eyinjuege:


In other climes, minors (usually younger than 17 or so) cannot make that decision to refuse blood, and they're not taken to any judge to decide any nonsense. Stop speaking what you do not know. Infact, the law is designed in such a way the child is only allowed to accept treatment and not refuse it.
In other climes, they have procedures in place in hospitals for parents that refuse emergency treatment including blood transfusion for their children. The courts long gave the powers to professionals to make that decision for the child and all necessary paper work is done and dusted within a few minutes.
They understand the need to avoid delays in emergency situations. That's why I even blamed the hospital for wasting so much time, and for not having such procedures in place in the first instance.
As I mentioned earlier, I have no issues with JWs exercising their rights to refuse any form of treatment. Afterall you're not stupid and you are entitled to your own beliefs and preferences. However in children, you simply have no rights legally to makes such a decision of refusing life saving treatment for them
As per your HLC going around to educate hospital staff on alternatives to blood transfusion, they can do better. It's better you go to medical schools worldwide and change their curriculum instead of telling hospital staff to do what hasn't been proscribed. (That's a sure way to lose your licence by withholding blood transfusion in a child that needs it).
If your teachings are not accepted by competent professional peers in the field, then kindly spare us the theatrics.

Even in the USA, the laws of each State are different, what obtains in State of A" maybe different from State B".
The Judge is in a position to determine whether or not to allow a Minor's testimony, on a case by case basis. Every minor do not possess the same capacity for understanding or conviction about any matter.
JWs usually respect the outcome of Court judgements.
**************
Hardly will you find a medical journal that has never published research findings about bloodless medical procedures and breakthroughs in that aspect.
Many medical professionals are already aware of these advances, there is positive progress, more will come....
The HLC have done well to promote cordial relationship and better understanding of JW positions on alternatives to bloodless medical treatment.
Both sides are very interested & committed to better, improved healthcare for patients who are Jehovah's witnesses.
JWs respect & appreciate the medical professionals for their understanding and cooperation.
God bless.

eyinjuege:


By people having faith, you're not talking of JW are you? Your faith is nothing to be desired my dear. It leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth.
I believe in humanity, I believe in the sanctity of life. I have many things I truthfully believe in.
Again, regarding Serena Williams, there was never any transfusion saga. Seun created a thread based on assumptions and wondered if it was because of blood transfusion as a JW that Serena had issues after childbirth. I made known to him and yourself that forming blood clots in the lungs and its treatment had nothing to do with transfusion, and Serena's beliefs as a JW. Serena never needed blood, so there is no saga as per blood transfusion, no matter how much you want to believe that narrative

Perhaps you should watch this video on her birth complications and it will explain further there was never any blood transfusion issue.
There's another video where you hear her talk personally about her ordeals (on HBO, YouTube) but sadly I cannot access that video anymore.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OVuDXJtUgQ

Regarding our beliefs that's not desirable to humans, you're 100% correct. John 3:19

Because we are NO PART of the world {John 17:14-16} so our beliefs are totally strange to any human society, all of you are carrying about the old personality {Romans 6:6, Ephesians 422, Colossians 3:9} whereas Jehovah's Witnesses have also lived with it before.

So now that we are striving vigorous to put on the new personality that was created in God's image {Luke 13:24 compared to Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10} any right thinking individual shouldn't except such teachings that's powerful enough to CHANGE people from what is common to something unique to be DESIRABLE! Mark 3:21, John 10:20 compared to Act 24:26

But it will definitely yield fine fruits! Matthew 5:14-16

Janosky:

Even in the USA, the laws of each State are different, what obtains in State of A" maybe different from State B".
The Judge is in a position to determine whether or not to allow a Minor's testimony, on a case by case basis. Every minor do not possess the same capacity for understanding or conviction about any matter.
JWs usually respect the outcome of Court judgements.

Hardly will you find a medical journal that has never published research findings about bloodless medical procedures and breakthroughs in that aspect.
Many medical professionals are already aware of these advances, there is positive progress, more will come....
The HLC have done well to promote cordial relationship and better understanding of JW positions on alternatives to bloodless medical treatment.
Both sides are very interested & committed to better, improved healthcare for patients who are Jehovah's witnesses.
JWs respect & appreciate the medical professionals for their understanding and cooperation.
God bless.

While laws in USA differs from state to state, there are some non negotiable instances where it is a standard, and I believe this is one of such. No state will allow you jeopardise a child's life. Please kindly do a bit of more research, and let us know which state has a different approach in the care of their children. Do not assume anything as this is a very serious matter. Do not just wave it away and make hasty generalisations as though we're not talking of human lives here.
Passing down wrong information is far worse than passing no information at all.
I really have no problems with JW and their beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I completely understand and respect our differences.
However, in the case of children, parents don't have the absolute right on the life or death of their children. Have you read this article yet?
https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715

Maximus69:


Regarding our beliefs that's not desirable to humans, you're 100% correct. John 3:19

Because we are NO PART of the world {John 17:14-16} so our beliefs are totally strange to any human society, all of you are carrying about the old personality {Romans 6:6, Ephesians 422, Colossians 3:9} whereas Jehovah's Witnesses have also lived with it before.

So now that we are striving vigorous to put on the new personality that was created in God's image {Luke 13:24 compared to Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:10} any right thinking individual shouldn't except such teachings that's powerful enough to CHANGE people from what is common to something unique to be DESIRABLE! Mark 3:21, John 10:20 compared to Act 24:26

But it will definitely yield fine fruits! Matthew 5:14-16

You are quoting bible verses for me, and yet also trying to convince me on the advancement of science and how non blood products are superior and have an advantage over blood products.
Odiegwu

eyinjuege:


While laws in USA differs from state to state, there are some non negotiable instances where it is a standard, and I believe this is one of such. No state will allow you jeopardise a child's life. Please kindly do a bit of more research, and let us know which state has a different approach in the care of their children. Do not assume anything as this is a very serious matter. Do not just wave it away and make hasty generalisations as though we're not talking of human lives here.
Passing down wrong information is far worse than passing no information at all.
I really have no problems with JW and their beliefs. I may not agree with them, but I completely understand and respect our differences.
However, in the case of children, parents don't have the absolute right on the life or death of their children. Have you read this article yet?
https://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715

Pls, don't get me wrong.
I have never passed any wrong info on this thread.
Note, I have already said "JWs usually respect the outcomes of court judgments" whether or not it is in our (JW) favor.
That your link didn't open,not accessible now.

Pls see this:

https://forum.ashrm.org/2018/03/29/risks-and-legal-issues-in-caring-for-minor-jehovahs-witness-patients/





eyinjuege:


You are quoting bible verses for me, and yet also trying to convince me on the advancement of science and how non blood products are superior and have an advantage over blood products.
Odiegwu

You see what i mean!

Your God has mouth but it's speechless, it has ears but can't hear, eyes but can't see! Psalms 115:4-8

My own God is the Creator, he is not teaching us science but when he speaks of any topic in SCIENCE, no matter how diligent those in that field study it or make research, they'll come back to bow before the WISDOM found in the words of my own God! Isaiah 55:9-11
That's why his son gave us the command to go and knock on anybody's doors with confidence, {Matthew 10:11-13, 28:19-20} because the principles found in the words of our God surpasses all human philosophy and wisdom! Ephesians 3:19

So don't be surprised that i'm quoting God's word yet telling you that scientists have come to know that they can offer better services regarding health if they follow the wise counsels found in the Bible! 2Timothy 3:16-17

Janosky:


Pls, don't get me wrong.
I have never passed any wrong info on this thread.
Note, I have already said "JWs usually respect the outcomes of court judgments" whether or not it is in our (JW) favor.
That your link didn't open,not accessible now.

Pls see this:

https://forum.ashrm.org/2018/03/29/risks-and-legal-issues-in-caring-for-minor-jehovahs-witness-patients/




.

Pls see this:

https://forum.ashrm.org/2018/03/29/risks-and-legal-issues-in-caring-for-minor-jehovahs-witness-patients/

SPORTS
TECHNOLOGY
UNCATEGORIZED
ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT (ERM) •
LEGAL & REGULATORY •
PATIENT SAFETY/CLINICAL CARE
Risks and Legal Issues in Caring for Minor
Jehovah’s Witness Patients
March 29, 201810 Min Read
A fundamental right of modern healthcare is
that a patient can refuse medical treatment
(1). In most circumstances, this extends to a
parent’s right to refuse treatment for their
minor child (2). When the rationale for
refusal is religion, and especially when the
treatment being refused is potentially
lifesaving, the situation becomes more
complex. This may arise when working with
families from the Jehovah’s Witness (JW)
community, a group that largely rejects
whole blood products, including transfusion.
This article provides background and
practical tips for risk managers who may be
asked to consult on cases involving the
refusal of blood for minor patients from the
JW community.
Background
There are an estimated 8.3 million JW in the
world, primarily in the United States (1.2
million), Mexico (859,000) and Brazil
(829,000) (3,4). The majority of JW interpret
the Bible as prohibiting receiving whole
blood products (5). The JW community
actively instills the importance of this
prohibition, encouraging members to carry
“blood refusal cards” and execute Advance
Directives detailing their wishes regarding
blood. This extends to their children who are
aware of the prohibition (6,7). JW who
accept blood may be subject to
repercussions within their community, which
reportedly can include shunning (.
Given the inherent challenges in obtaining
bloodless care, the JW community has
become sophisticated in healthcare matters.
JW Hospital Liaison Committees (HLCs)
operate in 110 countries around the world,
including 1,700 chapters within the United
States (9). HLCs, comprised of male elders,
aid patients and families by providing
spiritual and practical assistance in the
hospital, as well as aiding healthcare
providers. In this role, they may offer
literature on bloodless techniques, assist
with consulting providers experienced in
bloodless care or help with arranging
transfer to other facilities. HLCs also provide
educational lectures to providers and staff
on working with JW families.
Legal Landscape
Minors ( i.e. , individuals under the state-
specific age of consent, usually 18)
generally cannot provide consent for or
refuse medical treatment. States vary on
exceptions to this rule ( e.g. , many states
carve out specific types of care that minors
may consent to on their own—such as
sexually transmitted infection treatment)
(10). In the majority of cases, however, a
parent must provide consent or refusal.
This principle is not absolute, as is the case
when a JW parent refuses blood for their
minor child. While the U.S. Constitution
protects the freedom to practice religion,
courts have not interpreted that freedom to
include the right to refuse lifesaving
treatment for a child on the basis of that
religion (11). Instead, courts confronted with
the issue have upheld a hospital’s ability to
provide blood even against a parent’s
wishes (11). Some states even have specific
laws that authorize a court to order
treatment under certain circumstances,
though such laws are not required since a
court can make an independent
determination based on the state’s inherent
interest in protecting the child (11,12,13).
Exception for Mature Minor
There is one notable exception for cases that
involve adolescents. In a minority of states,
a “mature minor” doctrine allows minors
who demonstrate a requisite level of
maturity the right to consent for, and
potentially refuse, treatment (14). While 17
states recognize the doctrine to varying
degrees and in different settings, only a
handful of the states have allowed an
adolescent to refuse live-saving treatment
(14). Outcomes vary based on state-specific
legal precedent and the facts ( e.g. ,
genuineness of the religious belief, whether
treatment would be curative) (15). In one of
the most well-known recent cases, a 14-
year-old JW in Washington State was
allowed to refuse blood products, ultimately
leading to his death, despite the fact that
blood transfusions likely would have saved
his life (16).
In practice, when blood is emergently
needed to save a minor’s life, hospitals
likely will provide the blood and document it
in the patient’s medical record. After the
emergency ends or in non-emergent or
chronic condition situations, hospitals
typically seek a court order to provide blood
products. The court will generally hold a
hearing, allowing the hospital and the parent
and/or minor to explain their positions. The
judge then makes a determination, issued
via court order, which should be entered
into the patient’s medical record.
Practical Tips
Risk managers should consider the following
when working on these challenging cases:
Blood refusal by JW not a given. Not all
JW ascribe to the blood prohibition, so
healthcare providers should not assume a
self-identified JW will refuse blood (17). It
is important to discuss the need for blood
privately with both the parent and the
patient (if appropriate), as the presence of
other JW (including close family members
and HLC members) may make the parent
or patient feel pressured to refuse.
Nontraditional consent . Although rare,
some adult JW have reportedly appointed
a non-JW to provide consent on their
behalf (18). Similarly, a JW parent may
be amenable to temporarily delegating
another individual the power to consent
for their child’s transfusion.
Transfer or collaboration considerations.
Ensure that the care team has considered
whether collaboration with or transfer to
another facility with more experience in
bloodless techniques is an option. The
HLC, if involved in care, can be a valuable
resource in arranging for consultation or
coordinating transfer.
Continual and critical assessment.
Providing blood is often done as a matter
of course based on hospital protocol or
when laboratory values reach a certain
threshold. In cases involving a JW, the
care team should continually and
critically assess the patient’s condition
and options to determine whether
withholding blood or alternate options
might be medically appropriate.
Patient and family inclusion. Healthcare
providers may discount the importance of
communicating with the patient and the
family since, in the end, the hospital will
often be able to provide blood. Despite
this, risk managers should ensure that, at
every hospitalization, the patient and
family are: (A) given the opportunity for
their wishes to be heard, (B) given a clear
explanation of the hospital’s position and
any obligations that the hospital has
under law or policy and (C) informed of
and kept updated on the hospital’s
actions ( g. , seeking a court order).
Child protection considerations. The
majority of states specifically exempt
treatment refusal on religious grounds
from the definition of child neglect. If this
is true in your state, child protection
authorities should not be contacted based
solely on a JW parent’s refusal of blood
(12).
Court preparation . If your hospital does
seek a court order:
Work with the court and/or hospital
legal counsel to prepare. Beyond
assistance with forms and procedures,
ask the following: will the court
accept testimony from any member of
the care team ( g. , social work, case
management) or does it require the
attending physician? Will the court
accept a written statement or
telephone testimony or is in-person
testimony required?
Generally, the court order will relate
only to the provision of blood
products and the parent will retain all
other parental rights, including the
right to consent for (or refuse) other
types of treatment. When court is
involved, a parent sometimes
mistakenly believes that their parental
rights are broadly being taken away, a
distressing misconception.
If given the opportunity to propose
language for the court order, draft one
that authorizes blood products
throughout the admission or condition
( g. , long-term treatment for leukemia)
to prevent return trips to court.
Conclusion
Care teams should work closely with
patients and families from the JW
community to ensure that, while the hospital
may need to provide blood with or without
court proceedings, it can be handled in a
positive manner. Risk managers should
encourage the entire care team to approach
these cases with an open mind and
transparency, with a focus on clearly
communicating the hospital’s obligations
and plans while minimizing the patient’s or
family’s fears of repercussions (whether
from the JW community, the hospital, or the
court/legal system).
References
1. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of
Health, 497 US 261 (1990).
2. We use “parent” throughout as
shorthand for parent(s) or guardian(s)
.
3. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
New York, Inc. (2016) 2017 yearbook
of Jehovah’s Witnesses: 2016 grand
totals. Retrieved from https://
www.jw.org/en/publications/
books/2017-yearbook/2016-grand-
totals/
4. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
New York, Inc. (2016) 2017 yearbook
of Jehovah’s Witnesses: 2016 service
year report of Jehovah’s Witnesses
worldwide. Retrieved from https://
www.jw.org/en/publications/
books/2017-yearbook/jehovahs-
witnesses-service-report-2016/
5. For example, Genesis 9:4: “Only flesh
with its soul—its blood—you must not
eat”; Leviticus 17:14: “You must not
eat the blood of any sort of flesh,
because the soul of every sort of flesh
is its blood. Anyone eating it will be
cut off”; Acts 15:20: “Abstain . . . from
blood.” See JW.org, (n.d.) What does
the Bible say about blood
transfusions? Retrieved from https://
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/
questions/bible-about-blood-
transfusion/
. The official JW stance is that while
whole blood products are prohibited, it
is up to the individual to determine
whether they will accept blood
fractions ( g. , gamma globulin,
interleukins)—under the theory that “at
some point fractions that have been
extracted from blood [may] cease to
represent the life of the creature from
which the blood was taken.” Use of
certain blood techniques ( e.g. ,
hemodilution, cell salvage) is also up
to the individual’s determination.
JW.org, Keep yourself in God’s love,
appendix: blood fractions and surgical
procedures. Retrieved from https://
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-
e/1102008086
6. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
New York, Inc. (2005) Could your
child make a mature decision? Our
kingdom ministry, 48(12). Retrieved
from https://www.scribd.com/
document/303664572/Watchtower-
Kingdom-Ministry-2005-issues
7. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of
New York, Inc. (2015) She stuck to
her beliefs. Awake! Retrieved from
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-
e/102015286
8. Smith S. (2016) Jehovah’s Witnesses
incapable of free, informed refusal of
blood, former adherent says. CBC
News (Montreal). Retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
montreal/jehovah-s-witnesses-
incapable-of-free-informed-refusal-of-
blood-former-adherent-
says-1.3829778
9. org (2012) Hospital liaison
committees for Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Retrieved from https://www.jw.org/
en/medical-library/strategies-
downloads/hospital-liaison-
committees-jehovahs-witnesses/
10. Guttmacher Institute (2018) An
overview of minors’ consent law.
Retrieved from https://
www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/
explore/overview-minors-consent-law
11. Woolley, S. (2005) Children of
Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent
Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their
rights? Archives of Disease in
Childhood 90(7), 715–719.
doi:10.1136/adc.2004.067843
12. Sandstrom A. (2016) Most states
allow religious exemptions from child
abuse and neglect laws. Retrieved
from http://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2016/08/12/most-states-
allow-religious-exemptions-from-
child-abuse-and-neglect-laws/
13. National District Attorneys
Association (2015) Religious
exemptions to child neglect. Retrieved
from http://www.ndaa.org/
pdf/2-11-2015%20Religious%
20Exemptions%20to%20Child%
20Neglect.pdf
14. Coleman D.L., & Rosoff P.M. (2013)
The legal authority of mature minors
to consent to general medical
treatment. Pediatrics 131(4), 786-793.
doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2470
15. Blake V. (2012) Minors’ refusal of life-
saving therapies. AMA Journal of
Ethics: Virtual Mentor 14(10)
792-796. doi:10.1001/
virtualmentor.2012.14.10.hlaw1-1210
16. Raftery I. (2015) When a 14-year-old
chooses to die because of religion,
can anyone stop him? KUOW News
and Information. Retrieved from
http://kuow.org/post/when-14-year-
old-chooses-die-because-religion-
can-anyone-stop-him
17. See, for example, the Advocates for
Jehovah’s Witness Reform on Blood
(AJWRB), a group of dissident JW
who do not ascribe to the blood
prohibition.
18. Karkowsky C.E. (2013) How I treat
patients who refuse blood
transfusions. Slate. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_
and_science/medical_
examiner/2013/06/jehovah_s_
witness_blood_transfusions_how_a_
doctor_works_around_doctrine.html
Denise Winiarski, JD, CPHRM, Associate
General Counsel at the University of
Michigan, advises Michigan Medicine, the
University of Michigan’s academic medical
center, on risk management and litigation
issues.
Emily Klatt, JD, is Associate General Counsel
at the University of Michigan, advising
Michigan Medicine on regulatory matters.
Amir Kazerouninia, MD, PhD is a graduate of
the University of Michigan Medical School
and an internal medicine/pediatrics resident
at Baylor College of Medicine / Texas
Children’s Hospital""

Maximus69:

They just want to argue to prove God's people wrong when they don't even have 1% of the knowledge JEHOVAH has given his people!

They don't know why their religious leaders are labeling us as CULT GROUP.
After seeing that Jehovah's Witnesses are ahead when it comes to wisdom in all Fields, be it ©Organization
©Education
©Health
©Law
©Morals
©Security
©Orderliness
©Cleanliness
©Science
©Efficacious Scriptural counsels
©QUALITATIVE WAR STRATEGIES and so on
And yet we are neither students in any of those field but only concentrate on studying the scriptures. Their religious leaders are baffled!

Maximus69
You sound very delusional.
I would be interested on how you arrived at the conclusion that JW are ahead in all those things you've listed. It would be quite interesting to note.
There is a stage where you allow dogmas eat so deep into your very essence, you start behaving/speaking irrationally. You perhaps have reached that stage?

Janosky:


Pls, don't get me wrong.
I have never passed any wrong info on this thread.
Note, I have already said "JWs usually respect the outcomes of court judgments" whether or not it is in our (JW) favor.
That your link didn't open,not accessible now.

Pls see this:

https://forum.ashrm.org/2018/03/29/risks-and-legal-issues-in-caring-for-minor-jehovahs-witness-patients/





Yes, I have seen the particular article. Can you tell me what you have understood by this article? Because it further buttresses my point with regards to minors. Or is it the "mature" minors that is the confusion here? The law is set up in such a way that the mature minors can accept treatment but it becomes herculean ro refuse treatment
While I read about the 14 year old who refused treatment with blood and later on died, did you also read about hospitals providing blood in emergency situations for these children and once the patient is stable they can then start going to court on future transfusion orders?
For anaemic patients with chronic conditions, blood transfusion might not necessarily make the difference in their case. They have the value of time to drag out court cases, but not emergencies in children

Please read this article from their medical association in another Western country with regards to the law concerning minors. They also use the mature minor arguments- Gillick competency but if you study it well, you will see that the law is set up to support accepting treatment and not refusing it.

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/consent/consent-tool-kit/7-children-and-young-people

Janosky
An extract from the link I posted :

"In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, refusal of treatment by competent young people under the age of 18 is not necessarily binding upon doctors since the courts have ruled that consent from people with parental responsibility, or a court, still allows doctors to provide treatment.

Where a competent young person refuses treatment, the harm caused by violating a young person’s choice must be balanced against the harm caused by failing to treat. In these cases the courts have said that children and young people have a right to consent to what is being proposed, but not to refuse it if this would put their health in serious jeopardy.

In Scotland, it is likely that neither parents nor the courts are entitled to override a competent young patient’s decision, although this matter cannot be considered settled.

If a competent young person refuses treatment, it would be advisable to seek legal advice and it may be necessary to take the matter to court. (See also Card 1 list: ‘0-18 years’, ‘Children’, ‘Consent’, ‘DoH’, ‘MET’, ‘MDU’, ‘MPS’.) "

eyinjuege:


Maximus69
You sound very delusional.
I would be interested on how you arrived at the conclusion that JW are ahead in all those things you've listed. It would be quite interesting to note.
There is a stage where you allow dogmas eat so deep into your very essence, you start behaving/speaking irrationally. You perhaps have reached that stage?

Just compare that statement to what a Roman governor called FESTUS said to Apostle Paul! @ Act 26:24 also read John 10:20

Well i suppose it's the same thing that happened to those two persons that's presently affecting Maximus!

All you just need to do is prove me wrong!

eyinjuege:
Janosky
An extract from the link I posted :

"In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, refusal of treatment by competent young people under the age of 18 is not necessarily binding upon doctors since the courts have ruled that consent from people with parental responsibility, or a court, still allows doctors to provide treatment.

Where a competent young person refuses treatment, the harm caused by violating a young person’s choice must be balanced against the harm caused by failing to treat. In these cases the courts have said that children and young people have a right to consent to what is being proposed, but not to refuse it if this would put their health in serious jeopardy.

In Scotland, it is likely that neither parents nor the courts are entitled to override a competent
young patient’s decision, although this matter cannot be considered settled.

If a competent young person refuses treatment, it would be advisable to seek legal advice and it may be necessary to take the matter to court. (See also Card 1 list: ‘0-18 years’, ‘Children’, ‘Consent’, ‘DoH’, ‘MET’, ‘MDU’, ‘MPS’.) "

The info above is clearly understood.
Thanks for sharing.
God bless.

eyinjuege:


Yes, I have seen the particular article. Can you tell me what you have understood by this article? Because it further buttresses my point with regards to minors. Or is it the "mature" minors that is the confusion here? The law is set up in such a way that the mature minors can accept treatment but it becomes herculean ro refuse treatment
While I read about the 14 year old who refused treatment with blood and later on died, did you also read about hospitals providing blood in emergency situations for these children and once the patient is stable they can then start going to court on future transfusion orders?
For anaemic patients with chronic conditions, blood transfusion might not necessarily make the difference in their case. They have the value of time to drag out court cases, but not emergencies in children

Please read this article from their medical association in another Western country with regards to the law concerning minors. They also use the mature minor arguments- Gillick competency but if you study it well, you will see that the law is set up to support accepting treatment and not refusing it.

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/consent/consent-tool-kit/7-children-and-young-people

I read your link.... it's well understood.
In the situation Where a mature minor firmly insists to refuse blood transfusions, the Court may or may not accede to the patients request.
(These Laws on Minor's Rights are slightly different in USA,England and Scotland).
The trial Judge would pass a verdict after thorough assessment of all the factors peculiar to that particular case.
**********
From the link I shared,this points below highlight what the article explained...
(A)
Minors ( i.e. , individuals under the state-
specific age of consent, usually 18)
generally cannot provide consent for or
refuse medical treatment. States vary on
exceptions to this rule ( e.g. , many states
carve out specific types of care that minors
may consent to on their own—such as
sexually transmitted infection treatment).
(B)
(10). In the majority of cases, however, a
parent must provide consent or refusal.
This principle is not absolute, as is the case
when a JW parent refuses blood for their
minor child. While the U.S. Constitution
protects the freedom to practice religion,
courts have not interpreted that freedom to
include the right to refuse lifesaving
treatment for a child on the basis of that
religion (11). Instead, courts confronted with
the issue have upheld a hospital’s ability to
provide blood even against a parent’s
wishes (11).
(**C)
Some states even have specific
laws that authorize a court to order
treatment under certain circumstances,
though such laws are not required since a
court can make an independent
determination based on the state’s inherent
interest in protecting the child (11,12,13).
(**D).
Exception for Mature Minor
There is one notable exception for cases that
involve adolescents. In a minority of states,
a “mature minor” doctrine allows minors
who demonstrate a requisite level of
maturity the right to consent for, and
potentially refuse, treatment (14). While 17
states recognize the doctrine to varying
degrees and in different settings, only a
handful of the states have allowed an
adolescent to refuse live-saving treatment
(14). Outcomes vary based on state-specific
legal precedent and the facts ( e.g. ,
genuineness of the religious belief, whether
treatment would be curative)"

(****E)
Transfer or collaboration considerations.
Ensure that the care team has considered
whether collaboration with or transfer to
another facility with more experience in
bloodless techniques is an option.
The
HLC, if involved in care, can be a valuable
resource in arranging for consultation or
coordinating transfer.
Continual and critical assessment.
In cases involving a JW, the
care team should continually and
critically assess the patient’s condition
and options to determine whether
withholding blood or alternate options
might be medically appropriate."

Our HLC is ever willing to collaborate with medical professionals and we sincerely appreciate the expertise of the medical teams who respond to our emergencies to save lives with utmost regard for our bible based beliefs.
Dalu rinne. Eshe gaan. Wadooo. Urhuese.
************
God bless.

madridsta007:


Jehovah's Witnesses do not call themselves Christians.
They call themselves, Jehovah's Witness.

Dumb post.
Jesus Christ himself is a Jehovah's witness. Isaiah 42:10-12. Rev 3:5,12-14. Acts3:13. John20:17.
Jehovah's witnesses are Christians,we believe in Jesus Christ and his Father, Jehovah God. John 14:1. John17:3. Matt10:32-33.

Seun:
This is highly commendable. I hope they don't stop at rescuing babies. Children of all ages in similar circumstances should be rescued. We cannot let children die in the name of religion. A child’s right to live is more important than her parents‘ right to impose their religious beliefs on her.

If you have a similar case to report, you can call the Lagos State Office of the Public Defender on this toll-free number: 07080601080 or mail opdlagos@yahoo.com.

The same 'blood transfusion live saving ' fable have brought death and misery to tens of thousands of children and adults all over the globe.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
transfusions-kill-patients-say-
doctors-1070012.html


BBC News Navigation
Sections
What is the contaminated blood scandal?
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent
14 June 2019
Share
Related Topics
UK contaminated blood inquiry
Image copyright PA
The infection of up to 30,000 people with
contaminated blood has been called the
biggest treatment disaster in NHS history.
Thousands have died.
A public inquiry is now under way - but
what is already known about the scandal?
Who was affected?
People with haemophilia and other bleeding
disorders were given blood infected with HIV
and hepatitis viruses, during the 1970s and
1980s.
It was the result of a new treatment intended
to make their lives better. A clotting agent
called Factor VIII was introduced to help
their blood clot.
Before this, patients faced lengthy stays in
hospital to have transfusions, even for minor
injuries.
People who had blood transfusions after an
operation, or childbirth, are also thought to
have been exposed.
About 5,000 people are believed to have
been infected - but some estimates put the
number at 30,000. Nearly 3,000 people have
died.
The public inquiry has heard the stories of
some of those affected.
One of the first to take the stand was Derek
Martindale, who has haemophilia . He was
23
when he was diagnosed with HIV and given
a year to live, in 1985. He survived but his
brother - who was also infected with HIV -
did not.
How did it happen?
The UK was struggling to keep up with
demand for the Factor VIII blood clotting
treatment, so supplies began to be imported
from the US.
But much of the human blood plasma used
to make it came from donors such as prison
inmates and drug-users, who sold their
blood.
These groups were at higher risk of blood-
borne viruses.
However, at the time, HIV had not been
diagnosed and understanding about
hepatitis was still developing.
The risk of contamination was raised further
because Factor VIII was made by pooling
plasma from up to 40,000 donors and
concentrating it.
How long did this last?
By the mid-1980s, once it was clear HIV
was blood-borne, the products started to be
heat-treated, to kill the viruses.
But questions remain about how much was
known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the
contaminated blood products remained in
circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products began in
1991.
And by the late 1990s, synthetic treatments
for haemophilia became available, removing
the infection risk.
What are the aims of the inquiry?
This UK-wide inquiry now under way is the
first that can demand that witnesses give
evidence.
It comes after decades of campaigning by
victims, who claim the risks were never
explained and the scandal was covered up.
The government has been strongly criticised
for dragging its heels.
Infected blood victim 'wanted to die'
Blood inquiry seeks answers at last
The secret in my blood
Liz Hooper: The woman who lost two
husbands to the scandal
A previous, privately funded inquiry held no
official status. It could not compel witnesses
to testify, or demand the release of
important documents.
In Scotland, a seven-year investigation was
criticised as a "whitewash" when it was
published in 2015.
The current inquiry, due to last two years,
was announced only after the UK
government faced a possible defeat in a
Commons vote demanding one.
Have people been infected elsewhere in the
world?
There have been thousands of cases of
people being given infected blood in the US.
But other countries also imported blood
products during the 1970s and 1980s.
In Europe, cases in France, Ireland, Portugal
and Italy have been identified. Japan,
Canada, Iran and Iraq have also been
caught up in the scandal.
In the US, companies that supplied infected
products have paid out millions of dollars in
out-of-court settlements.
In other countries, politicians and drug
companies have been convicted of
negligence.
None of that has happened in the UK -
although victims have been given limited
financial support.
At the opening of the inquiry, it was
announced that criminal trials could follow."
**********

Seun:
This is highly commendable. I hope they don't stop at rescuing babies. Children of all ages in similar circumstances should be rescued. We cannot let children die in the name of religion. A child’s right to live is more important than her parents‘ right to impose their religious beliefs on her.

If you have a similar case to report, you can call the Lagos State Office of the Public Defender on this toll-free number: 07080601080 or mail opdlagos@yahoo.com.

The same 'blood transfusion live saving ' fable have brought death and misery to tens of thousands of children and adults all over the globe.



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/transfusions-kill-patients-say-doctors-1070012.html

****"*********
BBC News Navigation
Sections
What is the contaminated blood scandal?
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent
14 June 2019
Share
Related Topics
UK contaminated blood inquiry
Image copyright PA
The infection of up to 30,000 people with
contaminated blood has been called the
biggest treatment disaster in NHS history.
Thousands have died.
A public inquiry is now under way - but
what is already known about the scandal?
Who was affected?
People with haemophilia and other bleeding
disorders were given blood infected with HIV
and hepatitis viruses, during the 1970s and
1980s.
It was the result of a new treatment intended
to make their lives better. A clotting agent
called Factor VIII was introduced to help
their blood clot.
Before this, patients faced lengthy stays in
hospital to have transfusions, even for minor
injuries.
People who had blood transfusions after an
operation, or childbirth, are also thought to
have been exposed.
About 5,000 people are believed to have
been infected - but some estimates put the
number at 30,000. Nearly 3,000 people have
died.
The public inquiry has heard the stories of
some of those affected.
One of the first to take the stand was Derek
Martindale, who has haemophilia . He was
23
when he was diagnosed with HIV and given
a year to live, in 1985. He survived but his
brother - who was also infected with HIV -
did not.
How did it happen?
The UK was struggling to keep up with
demand for the Factor VIII blood clotting
treatment, so supplies began to be imported
from the US.
But much of the human blood plasma used
to make it came from donors such as prison
inmates and drug-users, who sold their
blood.
These groups were at higher risk of blood-
borne viruses.
However, at the time, HIV had not been
diagnosed and understanding about
hepatitis was still developing.
The risk of contamination was raised further
because Factor VIII was made by pooling
plasma from up to 40,000 donors and
concentrating it.
How long did this last?
By the mid-1980s, once it was clear HIV
was blood-borne, the products started to be
heat-treated, to kill the viruses.
But questions remain about how much was
known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the
contaminated blood products remained in
circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products began in
1991.
And by the late 1990s, synthetic treatments
for haemophilia became available, removing
the infection risk.
What are the aims of the inquiry?
This UK-wide inquiry now under way is the
first that can demand that witnesses give
evidence.
It comes after decades of campaigning by
victims, who claim the risks were never
explained and the scandal was covered up.
The government has been strongly criticised
for dragging its heels.
Infected blood victim 'wanted to die'
Blood inquiry seeks answers at last
The secret in my blood
Liz Hooper: The woman who lost two
husbands to the scandal
A previous, privately funded inquiry held no
official status. It could not compel witnesses
to testify, or demand the release of
important documents.
In Scotland, a seven-year investigation was
criticised as a "whitewash" when it was
published in 2015.
The current inquiry, due to last two years,
was announced only after the UK
government faced a possible defeat in a
Commons vote demanding one.
Have people been infected elsewhere in the
world?
There have been thousands of cases of
people being given infected blood in the US.
But other countries also imported blood
products during the 1970s and 1980s.
In Europe, cases in France, Ireland, Portugal
and Italy have been identified. Japan,
Canada, Iran and Iraq have also been
caught up in the scandal.
In the US, companies that supplied infected
products have paid out millions of dollars in
out-of-court settlements.
In other countries, politicians and drug
companies have been convicted of
negligence.
None of that has happened in the UK -
although victims have been given limited
financial support.
At the opening of the inquiry, it was
announced that criminal trials could follow."
**********

Janosky:

Dumb post.
Jesus Christ himself is a Jehovah's witness. Isaiah 42:10-12. Rev 3:5,12-14. Acts3:13. John20:17.
Jehovah's witnesses are Christians,we believe in Jesus Christ and his Father, Jehovah God. John 14:1. John17:3. Matt10:32-33.

Jehovah Witnesses are not the type to reply someone with the insult, "dumb post".
You are not a JW. You are a fraud.

madridsta007:


Jehovah Witnesses are not the type to reply someone with the insult, "dumb post".
You are not a JW. You are a fraud.

You're wrong!

When you spew gibberish, we will gently walk away from your door as UNINVITED guests. But when we've not come to preach (plead) for your audience, any stupid utterance that protrudes out of your mouth will earn you what you deserve!

From Abel's time till today all servants of God are Jehovah's Witnesses. Hebrew 12:1 compared to Isaiah 43:10-12
Jesus is the first and foremost of the family, that's why the Bible book of Revelation called him THE FAITHFUL WITNESS. Revelations 1:5

God hide that precious name from all of you so that you can steal the TEMPORARY name given to the first century practicers of pure worship. So that after all of you have been carried away with the TEMPORARY group name (Christians), God's people may resume bearing the divinely given name "Jehovah's Witnesses". Isaiah 65:15

Janosky:


The info above is clearly understood.
Thanks for sharing.
God bless.

God bless you too..

Maximus69:


You're wrong!

When you spew gibberish, we will gently walk away from your door as UNINVITED guests. But when we've not come to preach (plead) for your audience, any stupid utterance that protrudes out of your mouth will earn you what you deserve!

From Abel's time till today all servants of God are Jehovah's Witnesses. Hebrew 12:1 compared to Isaiah 43:10-12
Jesus is the first and foremost of the family, that's why the Bible book of Revelation called him THE FAITHFUL WITNESS. Revelations 1:5

God hide that precious name from all of you so that you can steal the TEMPORARY name given to the first century practicers of pure worship. So that after all of you have been carried away with the TEMPORARY group name (Christians), God's people may resume bearing the divinely given name "Jehovah's Witnesses". Isaiah 65:15

Again, you are not a JW.
You are a fraud.
Your language is far, far, from the JWs I grew up and stayed with for more than 20 years.

madridsta007:


Again, you are not a JW.
You are a fraud.
Your language is far, far, from the JWs I grew up and stayed with for more than 20 years.

For more than 20 years!

OK that's why you think they're always Christlike, but since they're not called Christians you came on a public forum to say "They are NOT Christians".
Preposterous indeed!

It's either you don't know the meaning of the group name Christians or you're just confused!

Maximus69:


For more than 20 years!

OK that's why you think they're always Christlike, but since they're not called Christians you came on a public forum to say [color red]"They are NOT Christians"[/color].
Preposterous indeed!

It's either you don't know the meaning of the group name Christians or you're just confused!

I attend Kingdom Hall with them, assemblies with them, went witnessing with them, ate with them etc.
Best friends.
Always reminded me to refer to them as JWs first. If you ask, "are you a Christian", they go, "No, I am a Jehovah Witness".
Unless things have changed, I know more about your organisation than you.
They always referred to it as an "organisation" too.

madridsta007:


I attend Kingdom Hall with them, assemblies with them, went witnessing with them, ate with them etc.
Best friends.
Always reminded me to refer to them as JWs first. If you ask, "are you a Christian", they go, "No, I am a Jehovah Witness".
Unless things have changed, I know more about your organisation than you.
They always referred to it as an "organisation" too.

Wow!

That's interesting!

Perhaps they're expecting you to draw a reasonable conclusion on your own. It's just as their leader Jesus did when he was here on earth!

People even spirits will like to call him CHRIST but he'll object saying you shouldn't address him with that title! Mark 8:29-30 compared to Luke 4:34

So i'm not surprised if his REAL followers also want you to discern yourself who they really are without calling them "Christians" publicly!

Janosky:


The same 'blood transfusion live saving ' fable have brought death and misery to tens of thousands of children and adults all over the globe.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
transfusions-kill-patients-say-
doctors-1070012.html


BBC News Navigation
Sections
What is the contaminated blood scandal?
By Nick Triggle
Health correspondent
14 June 2019
Share
Related Topics
UK contaminated blood inquiry
Image copyright PA
The infection of up to 30,000 people with
contaminated blood has been called the
biggest treatment disaster in NHS history.
Thousands have died.
A public inquiry is now under way - but
what is already known about the scandal?
Who was affected?
People with haemophilia and other bleeding
disorders were given blood infected with HIV
and hepatitis viruses, during the 1970s and
1980s.
It was the result of a new treatment intended
to make their lives better. A clotting agent
called Factor VIII was introduced to help
their blood clot.
Before this, patients faced lengthy stays in
hospital to have transfusions, even for minor
injuries.
People who had blood transfusions after an
operation, or childbirth, are also thought to
have been exposed.
About 5,000 people are believed to have
been infected - but some estimates put the
number at 30,000. Nearly 3,000 people have
died.
The public inquiry has heard the stories of
some of those affected.
One of the first to take the stand was Derek
Martindale, who has haemophilia . He was
23
when he was diagnosed with HIV and given
a year to live, in 1985. He survived but his
brother - who was also infected with HIV -
did not.
How did it happen?
The UK was struggling to keep up with
demand for the Factor VIII blood clotting
treatment, so supplies began to be imported
from the US.
But much of the human blood plasma used
to make it came from donors such as prison
inmates and drug-users, who sold their
blood.
These groups were at higher risk of blood-
borne viruses.
However, at the time, HIV had not been
diagnosed and understanding about
hepatitis was still developing.
The risk of contamination was raised further
because Factor VIII was made by pooling
plasma from up to 40,000 donors and
concentrating it.
How long did this last?
By the mid-1980s, once it was clear HIV
was blood-borne, the products started to be
heat-treated, to kill the viruses.
But questions remain about how much was
known before this time.
Despite these precautions, some of the
contaminated blood products remained in
circulation and continued to be used.
Screening of all blood products began in
1991.
And by the late 1990s, synthetic treatments
for haemophilia became available, removing
the infection risk.
What are the aims of the inquiry?
This UK-wide inquiry now under way is the
first that can demand that witnesses give
evidence.
It comes after decades of campaigning by
victims, who claim the risks were never
explained and the scandal was covered up.
The government has been strongly criticised
for dragging its heels.
Infected blood victim 'wanted to die'
Blood inquiry seeks answers at last
The secret in my blood
Liz Hooper: The woman who lost two
husbands to the scandal
A previous, privately funded inquiry held no
official status. It could not compel witnesses
to testify, or demand the release of
important documents.
In Scotland, a seven-year investigation was
criticised as a "whitewash" when it was
published in 2015.
The current inquiry, due to last two years,
was announced only after the UK
government faced a possible defeat in a
Commons vote demanding one.
Have people been infected elsewhere in the
world?
There have been thousands of cases of
people being given infected blood in the US.
But other countries also imported blood
products during the 1970s and 1980s.
In Europe, cases in France, Ireland, Portugal
and Italy have been identified. Japan,
Canada, Iran and Iraq have also been
caught up in the scandal.
In the US, companies that supplied infected
products have paid out millions of dollars in
out-of-court settlements.
In other countries, politicians and drug
companies have been convicted of
negligence.
None of that has happened in the UK -
although victims have been given limited
financial support.
At the opening of the inquiry, it was
announced that criminal trials could follow."
**********

And the same blood transfusion has also saved billions of lives.
Your autologous blood transfusion aka bloodless surgery
Your blood fractions/components is gotten from blood donated by wicked/worldly people


Your argument can still be argued the other way.

Janosky:

I read your link.... it's well understood.
In the situation Where a mature minor firmly insists to refuse blood transfusions, the Court may or may not accede to the patients request.
(These Laws on Minor's Rights are slightly different in USA,England and Scotland).
The trial Judge would pass a verdict after thorough assessment of all the factors peculiar to that particular case.
**********
From the link I shared,this points below highlight what the article explained...
(A)
Minors ( i.e. , individuals under the state-
specific age of consent, usually 18)
generally cannot provide consent for or
refuse medical treatment. States vary on
exceptions to this rule ( e.g. , many states
carve out specific types of care that minors
may consent to on their own—such as
sexually transmitted infection treatment).
(B)
(10). In the majority of cases, however, a
parent must provide consent or refusal.
This principle is not absolute, as is the case
when a JW parent refuses blood for their
minor child. While the U.S. Constitution
protects the freedom to practice religion,
courts have not interpreted that freedom to
include the right to refuse lifesaving
treatment for a child on the basis of that
religion (11). Instead, courts confronted with
the issue have upheld a hospital’s ability to
provide blood even against a parent’s
wishes (11).
(**C)
Some states even have specific
laws that authorize a court to order
treatment under certain circumstances,
though such laws are not required since a
court can make an independent
determination based on the state’s inherent
interest in protecting the child (11,12,13).
(**D).
Exception for Mature Minor
There is one notable exception for cases that
involve adolescents. In a minority of states,
a “mature minor” doctrine allows minors
who demonstrate a requisite level of
maturity the right to consent for, and
potentially refuse, treatment (14). While 17
states recognize the doctrine to varying
degrees and in different settings, only a
handful of the states have allowed an
adolescent to refuse live-saving treatment
(14). Outcomes vary based on state-specific
legal precedent and the facts ( e.g. ,
genuineness of the religious belief, whether
treatment would be curative)"

(****E)
Transfer or collaboration considerations.
Ensure that the care team has considered
whether collaboration with or transfer to
another facility with more experience in
bloodless techniques is an option.
The
HLC, if involved in care, can be a valuable
resource in arranging for consultation or
coordinating transfer.
Continual and critical assessment.
In cases involving a JW, the
care team should continually and
critically assess the patient’s condition
and options to determine whether
withholding blood or alternate options
might be medically appropriate."

Our HLC is ever willing to collaborate with medical professionals and we sincerely appreciate the expertise of the medical teams who respond to our emergencies to save lives with utmost regard for our bible based beliefs.
Dalu rinne. Eshe gaan. Wadooo. Urhuese.
************
God bless.

So last last jw parents don't have any right to refuse blood transfusion on immature minors when it is needed in developed countries.

Your leaders tell you to refuse blood transfusion for your babies when doctors recommend it in developing whereas they can't refuse blood transfusion for their babies in their developed countries.


After all the gra gra is mature minors consent you saw to bring out when it's a newborn we are talking about here. Smh

Hairyrapunzel:


And the same blood transfusion has also saved billions of lives.
Your autologous blood transfusion aka bloodless surgery
Your blood fractions/components is gotten from blood donated by wicked/worldly people


Your argument can still be argued the other way.

Autologous transfusion is transfusion of patient's own blood back into him. It is not blood donated by wicked worldly people and it's simply putting your blood back into yourself. It's not practicable for all persons or situations and certainly cannot be used for this particular child in question as his blood is tainted with jaundice.
You need to be less emotional about this and more factual. You and maximus69 are one of a kind, on the 2 divides I must say.

eyinjuege:


Autologous transfusion is transfusion of patient's own blood back into him. It is not blood donated by wicked worldly people and it's simply putting your blood back into yourself. It's not practicable for all persons or situations and certainly cannot be used for this particular child in question as his blood is tainted with jaundice.

You need to be less emotional about this and more factual. You and maximus69 are one of a kind, on the 2 divides I must say[/i

You're getting close to the secret behind all these!

We are both on opposite sides, he is on one side of the chasm between Hairyrapunzel and Maximus69. He will always oppose my stand and i will also do the same. Luke 16:24-26 compared to Genesis 3:15

But one thing you've not noticed is that he is fighting for no specific group while i'm maintaining my stand for the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses!

I will reason with you but keen on my stand for the congregation of God, but he is just desperate to condemn any religion claiming to be unique!

eyinjuege:


Autologous transfusion is transfusion of patient's own blood back into him. It is not blood donated by wicked worldly people and it's simply putting your blood back into yourself. It's not practicable for all persons or situations and certainly cannot be used for this particular child in question as his blood is tainted with jaundice.
You need to be less emotional about this and more factual. You and maximus69 are one of a kind, on the 2 divides I must say.

So jw jehovah said jw should accept autologous blood transfusion aka bloodless surgery and reject allogenic blood transfusion?
last they are both blood transfusion.
Their jehovah even told them that they should accept blood fractions/components donated from blood of worldly/wicked/evil people.

I think their jehovah aka gb are just hypocrites and wicked people who pride themselves on the fact that people kill themselves and their children in obedience to their manmade laws.

eyinjuege:


Autologous transfusion is transfusion of patient's own blood back into him. It is not blood donated by wicked worldly people and it's simply putting your blood back into yourself. It's not practicable for all persons or situations and certainly cannot be used for this particular child in question as his blood is tainted with jaundice.
You need to be less emotional about this and more factual. You and maximus69 are one of a kind, on the 2 divides I must say.

Autologous blood transfusion is a type of blood transfusion oga. Abi jehovah differentiated the kind of blood transfusion he wanted?

[quote author=MOSICATED5 post=85920846][/quote]
You are a FRAUD..... Shame on you DUBIOUS, wayo man. You know the reason why I said so.

Janosky post= :


.

https://starconnectmedia.com/why-ray-ekpu-goofed-disgraced-journalism-in-his-fanatical-witnesses/



EDITORIAL
Why Ray Ekpu goofed, disgraced journalism
in his Fanatical Witnesses
By starconnect
Posted on February 1, 2020
      COMMENTS
--------------
Allegations and conclusions reached by
Ray Ekpu in his article are misleading,
others are at best half truth while the
rest are insults and outright falsehood.
One of the main tenets of journalism is
that while opinions are free, facts are
scared
Emmanuel Thomas l Saturday, February 01,
2020
L AGOS, Nigeria – Among the legendary
statements ever uttered by man which I
cherish so much is that by Othman
Danfodio, he said that “Conscience is an
open wound, only truth can heal it” that is
why I have a tremendous respect for men
like Ray Ekpu, a man who has spent nearly
50 years in a relentless and vigorous
pursuit of such truth.
As a veteran journalist, prolific writer,
administrator and a renowned columnist,
Ray’s analysis and opinion on diverse
issues can be authoritative.
Mr. Ray Ekpu, a former editor of the now
defunct, News Watch Magazine
For those of us who have followed his
writings over the years, it is no exaggeration
to conclude that he is a master of the prose
genre as he practically takes one on a
journey of free flowing prose so captivating
that you do not want to stop until you have
finished reading his article.
Ray is also a courageous writer, not afraid
to bare his mind on diverse issues. Perhaps,
it was with such zeal and zest that he took
me on a journey in his weekly column of
Daily Sun Tuesday, 28 January 2020. In an
article entitled ” Fanatical Witnesses” the
columnist of repute made series of
allegations against Jehovah’s Witnesses
starting with this statement.
´The religious group that calls itself
Jehovah’s Witnesses is a very unique group
in Christendom. They hold their Church
services on Saturday not Sundays. They do
not sing the national anthems of the
countries in which they live. They do not
respect the national flag. They hold
themselves as outlaws and do not give to
Caesar what is Caesar’s they think that their
duty is only to give God what is God’s”
One of the few things I still remember about
my philosophy class, an elective course I
chose as a student in the University over 20
years ago is that there are two ways of
finding out truth.
The first is “Logical coherence” while the
second is empirical investigation. Today, I
believe there are more ways of finding out
truth but I will stick to the two ways I know
which are timeless in appeal and efficacy.
Like other mortals, Ray is not infallible, he
never claimed he is hence my first reaction
would have been to write a personal letter to
him, refuting some of the assertions he
made in the article which are not correct.
But on a second thought, I reckoned that it
would benefit him and the reading public
more if I send this rejoinder to the editor to
publish because some of the allegations and
conclusions in his article are misleading,
others are at best half truth while the rest
are insults and outright falsehood. One of
the main tenets of journalism is that while
opinions are free, facts are scared.
So a little empirical investigation on the
website of Jehovah’s Witnesses, JW.ORG
(the world’s most translated website) would
have shown him that Jehovah’s Witnesses
hold 2 meetings in a week. The first is a
mid-week meeting while the second is a
weekend meeting; he would also have found
out that 90% of the over 8.6 million
witnesses in 240 lands, islands and
territories worldwide hold their meetings on
Sundays.
On the issue of national anthem and pledge,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, having made an
unreservedly and whole hearted pledge to
Jehovah, the sovereign of the universe,
believe that it amounts to hypocrisy to make
another pledge to a country or state,
interestingly, the pledge we made to
Jehovah includes living by bible standards,
which includes respect and obedience to
constituted authorities as part of reverence
to God. So it is not correct to say that we do
not respect the national flags of countries
where we live.
That is why in obedience to the scriptural
injunction at Romans 13:1, we subject
ourselves to superior authorities by obeying
laws of the land, conscientiously paying our
taxes, tributes and honor to such
governmental authorities. However, in rare
instances where the authorities make
demands that are contrary to God’s laws like
in some countries where certain laws unduly
restricts or ban our worship, we follow the
footsteps of the apostles as recorded in Acts
5: 29, to …”obey God as ruler rather than
men”.
The Witnesses’ respect and view of
governmental authorities transcends
perfunctory obedience like singing the
national anthem and pledge, swearing oat to
serve with honesty, heart and might, only for
many to get involved in anti-governmental
activities like civil disobedience, official
malfeasance like fraud or outright theft. As
an experienced administrator and believer in
good governance, I know that Ray will prefer
a heartfelt obedience to constituted
authorities to a mere ritual of flag salute or
mockery oat of loyalty and allegiance.
I also find as complimentary, Ray’s attempt
to describe the dress of the Witnesses who
came calling at his door in derogatory
terms. While like he said, they may not have
worn finely cut suit and red-carpet gowns,
he noted that they were modestly dressed,
and the gown “covered everywhere from
head to toe”, it will interest Ray to know that
such was the description of the garment
made for Adam and Eve, the first human pair
by the greatest designer in the universe,
Jehovah after they sinned, were sentenced
and driven out of the garden of Eden. In a
world that is alienated from God. Long
garments that cover the body properly are
not popular, instead men glorify immodest
dressing and grooming. That is why I found
his description complimentary rather than
derogatory.
I also found it surprising and a bit
disappointing that a writer of Ray’s repute
will describe as “stupidity and insanity” a
loving effort by the Witnesses who have
volunteered and sacrificed their comfort to
share a message of God’s kingdom with him
just because he was leaving for work.
His right to personal perception and opinion
does not authorize him to insult people for
practicing their religion, holding different
opinion or for having an unpopular
conviction just like Christ and the first
century Christians had. People have different
routine and circumstances hence the
Witnesses call at homes, markets, streets
and even work places in search of humble
ones who are favorably disposed for
everlasting life. While many may not be
disposed to listen, the Witnesses have had
fine experiences with others with whom they
share the good news of God’s kingdom with
interesting outcome. As a result of such
efforts, last year, a total of 12,232,924
friends and neighbors joined the 8,686,117
Witnesses worldwide to observe the Lords
evening meal in obedience to Jesus’
command at Luke 22:19.
Ray also quoted Genesis 9:4 which sates:
“You shall not eat flesh with its life, that its
blood” and Acts 15:29 which states:”That
you abstain from what has been sacrificed
to idols and from blood and from what is
strangled” it may be necessary to add
scriptures like Leviticus 17: 12 & 14 which
states in part: “None of you should eat
blood, and no foreigner who is residing in
your midst should eat blood… For the life of
every sort of flesh is its blood, because life
is in it. Consequently, I said to the Israelites:
You must not eat the blood of every sort of
flesh because the life of every sort of flesh is
its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand and
appreciate God’s loving command to mean
not taking in blood, through any means
whatsoever. If Ray feels that a sacred
substance like blood which God, the grand
creator in his infinite wisdom has
commanded that we should eat can be
transfused without contravening God’s clear
and unambiguous law, he certainly has the
right to his opinion but that does change
God’s law. I will liken this to a child whose
father has prohibited from taking oral pills
but he instead dissolves it in water and
injects it intravenously.
It is important to state that the baby of Mr &
Mrs Emmanuel Onokpise in question had
jaundice induced anemia, and as at the time
of the forceful transfusion, the baby no
longer has jaundice and was recuperating
well. Beyond the religious convictions of
Witnesses, more and more doctors and
patients within and outside Nigeria opts for
non-blood medical management because it
is safer. Blood transfusion is especially
unsafe in a country like Nigeria where we do
not have proper screening facilities for
blood.
My research shows that most blood banks in
Nigeria are filled with blood from commercial
donors resulting in volume and less dead
cells. It may interest you to know that
modern medicine have gone beyond a hasty
transfusion therapy to a robust and effective
alternatives to blood transfusion. Witnesses
in their quest to obey Jehovah’s clear
directive not to eat blood have pushed the
boundaries of research in non blood medical
management.
There are numerous experiences about
successful bloodless surgeries and complex
medical procedures within and outside
Nigeria but let me share my personal
experience here. In November 2018, I was
diagnosed of high grade non hodgskin
lymphoma (a very serious type of blood
cancer) but I thank Jehovah, it was at stage
one and confined to the spleen.
A team of Hematologists at London
Hematology who carried out the diagnoses
recommended that I should have an open
splenectomy, a surgery that will excise the
diseased organ. They also said that
although they do not usually use blood in
procedures, but because spleen is a bloody
organ as such transfusion is a must. The
transfusion practitioner, clinical nurse
specialists and Drs’ all said that being
anemic as I was ( hemoglobin 10+) I stand
no chance without a transfusion.
After some research, the consultant
hematologist Mr Karcsmarski was able to
get the node a surgeon who agreed to carry
out the surgery without blood transfusion,
his name is Mr Satvinda Mudan. On the 10
December 2018, the surgery was successful
carried out at London Clinic, Davonshere
place, London, United Kingdom and I
gradually recuperated to the amazement of
the medical team and to the glory of
Jehovah, the true source of life.
At the anniversary of the surgery, I wrote to
thank both the medical team at the London
clinic and in response he said he wrote:
Dear Uche, Thank you for your most kind
email. I am so pleased to learn that you are
doing so well. While I might have shown
some dexterity as you say however, the real
display of courage was surely from you. I
can only say that you showed great fortitude
and strength of character in the face of a
difficult and threatening situation, not or
your own making.
Moreover, you impressed us all with your
resolve and strength with which you hold
your belief. May you continue to thrive and I
look forward to hearing from the doctors
about your progress.
----------
NB: Other aspects of Ray’s mis-
representation of facts will be addressed in
the coming days.

Janosky:


You are a FRAUD.....
Shame on you DUBIOUS, wayo man.
You know the reason why I said so.

I'm so sure you are talking to yourself