incapacitated by religious mania or any other mind-affecting affliction that will cost my child's life, then they are doing the right thing to appoint a better qualified person to make the decisions. If a parent has a religious conviction that they must treat illness with herbs and spices, or whatever, then can government step in and intervene in the religious conviction fo the parent? * In what circumstance? If the herbs will mean certain death for the
child I would hope someone sensible and caring steps in - wouldn't you? If
you're talking about treating a common cold or cut finger wit herbs and spices, that's a different story. These are not life threatening conditions. Isn't this a step towards government making laws respecting an establishment of religion? Which religions can government intervene upon? * Any where a child is allowed to die from the parents neglecting proper care and treatment. I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their right of religious freedom that is at stake. And, if they are in danger of losing their religious freedom, then how long will it be before I lose my right to religious freedom? * No one cares about the parents religious beliefs or lack thereof. It's the life of the child that comes first. They have all the religious
freedom they can handle here in the USA. They can worship Satan or a turtle for
all anyone cares. Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs in the balance. * I disagree. Once born the child is a valued human being in it's own right, including a right to continue to live - the parents have no right
to deprive this child of this life when it can easily be saved. What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively to protect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government will move again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have
moved so far as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice. * That's panic-speak. Outlaw religion in America? LOL!!!! When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that they have "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that the parents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in Child Protective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is not being beaten. -- Egg Plant....... SUBJECT: Best Bumper Sticker of the Year: If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in English, thank an American Veteran º¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~ º¤º°`°¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤º ~*~ ~*~

"~* Egg Plant *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc0dbc@news.heartoftn.net... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vrncocg4hmnf89@corp.supernews.com... We expect adults to make these sorts of decisions, even if we might not have made the same decision ourselves. * They have no right to make a decision where an already born child will
die because of it. What gives them to right to speak for a child who can't speak for itself when the decision will cost the youngster it's very life?

As a parent, I DEMAND that right. I am willing to extend a right that I
demand to one that uses it in a manner that I might question. As soon as I
am not willing to give the same rights as I demand to another, I weaken my
position to demand those rights.

As the parent, I have the sole responsibility to make decisions for my
child. I refuse to yeild my parental rights to any government agency. You
should do the same.


You and I might not even agree with the decisions, but it is the right of
the parent to make them, not an obligation of government to make these decisions for us. * I would WANT the gov to make the decision to SAVE my life if I was
unable to speak for myself. Unable due to a young age and immaturity - or as an incapacitated adult unable to speak for myself. --

When you become a parent, ask yourself if you would want government to usurp
your parental rights and get itself into the middle of raising your
children.

As a matter of law, a minor child can make no decisions for himself or
herself. Minors will always have decisions made for them by adults, either
parents or an appointed guardian. We need to be very careful to appoint a
guardian where there are still parents.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 20:58:55 -1000, "Rich Shewmaker"
<rich@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
Dead children have no religion.

Now, dear Mr. Shewmaker, WHICH god recollected them into his workshop?

Regards

Aribert Deckers
--
Wichtiger Hinweis für Forums-Moderatoren, Webmaster und Arbeitslose
§ Strafanzeigen gegen MLM-er §

http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amaadmin.htm

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vro4mt5kkq6l4c@corp.supernews.com... As a parent, I DEMAND that right.

* You demand the right to allow a child who has the chance for a NORMAL life
die? Perhaps you need to relocate to a less advanced country where no one
cares much about the children.
As the parent, I have the sole responsibility to make decisions for my child. I refuse to yeild my parental rights to any government agency. You should do the same.

* Why? If I become too incompetent to make GOOD decisions due to religious
mania, some illness or accident I would hope someone takes over and saves my
loved one. Be that the Gov, a Dr, the courts.....
When you become a parent, ask yourself if you would want government to
usurp your parental rights and get itself into the middle of raising your children.

* I am a parent, and a grandparent. If I ever become too incompetent to
make GOOD rational decisions due to religious mania, some illness or
accident I would have hoped someone would take over and save my loved ones.
Be that the Gov, a Dr, the courts, a relative - anyone!
As a matter of law, a minor child can make no decisions for himself or herself. Minors will always have decisions made for them by adults, either parents or an appointed guardian. We need to be very careful to appoint a guardian where there are still parents.

* Unless the parents can't make rational decisions regarding the child's
life due to accident, mental illness, religious fanaticism, drug
abuse........ it's a long list.........
--
Egg Plant....
"Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires,
passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears
to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods,
and the belief in punishment after death."
Polybius -- Roman Historian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((o>

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:

If a parent has a religious conviction that they must treat illness withherbs and spices, or whatever, then can government step in and intervene inthe religious conviction fo the parent?

If the child has a life-threatening condition that the herbs and
spices aren't curing.
Isn't this a step towards government making laws respecting anestablishment of religion?

No.
Which religions can government intervene upon?

Any one whose beliefs put minors and bystanders at risk.
I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their rightof religious freedom that is at stake.

THEIR right to religious freedom ENDS at their noses - no one
will ever force a transfusion on an adult JW who refuses it.
However, a child should not have to die because of its parent's
religious beliefs. If the child grows up and decides to follow
the parent's beliefs, they can refuse all the transfusions they
want.

If they were satanists and believed that the firstborn child
had to be sacrificed ... is that OK with you? What if their
religious beliefs included sacrificing YOU?
Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs inthe balance. What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively toprotect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government willmove again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have moved sofar as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice.
When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that theyhave "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that theparents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in ChildProtective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is notbeing beaten.

Abuse includes "failure to care for", not just active acts of
abuse like beating.

Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

I don't buy into the JW religion at all, but it is a recognized religion. Itis just as valid as any other religion, and if it says that its members mustnot receive blood, then that is what its members will do, even if it canlead to the death of one of thier own.

Actually, their members are asked to sign a refusal form, one
that clearly informs them that they are turning down a
life-saving treatment of their own free will ... and no other
persons are allowed to make that decision for them. It's between
them and the medical staff.

Of the JWs I know who had to make that choice, one refused
transfusions and died, two decided to take the transfusions and
live.


Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Tsu Dho Nimh" <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the detriment of a child's welfare.You seem to be saying that advances in medicine reduce the parental rightsto religious expression.

No - I am saying that parents do not have the right to inflict
their beliefs on their children. They can workshipo what they
want, but not at the expense of their children's lives.

And, parents make decisions every day, that the child might not make, basedupon their religious convictions.

Yes, but a parent's not letting a child watch a certain TV show,
or attend a birthday party is not on the same level as letting
them die because the parent believes transfusions are religiously
prohibited.



Tsu Dho Nimh

--
When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
your kid and run for your life.

You have a right to believe as you will. You can believe in a religion
that prohibits blood transfusions. You can believe in a religion that
kills goats and burns them on an altar.

The govt can not limit your beliefs.

However, the govt can limit the practice of your religion.

As above, if you are burning the goat, and there is a law against air
pollution, you will not be allowed free exercise of your religion.

The govt cannot pass a law specifically aimed at the practice of your
religion. But if the govt passes a law that is generally applicable to
all people, and incidently impacts the exercise of your religion, you
may lose.

In the present case, the govt has a compelling interest in the welfare
of children.

Anyone whose child is in the hospital and refuses to allow the proper
care to be provided, for whatever reason, will be in the same situation.
The hospital will take whatever action the doctors deem necessary to
save the child's life.

I, too, applaud the doctors in this case.

j.

"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vro4mt5kkq6l4c@corp.supernews.com... "~* Egg Plant *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message news:3fbc0dbc@news.heartoftn.net... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vrncocg4hmnf89@corp.supernews.com... We expect adults to make these sorts of decisions, even if we might not have made the same decision ourselves. * They have no right to make a decision where an already born child will die because of it. What gives them to right to speak for a child who can't speak for itself when the decision will cost the youngster it's very
life? As a parent, I DEMAND that right. I am willing to extend a right that I demand to one that uses it in a manner that I might question. As soon as I am not willing to give the same rights as I demand to another, I weaken my position to demand those rights. As the parent, I have the sole responsibility to make decisions for my child. I refuse to yeild my parental rights to any government agency. You should do the same.

Jeff, thank you for standing up for a parents rights! I do not know what you
believe theistically speaking but I know well and good from God's Word that
Satan is going to use the authorities which lay in his power (1 John 5:19;
Mark 13:9) to persecute the true worshippers in the last days so this case
does not surprise me one bit (Matthew 5:11-12)


--
BEWARE! there are 4 people on this newsgroup who are only here to slander
and lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative
organization... as a matter of fact, two are admitted athiests (Matthew
12:30; John 8:44-47) I have all of their posts filtered out because they can
not hold an intelligent conversation and always resort to lies. They claim
to be quoting from Watch Tower literature but these are not exact quotes,
they change words and rearrange sentences. Hence I no longer reply to their
lies. They exist here only to destroy (1 Corinthians 10:6-11) They speak not
as Christians (Ephesians 4:31-32) I do not need to name them for by their
fruits you will recognize them (Matthew 7:16-20) The most important thing to
remember with people like this is what Christ taught us at Matthew 5:10-12

"L Perez" <LPerezDncr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c_ydnc5XQ9OYqiGiRVn-ig@comcast.com... Jeff, thank you for standing up for a parents rights! I do not know what
you believe theistically speaking but I know well and good from God's Word
that Satan is going to use the authorities which lay in his power (1 John 5:19; Mark 13:9)

** Heaven forbid the authorities step in and save a child's life that some
parent, suffering from religious fundamentalism, is willing to let die.

to persecute the true worshippers in the last days so this case does not surprise me one bit (Matthew 5:11-12)

** So Satan the wicked ghost is going to stop anyone from saving the life
of an innocent child? Typical religious mania babblings.......

A JW whines and moans.......
BEWARE! THE SKY ISN'T FALLING! There are people on this newsgroup who are
here to EXPOSE
the dirty TRUTH about Jehovah's Witnesses. To burst our bubble about
Watchtower Never Never Land. They do not offer any alternative organization
to suck our blood, to bleed us dry... and to do our thinking for us. To
control us as we are too weak and ignorant to live our lives without a
crutch. We NEED and must have and org' even though we know THIS to be
true: ->

"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the Christian sect in
horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has
sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you
ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire -
~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~ ~*~~~*~~~*

Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<hrsmrv02if68ntbb3k027ccqvgrtbvqfsv@4ax.com>... "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:Interesting, so the state will not return these children to their parents.and I guess the constitution give state goverment the right to interferewith the religious beliefs of parents. No: the parents may believe what they want to, refuse all the transfusions they want to ... but they can't inflict those beliefs on children.

non-sequitur... The state is determining how a parent should raise his child.
therfore they are establishing a religion. that is unconstitutional. If I believed that God told me to kill you, and cops prevented it and the state locked me up -aren't they interfering with my religious beliefs?

As a matter of law.. yes.. I guess I would not like your religion :-)

Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<l89orv0s3k3tbrcdalepmnj3jrqthmujv3@4ax.com>...I don't buy into the JW religion at all, but it is a recognized religion. Itis just as valid as any other religion, and if it says that its members mustnot receive blood, then that is what its members will do, even if it canlead to the death of one of thier own. Actually, their members are asked to sign a refusal form, one that clearly informs them that they are turning down a life-saving treatment of their own free will ... and no other persons are allowed to make that decision for them. It's between them and the medical staff. Of the JWs I know who had to make that choice, one refused transfusions and died, two decided to take the transfusions and live. Tsu Dho Nimh


It is not a matter of living or dying.. you have children who have
sign up with the armed forces who get killed in Iraq.

People die for what they belive in. many JW's who don't take
transfusions live.
I am one of them... I lived.. next time I may die.. so what?

Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<0asmrv8igib3j3t71djf3as51874in6cf0@4ax.com>... "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of religion islimited to parents and not to their children? And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the detriment of a child's welfare. On the other hand, if a Jehovah's Witness who is not a minor wishes to refuse transfusions (and comes in conscious enough to make an informed decision), the hospital will make no effort to get any kind of court order to contravene their wishes.


wrong,,, it happens all the time... I will pront some frightening experiances
about children being force to not follow thier parents religious beliefs.

JaBrIoL <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200717.3e157ce3@posting.google.c om... Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<0asmrv8igib3j3t71djf3as51874in6cf0@4ax.com>... "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:where in the constitution does it declare, that your freedom of
religion islimited to parents and not to their children? And that infant had not yet become able to voice its own opinions on the matter - it was born to parents of a certain religion, but had not itself made an informed choice of religions. A parent cannot extend their religious beliefs to their children to the detriment of a child's welfare. On the other hand, if a Jehovah's Witness who is not a minor wishes to refuse transfusions (and comes in conscious enough to make an informed decision), the hospital will make no effort to get any kind of court order to contravene their wishes. wrong,,, it happens all the time... I will pront some frightening
experiances about children being force to not follow thier parents religious beliefs.

So, that's a different situation than the situation Tsu described. She spoke
of JW's who were NOT minors. Adults can do what ever they want -in
principle- but children shouldn't be put in jeopardy because of the
religious believes of the parents.

--

Robert Bronsing

Can't you see?
It all makes perfect sense,
expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

(R. Waters)

I've notice in this thread, you may have read from Carol, under
different names an header certain phrases like: "fanatical religion"
and under such terms.

The thread is about goverment intervention on behalf of children, on
the basis that the goverment would violate the constitution about
religious freedom.
therefore wether an individual consider religion a cult, fantical
doomsaying group is not revelant to the thread. However a foot note
should be made about JW childcare. The children of Jehovah's Witnesses
are not being neglected or abused when parents decide against allowing
their beloved son or daughter to be given blood, requesting at the
same time the use of alternative therapies that modern medicine can
provide.

Even from a medical standpoint, this is not neglect or abuse,
considering the admitted dangers of transfusion therapy. It is an
exercise of the right to weigh the risks involved and then to choose
the treatment. Yet, legal provisions have been resorted to by some
medical personnel seeking authority to force an unwanted transfusion.
And this is where the goverment should not interfere, But it does. If
I would have known the Goverment to grants parents limited rights on
how a parents should raise their children then we are producing more
citizens for the state and controlled by the state, I would not have
considred my wife and I to have any. Another thing that is overlooked
is the medical dangers and risk of a blood transfusion even if many
considered them to be minimal.
Dr.*Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a
Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: "It is the most dangerous
substance we use in medicine."

The Surgery Annual concluded: "Clearly, the safest transfusion is
the one not given."

Because there is a much higher recurrence of cancer after surgery
where blood transfusions have been used, Dr.*John S.*Spratt said in
The American Journal of Surgery, issue of September 1986: "The cancer
surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon."

Now then, you may have Carol's staement that all health providers are
against JW's, because they are fantical. Well, Carol of ARJW fame,
only intent is to slander JW's, and attempts to create histeria with
broad unconfirm statement like: " everyone know"
to make the poster feel dumb and stupid for not knowing is a well
known Atheist ploy. (Carol is an atheist who belive all relgion are
fanatical, and more so if they are male dominated) Her statement never
have a valid refreance regardless.. However here is what the following
it said in the Medical field about the effort of JW's and medical care
for all of their family members, children included.

The journal Emergency Medicine said: "Our experience with Jehovah's
Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on
blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as
we once thought."

The journal Pathologist referred to the refusal of Jehovah's
Witnesses to take blood and said: "There is considerable evidence to
support their contention, despite protestations from blood bankers to
the contrary."

Dr.*Charles H.*Baron, professor of law at Boston College Law School,
said concerning Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood: "All of
American society has benefited. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but
patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary
blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses' Hospital
Liaison Committees."

A ethical question to the medical community, is.. what happen when a
child does, regardless of a forced induce blood transfusion?
Or when a blood transfusion, will only extend the life of a child,
even though the child is deemed terminal? Will the goverment pay for
the child medical bill and funeral costs?


In a hypthetical situation, if My custody of my child taken away from
me and made a ward of the state. My contract with the hospital is
fortited, and I should not pay a single penny. Also, I can refuse to
take custody of the child back ( I know parents will not do this in
general.. my ilustration is hypothetical). Why should I?

More important, what about the child itself? The feeling of guilt the
child will have, depending on his or her age of course, for failing
adherering to the parents religious beliefs?
Is the State going to force Pychological counseling to the child?
on the Parents?

I am sure nobody in the health field have the answers... well maybe
Carol has some simple smart *** remarks.. But then again her fame as
an e-mail forger and confirmed liar reduce her opinons to that of an
earthworm... If she goes home and service her husband, she would be
more productive.. still how would the legal and medical community
respond to the above?

"I've notice in this thread, you may have read from Carol, under
different names an header certain phrases like: "fanatical religion"
and under such terms.

The thread is about goverment intervention on behalf of children, on
the basis that the goverment would violate the constitution about
religious freedom.
therefore wether an individual consider religion a cult, fantical
doomsaying group is not revelant to the thread. However a foot note
should be made about JW childcare. The children of Jehovah's Witnesses
are not being neglected or abused when parents decide against allowing
their beloved son or daughter to be given blood, requesting at the
same time the use of alternative therapies that modern medicine can
provide.

Even from a medical standpoint, this is not neglect or abuse,
considering the admitted dangers of transfusion therapy. It is an
exercise of the right to weigh the risks involved and then to choose
the treatment. Yet, legal provisions have been resorted to by some
medical personnel seeking authority to force an unwanted transfusion.
And this is where the goverment should not interfere, But it does. If
I would have known the Goverment to grants parents limited rights on
how a parents should raise their children then we are producing more
citizens for the state and controlled by the state, I would not have
considred my wife and I to have any. Another thing that is overlooked
is the medical dangers and risk of a blood transfusion even if many
considered them to be minimal.
Dr.*Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a
Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: "It is the most dangerous
substance we use in medicine."

The Surgery Annual concluded: "Clearly, the safest transfusion is
the one not given."

Because there is a much higher recurrence of cancer after surgery
where blood transfusions have been used, Dr.*John S.*Spratt said in
The American Journal of Surgery, issue of September 1986: "The cancer
surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon."

Now then, you may have Carol's staement that all health providers are
against JW's, because they are fantical. Well, Carol of ARJW fame,
only intent is to slander JW's, and attempts to create histeria with
broad unconfirm statement like: " everyone know"
to make the poster feel dumb and stupid for not knowing is a well
known Atheist ploy. (Carol is an atheist who belive all relgion are
fanatical, and more so if they are male dominated) Her statement never
have a valid refreance regardless.. However here is what the following
it said in the Medical field about the effort of JW's and medical care
for all of their family members, children included.

The journal Emergency Medicine said: "Our experience with Jehovah's
Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on
blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as
we once thought."

The journal Pathologist referred to the refusal of Jehovah's
Witnesses to take blood and said: "There is considerable evidence to
support their contention, despite protestations from blood bankers to
the contrary."

Dr.*Charles H.*Baron, professor of law at Boston College Law School,
said concerning Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood: "All of
American society has benefited. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but
patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary
blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses' Hospital
Liaison Committees."

A ethical question to the medical community, is.. what happen when a
child does, regardless of a forced induce blood transfusion?
Or when a blood transfusion, will only extend the life of a child,
even though the child is deemed terminal? Will the goverment pay for
the child medical bill and funeral costs?


In a hypthetical situation, if My custody of my child taken away from
me and made a ward of the state. My contract with the hospital is
fortited, and I should not pay a single penny. Also, I can refuse to
take custody of the child back ( I know parents will not do this in
general.. my ilustration is hypothetical). Why should I?

More important, what about the child itself? The feeling of guilt the
child will have, depending on his or her age of course, for failing
adherering to the parents religious beliefs?
Is the State going to force Pychological counseling to the child?
on the Parents?

I am sure nobody in the health field have the answers... well maybe
Carol has some simple smart *** remarks.. But then again her fame as
an e-mail forger and confirmed liar reduce her opinons to that of an
earthworm... If she goes home and service her husband, she would be
more productive.. still how would the legal and medical community
respond to the above?

I've notice in this thread, you may have read from Carol, under
different names an header certain phrases like: "fanatical religion"
and under such terms.

The thread is about goverment intervention on behalf of children, on
the basis that the goverment would violate the constitution about
religious freedom.
therefore wether an individual consider religion a cult, fantical
doomsaying group is not revelant to the thread. However a foot note
should be made about JW childcare. The children of Jehovah's Witnesses
are not being neglected or abused when parents decide against allowing
their beloved son or daughter to be given blood, requesting at the
same time the use of alternative therapies that modern medicine can
provide.

Even from a medical standpoint, this is not neglect or abuse,
considering the admitted dangers of transfusion therapy. It is an
exercise of the right to weigh the risks involved and then to choose
the treatment. Yet, legal provisions have been resorted to by some
medical personnel seeking authority to force an unwanted transfusion.
And this is where the goverment should not interfere, But it does. If
I would have known the Goverment to grants parents limited rights on
how a parents should raise their children then we are producing more
citizens for the state and controlled by the state, I would not have
considred my wife and I to have any. Another thing that is overlooked
is the medical dangers and risk of a blood transfusion even if many
considered them to be minimal.
Dr.*Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a
Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: "It is the most dangerous
substance we use in medicine."

The Surgery Annual concluded: "Clearly, the safest transfusion is
the one not given."

Because there is a much higher recurrence of cancer after surgery
where blood transfusions have been used, Dr.*John S.*Spratt said in
The American Journal of Surgery, issue of September 1986: "The cancer
surgeon may need to become a bloodless surgeon."

Now then, you may have Carol's staement that all health providers are
against JW's, because they are fantical. Well, Carol of ARJW fame,
only intent is to slander JW's, and attempts to create histeria with
broad unconfirm statement like: " everyone know"
to make the poster feel dumb and stupid for not knowing is a well
known Atheist ploy. (Carol is an atheist who belive all relgion are
fanatical, and more so if they are male dominated) Her statement never
have a valid refreance regardless.. However here is what the following
it said in the Medical field about the effort of JW's and medical care
for all of their family members, children included.

The journal Emergency Medicine said: "Our experience with Jehovah's
Witnesses might be interpreted to mean that we do not need to rely on
blood transfusions, with all their potential complications, as much as
we once thought."

The journal Pathologist referred to the refusal of Jehovah's
Witnesses to take blood and said: "There is considerable evidence to
support their contention, despite protestations from blood bankers to
the contrary."

Dr.*Charles H.*Baron, professor of law at Boston College Law School,
said concerning Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood: "All of
American society has benefited. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but
patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary
blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses' Hospital
Liaison Committees."

A ethical question to the medical community, is.. what happen when a
child does, regardless of a forced induce blood transfusion?
Or when a blood transfusion, will only extend the life of a child,
even though the child is deemed terminal? Will the goverment pay for
the child medical bill and funeral costs?


In a hypthetical situation, if My custody of my child taken away from
me and made a ward of the state. My contract with the hospital is
fortited, and I should not pay a single penny. Also, I can refuse to
take custody of the child back ( I know parents will not do this in
general.. my ilustration is hypothetical). Why should I?

More important, what about the child itself? The feeling of guilt the
child will have, depending on his or her age of course, for failing
adherering to the parents religious beliefs?
Is the State going to force Pychological counseling to the child?
on the Parents?

I am sure nobody in the health field have the answers... well maybe
Carol has some simple smart *** remarks.. But then again her fame as
an e-mail forger and confirmed liar reduce her opinons to that of an
earthworm... If she goes home and service her husband, she would be
more productive.. still how would the legal and medical community
respond to the above?

The freedom of religion is not absolute.

Your freedom to raise your children as you will is not absolute.

You will provide your children with a minimally acceptable level of care.

If you do not, the the state can act. If you fail to change the
situation, the state can take your children from you, either temporarily
or permanently.

If you object, tough.

The child welfare agencies in most states are very proactive in their
task.

Their stated goal is to protect children, and unfortunately, for some,
they know it.

Every state has mandated reporter, who are obligated by law, to report
suspected cases of child abuse, which includes medical neglect, as well
as physical abuse.

In the matter at hand, refusing to allow a deathly ill child to get a
blood transfusion is medical neglect.

j.

As to parents and their children's religious beliefs, my children do not
believe as I do. And thatis their choice.

I cannot justify by any means refusing medical care for a child, due to
the parent's religious or otherwise beliefs.

Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message news:<8q8orvg013ocud6jsh9vqko9uabv2eoj6k@4ax.com>... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Which religions can government intervene upon? Any one whose beliefs put minors and bystanders at risk.


Stated in the American constituion ...... where exaxctly?
I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their rightof religious freedom that is at stake. THEIR right to religious freedom ENDS at their noses - no one will ever force a transfusion on an adult JW who refuses it.

wrong the state of Florida in fact did this against a JW adult. On the
instance of the Father who had political pull as well as money.
However, a child should not have to die because of its parent's religious beliefs. If the child grows up and decides to follow the parent's beliefs, they can refuse all the transfusions they want.


And who instruct the child, that the child is not obligated to follow
his parents religious beliefs until he is an adult?
If they were satanists and believed that the firstborn child had to be sacrificed ... is that OK with you? What if their religious beliefs included sacrificing YOU?Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs inthe balance. What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively toprotect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government willmove again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have moved sofar as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice.When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that theyhave "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that theparents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in ChildProtective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is notbeing beaten. Abuse includes "failure to care for", not just active acts of abuse like beating. Tsu Dho Nimh

And who determines, what "constitute a failure to care for" defined
as?

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200414.17f22180@posting.google.c om... Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message > > No: the
parents may believe what they want to, refuse all the transfusions they want to ... but they can't inflict those beliefs on children. non-sequitur... The state is determining how a parent should raise his
child. therfore they are establishing a religion. that is unconstitutional. If I believed that God told me to kill you, and cops prevented it and the state locked me up -aren't they interfering with my religious beliefs?
As a matter of law.. yes.. I guess I would not like your religion :-)
==================
But you do like a religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses, that tell you to allow
your children to die, to in effect KILL them so as not to offend their
special-edition god. And all over a mistranslation by men who knew neither
Greek or Hebrew.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"Say not the Struggle nought Availeth" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:mU6vb.31450$dP2.22142@newssvr31.news.prodigy. com... As to parents and their children's religious beliefs, my children do not believe as I do. And thatis their choice.

## Remember that Jabriol's daughter rejected the Watchtower Publishing House
religion known as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Jabriol TURNED on this girl
like a starving wolf. He forced her and her baby from her home with them
and abandoned them both. There is no freedom of religious choice in a JW
home. These people put the WTS ahead of and before their children. If it
costs them the child or loved ones life - so be it. They will then SHUN the
child or loved one like people shunned lepers in biblical times. This
religion can be very dangerous to families, and especially dependant
children too young to speak and decide for themselves if they want to live
or die.
I cannot justify by any means refusing medical care for a child, due to the parent's religious or otherwise beliefs.

## I agree with you. Once born, a child is an individual in her/her own
right. We have no right to take away that child's chance for life and
happiness because of our "religious beliefs."
--
Reel......
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in
horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has
sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you
ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire -
~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~ ~*~~~*~~~*

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200856.35b15afa@posting.google.c om... I've notice in this thread, you may have read from Carol, under different names an header certain phrases like: "fanatical religion" and under such terms.

# Yes, everyone knows what fanatical religions are capable of. Think
allowing an innocent child to die because of the mistranslation made by
uneducated men with no knowledge of Greek and Hebrew at the Watchtower Corp.
Think 9/11 and the WTC for starters. Think fanatical car bombers killing
indiscriminately, themselves included in the destruction...... people do
horrible things in the name of their god/gods. They always did and probably
always will.
The thread is about goverment intervention on behalf of children, on the basis that the goverment would violate the constitution about religious freedom.

# Which saves thousands of innocent lives each year. Fanatical religious
freedoms END where life and death of children come in.. If you don't like
it you are welcome to LEAVE the USA and find a better place to live.
What if someone wanted to kill YOU as a sacrifice because it's their
religious belief, or they claim it is? Why not just legalize child-murder
so every unstable murderous crack-pot out there can do away with their
children in the name of "religious freedom"... that would be the next step.
I suppose you will soon start defending the Moslem extremists who want to
blow up buildings killing thousands of innocent people - because it's part
of their religious beliefs. We can't violate their religious freedoms now
can we?
therefore wether an individual consider religion a cult, fantical doomsaying group is not revelant to the thread. However a foot note should be made about JW childcare. The children of Jehovah's Witnesses are not being neglected or abused when parents decide against allowing their beloved son or daughter to be given blood, requesting at the same time the use of alternative therapies that modern medicine can provide.

# There is nothing to replace blood when someone is hemmeraging (sp?) or
bleeding out rapidly. There are other cases as well where only blood will
save the person.
Even from a medical standpoint, this is not neglect or abuse, considering the admitted dangers of transfusion therapy. It is an exercise of the right to weigh the risks involved and then to choose the treatment. Yet, legal provisions have been resorted to by some medical personnel seeking authority to force an unwanted transfusion.

# And were is the evidence that the child died BECAUSE of the transfusion?
And this is where the goverment should not interfere, But it does. If I would have known the Goverment to grants parents limited rights on how a parents should raise their children then we are producing more citizens for the state and controlled by the state, I would not have considred my wife and I to have any.

# Or you can leave America and take up residence somewhere else where no one
cares how you raise them, or what you believe. Religious freedom ends where
it means death or life of a child. A child should not pay for the
religious mania or fanaticism of it's parents. What happens if the parents
realize the religion had them duped but the child is already dead? Do they
sue the Watchtower Corp, do they sue the Gov' for not protecting the child
while they were in this religion's grip? Nothing brings the child back.

Another thing that is overlooked is the medical dangers and risk of a blood transfusion even if many considered them to be minimal. Dr. Charles Huggins, director of blood transfusion services at a Massachusetts, U.S.A., hospital, said: "It is the most dangerous substance we use in medicine."

# There are many things in medicine that can be, and are dangerous - but
they save lives every day.
The Surgery Annual concluded: "Clearly, the safest transfusion is the one not given."

# Don't forget that you can set-aside your own blood before surgery. Now
don't cry that that isn't safe. I did it before my surgery - and my husband
gave also, in case I needed a transfusion. In an emergency you do whatever
it takes to save a life.
Now then, you may have Carol's staement that all health providers are against JW's, because they are fantical.

# Carol never made any such statement and you have never provided ONE SHRED
of proof to back up your endless allegations against this women. As a
Jehovahs Witness you should know that false accusation against other costs
you your eternal life in the Watchtowers Paradise when you die.

Well, Carol of ARJW fame, only intent is to slander JW's, and attempts to create histeria with broad unconfirm statement like: " everyone know" to make the poster feel dumb and stupid for not knowing is a well known Atheist ploy.

# You are dumb since you make baseless accusation with no proof although
all posts are archived on Google. We're tired of hearing you whine and rant
about Carol.
A ethical question to the medical community, is.. what happen when a child does, regardless of a forced induce blood transfusion? Or when a blood transfusion, will only extend the life of a child, even though the child is deemed terminal? Will the goverment pay for the child medical bill and funeral costs?

# Yes, if the parents can't. Will the Watchtower Society pay the child's
medical and funeral bills if the child dies without the transfusion? If
*not* than you have no argument. If so, then post the phone # of the
"Watchtower Benefits Division" so JWs reading this can call and have the WTS
cover the expenses. As far as we know the WTS pays NOTHING as far as
medical bills and funeral expenses - no matter how or where a JW dies.
In a hypthetical situation, if My custody of my child taken away from me and made a ward of the state. My contract with the hospital is fortited, and I should not pay a single penny. Also, I can refuse to take custody of the child back ( I know parents will not do this in general.. my ilustration is hypothetical). Why should I?

# Because you're the parent and are supposed to love the child? Because
it's you responsibility even when you rejected the child as you did you own
daughter and her infant?
More important, what about the child itself? The feeling of guilt the child will have, depending on his or her age of course, for failing adherering to the parents religious beliefs?

# Guilt would not be there unless the parents themselves PUT it there. They
can tell the child it was against their beliefs and there is no reason to
feel GUILT. Using GUILT is a disgusting way to get someone to do your will.
Many religions rely on it to keep their flocks in order.
Is the State going to force Pychological counseling to the child? on the Parents?

# Is the Watchtower Society paying for the counseling of the children and
parents damaged by their pedophiles they so carefully hid over the years?
See http://www.silentlambs.com . How much does the WTS shell out for their
psychiatrists and counselors a year since JWs started coming forward?
Hundreds of thousands? Millions in settlements? Nothing?
I am sure nobody in the health field have the answers... well maybe Carol has some simple smart *** remarks.. But then again her fame as an e-mail forger and confirmed liar reduce her opinons to that of an earthworm...

# We're still waiting, months now, for PROOF of you allegations against
Carol. You have yet to provide anything but mindless rants and idiotic
babblings.

If she goes home and service her husband, she would be more productive.. still how would the legal and medical community respond to the above?
--
MiKrobez & Ida (Mike and IdaMae Krobe Gronnlie) ......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200430.3d3fb99b@posting.google.c om... Tsu Dho Nimh <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:<l89orv0s3k3tbrcdalepmnj3jrqthmujv3@4ax.com>...I don't buy into the JW religion at all, but it is a recognized
religion. Itis just as valid as any other religion, and if it says that its members
mustnot receive blood, then that is what its members will do, even if it
canlead to the death of one of thier own. Actually, their members are asked to sign a refusal form, one that clearly informs them that they are turning down a life-saving treatment of their own free will ... and no other persons are allowed to make that decision for them. It's between them and the medical staff. Of the JWs I know who had to make that choice, one refused transfusions and died, two decided to take the transfusions and live. Tsu Dho Nimh It is not a matter of living or dying.. you have children who have sign up with the armed forces who get killed in Iraq. People die for what they belive in. many JW's who don't take transfusions live. I am one of them... I lived.. next time I may die.. so what?

My point exactly.

When you get to this crossroad in your life, that is the crossroad where you
are confronted with a life or death decision for your child, I hope that
your decision is the one the gives life to your child. I would never pretend
to know more than God, and therefore impose my decision making upon you. I
do not agree with the JWs on practically any level, but how in Hell can I
know that I am right and you are wrong? Maybe, just maybe, it is you guys
that are living right, and I am destined to burn in Hell.

It all comes down to faith. I have mine, you have yours. And, we never need
government imposing itself upon our faith.

Live long and prosper, my friend. And, may my faith be the right one.
<hehehe>

"Tsu Dho Nimh" <tsudhonimh@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:8q8orvg013ocud6jsh9vqko9uabv2eoj6k@4ax.com... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:If a parent has a religious conviction that they must treat illness withherbs and spices, or whatever, then can government step in and intervene
inthe religious conviction fo the parent? If the child has a life-threatening condition that the herbs and spices aren't curing.Isn't this a step towards government making laws respecting anestablishment of religion? No.

Perhaps IF this is the only time government steps in. But, what if tomorrow
another case comes along, and the next day another, then another, and so on.
What do we do when there is a link back to this case that allows government
to step in again in the future? What do we do when, in the future,
government steps in and says it is required to do so; not just allowed to,
but required to?


Which religions can government intervene upon? Any one whose beliefs put minors and bystanders at risk.I happen to disagree with the JW parents in this case, but it is their
rightof religious freedom that is at stake. THEIR right to religious freedom ENDS at their noses - no one will ever force a transfusion on an adult JW who refuses it. However, a child should not have to die because of its parent's religious beliefs. If the child grows up and decides to follow the parent's beliefs, they can refuse all the transfusions they want.

Not at all. If a parent's right to religious freedom ends at his or her
nose, then parents have no parental rights at all. And, that is entirely
wrong.


If they were satanists and believed that the firstborn child had to be sacrificed ... is that OK with you? What if their religious beliefs included sacrificing YOU?

We are talking about forced medical attention that has no certainty that it
will even work. We are talking about a forced medical procedure that is an
experiment. The parents do not want to participate in the experiment. They
have a religious conviction that precludes them from accepting a blood
transfusion. We are not talkig about sacrificing virgins. Sheesh.


Government has no place in this issue, even if the life of a child hangs
inthe balance. What will happen is that government will move pre-emptively
toprotect other children from religious fanatic parents, then government
willmove again, then again, then again. Eventually government will have moved
sofar as to outlaw religion, or severely restrict its practice.When the parents take the kid to the hospital some day and say that theyhave "tried everything," the doctors can then make a determination that
theparents have done nothing of substance to help the child, and call in
ChildProtective Services and level abuse charges. The child is ill, it is notbeing beaten. Abuse includes "failure to care for", not just active acts of abuse like beating.

We are talking about the forced acceptance of a blood transfusion that might
not even fix the illness. We must never force a parent to accept medical
treatment that is experimental at best. This is a medical procedure that
just a few generations ago wasn't even available, and people died all the
time.

"~* Egg Plant *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fbc228e@news.heartoftn.net... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vro4mt5kkq6l4c@corp.supernews.com... As a parent, I DEMAND that right. * You demand the right to allow a child who has the chance for a NORMAL
life die? Perhaps you need to relocate to a less advanced country where no one cares much about the children.

You are completely missing the point.

While I demand that I maintain parental authority over my children, I must
assume that other parents make the same demand. Just because I might not
agree with parental decisions those parents might make is not grounds to
deny them the right to make those decisions.

It turns out that the child might die EVEN IT it gets the transfusion. Even
the doctors don't know for sure that the child will survive after the
transfusion is done. Why should we demand a parent accept an experimental
medical procedure?

You and I probably would accept the procedure in a last-ditch effort to keep
our kid(s), but can we impose our decision making processes on another
parent? Even if the result might be the death of a child, I can not impose
my decision upon another because then pretty soon somebody would be imposing
their decision on my kid(s).


As the parent, I have the sole responsibility to make decisions for my child. I refuse to yeild my parental rights to any government agency.
You should do the same. * Why? If I become too incompetent to make GOOD decisions due to
religious mania, some illness or accident I would hope someone takes over and saves
my loved one. Be that the Gov, a Dr, the courts.....
Can I say that you are imcompetent just because you make a decision tha tI
might make differently? That is a very poor standard.


When you become a parent, ask yourself if you would want government to usurp your parental rights and get itself into the middle of raising your children. * I am a parent, and a grandparent. If I ever become too incompetent to make GOOD rational decisions due to religious mania, some illness or accident I would have hoped someone would take over and save my loved
ones. Be that the Gov, a Dr, the courts, a relative - anyone!
But, are you imcompetent just because you reject an experimental medical
procedure?


As a matter of law, a minor child can make no decisions for himself or herself. Minors will always have decisions made for them by adults,
either parents or an appointed guardian. We need to be very careful to appoint
a guardian where there are still parents. * Unless the parents can't make rational decisions regarding the child's life due to accident, mental illness, religious fanaticism, drug abuse........ it's a long list.........


What are you talking about? None of these issues are at play in this case.

Religious fanaticism is NEVER a reason to usurp parental rights. Never. The
day we can usurp parental rights solely because of religious fanaticism is
the day that our government can say that to have parental rights, the parent
must not be of a particular religion. Or worse, government can say that
parents must be of no religion, or of government's own religion.

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200430.3d3fb99b@posting.google.c om... It is not a matter of living or dying.. you have children who have sign up with the armed forces who get killed in Iraq.

$$ Children? The armed services doesn't take "children."
People die for what they belive in. many JW's who don't take transfusions live. I am one of them... I lived.. next time I may die.. so what?

$$ Just because YOU don't value your life doesn't mean everyone else feels
the same. If you weren't so unhappy, so stressed out, so sick, so bored
with your life perhaps you would value it more.
--
MiKrobez & Ida......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d222de3e.0311200423.5c4a838f@posting.google.c om... what if the child mentioned to the judge, that being pregnant before marraige is aginst the child parents belief,, or an Abortion is against the parents beliefs... how would a Judge decide then?
===========
Children are not required by law or adopt the beliefs of their parents.
Loving, supporting, compassionate parents do not cram their religious
beliefs (or any beliefs) down the throats of their children - with innuendos
that'll disown and shun them if they rejects such beliefs.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
================================================== ==><>

"~* Reel McKoi *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message
news:3fbd2d23@news.heartoftn.net... "JaBrIoL" <Jabriol@excite.com> wrote in message news:d222de3e.0311200430.3d3fb99b@posting.google.c om... It is not a matter of living or dying.. you have children who have sign up with the armed forces who get killed in Iraq. $$ Children? The armed services doesn't take "children." People die for what they belive in. many JW's who don't take transfusions live. I am one of them... I lived.. next time I may die.. so what? $$ Just because YOU don't value your life doesn't mean everyone else
feels the same. If you weren't so unhappy, so stressed out, so sick, so bored with your life perhaps you would value it more. --

This statement is precisely the problem. You are suggesting that because his
value of life differs from yours, then his value of life must be wrong.
Clearly, his value of life is wrong when held up to yours, but his religious
values are different than yours. You are suggesting that government can and
should make life value judgements when a person makes those judgements
differently than you would.

Perhaps this person is happy to be alive, has no stress, is exicted beyond
our measure, but still has his faith system that directs him to make certain
choices. He makes those choices and lives or dies with the result. Are we to
have government force us to make decisions that will only guarantee results
that end with life? I don't know about your government, but my government
has repeatedly shown that it has no ability to make the right choices each
and every time. Indeed, my government fails more often than not.

"L Perez" <LPerezDncr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c_ydnc5XQ9OYqiGiRVn-ig@comcast.com... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vro4mt5kkq6l4c@corp.supernews.com... "~* Egg Plant *~" <nojws@myhouse.com> wrote in message news:3fbc0dbc@news.heartoftn.net... "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:vrncocg4hmnf89@corp.supernews.com... > We expect adults to make these sorts of > decisions, even if we might not have made the same decision
ourselves. * They have no right to make a decision where an already born child
will die because of it. What gives them to right to speak for a child who
can't speak for itself when the decision will cost the youngster it's very life? As a parent, I DEMAND that right. I am willing to extend a right that I demand to one that uses it in a manner that I might question. As soon as
I am not willing to give the same rights as I demand to another, I weaken
my position to demand those rights. As the parent, I have the sole responsibility to make decisions for my child. I refuse to yeild my parental rights to any government agency.
You should do the same. Jeff, thank you for standing up for a parents rights! I do not know what
you believe theistically speaking but I know well and good from God's Word
that Satan is going to use the authorities which lay in his power (1 John 5:19; Mark 13:9) to persecute the true worshippers in the last days so this case does not surprise me one bit (Matthew 5:11-12)

Well, parental rights is the fundamental issue here. The issue is cloaked in
religion, but it is really one of parental rights.

Apart from where I personally stand on religion, you and I have the right
and responsibility to raise our children. We make decisions about them each
and every day, frequently several times a day. We seldom are faced with life
and death decisions, in fact I would venture a guess that most of us are
never faced with decisions of this magnitude. Most of us only have to decide
that Suzy's blouse fits too tightly, Johnny's pants hang too low, and that
the programs on TV suck. Some of us graduate to more weighty decisions, like
which college Suzy and Johnny will attend. We base many of our decisions on
where we stand relative to our religion, or the lack of it. Some would have
us believe that the simple decisions, Suzy's blouse, Johnny's pants, and the
idiot box in the corner, can be made from a perspective of religious values,
and this is marginally OK. But, they seem to think that the life and death
decisions must exclude any input from religion. I submit that exactly the
opposite is true; Suzy's blouse, Johnny's pants, et al are all decisions
that can, and perhaps should, be made independant of religion, and the life
or death decisions require religious input to make them correctly. I might
not agree with the decisions you make, but it is your child that you making
decisions for, not mine.

I only know one set of parents that had to make life and death decision for
a child, and they turned to the Lord for their guidance. That child had some
kind of heart problem at birth, and they had to decide to get a transplant
or not. When I was born, if I had problem with my heart, there would have
been no option. My parents would have had no choice to make, other than
which box to buy. The Lord would not have provided much guidance in picking
out a box. How can I fault a parent that accepts the malformed heart as
being from God, and turns the child over to God as a result? Just because I
might not have the faith that God will heal my kid, and I opt for the
transplant instead, how can I or anybody else judge a mother and father that
choose to obey the Lord and pass on a new heart or a fresh blood supply?



-- BEWARE! there are 4 people on this newsgroup who are only here to slander and lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative organization... as a matter of fact, two are admitted athiests (Matthew 12:30; John 8:44-47) I have all of their posts filtered out because they
can not hold an intelligent conversation and always resort to lies. They claim to be quoting from Watch Tower literature but these are not exact quotes, they change words and rearrange se