xjwsforChrist

Doctors win right to save Jehovah's Witness boy's life

http://mobile.news.com.au/lifestyle/health-fitness/doctors-win-right-to-save-jehovahs-witness-boys-life/story-fneuzlbd-1226623009060

A TEENAGE boy has vowed to "rip out" a needle giving him a blood transfusion despite a judge ordering the lifesaving treatment against the boy's religious beliefs.

Doctors from Sydney Children's Hospital in Randwick made an urgent application to the Supreme Court to help them save the boy, a devout Jehovah's Witness, who is fighting Hodgkin's disease.

In a judgment handed down on March 28, Justice Ian Gzell immediately ordered a blood transfusion after doctors said the 17-year-old's life depended on it.

Justice Gzell noted his orders "may only extend (the boy's) life for 10 months - when he becomes an adult and may stop the treatment".

"The sanctity of life in the end is a more powerful reason for me to make the orders than is respect for the dignity of the individual," he said.

The boy, who cannot be identified, was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease in January last year. He is a "devoted" follower of the religion and Justice Gzell found him to be "cocooned in that faith".

The boy told doctors he did not want to be given blood, even in an "emergency", and that if he was forcibly transfused while sedated it would be like being "raped".

Doctors had respected his wishes, with the teen treated with chemotherapy in order to avoid giving him transfusions. But that did not reduce the tumours in his lungs, spleen and lymph nodes.

His doctor, Professor Glenn Marshall, argued the boy needed a high dose of chemotherapy, but that would make him anaemic and he would require a transfusion.

Professor Marshall told the court that, if he continued to treat the boy's cancer with chemotherapy and he was not transfused, he had an 80 per cent chance of dying.

"The alternative is that (the boy) will die of cancer because he is receiving less than optimal treatment for it," Justice Gzell said.

Professor Marshall said the boy had a 50 per cent chance of being cured of cancer if he was given full treatment, including a transfusion.

His father has written a scripture quote which refers to abstaining from blood on a whiteboard in his hospital room. The court was told "it is a tenet of the Jehovah's Witness faith that blood products are forbidden".

The boy and his father told the court there were no "ramifications" from their church provided the transfusion was "against his will".

The boy told the court taking blood would change his relationship with God.

The judge has given the green light for doctors at the Kids Cancer Centre at Randwick (part of the Sydney Children's Hospital) to give the boy blood.

The boy was in remission from the disease for several months last year but he suffered a relapse in November.

Last year the NSW Supreme Court made similar orders for a four-year-old girl from South Australia.

_________________
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don’t matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr Seuss

A very delicate situation, dear WS (peace to you, and thank you for sharing it!). I totally understand the wish for those who want to to "help" this young man. What, though, if his conscience is SO "seared" that he does not WISH to live afterward? True, the WTBTS has responsibility for placing him in this predicament. And I can understand how some might say, "Well, he doesn't really KNOW what he wants; how could he, he's only 17!" But some folks still don't know what they truly "want" at age 50 or even later.

I truly hope the court offered him some COUNSELING first, and is considering the report/recommendation from a qualified counselor... versus simply going with what the doctor's want. I can tell you that doctor's are sometimes single-minded... and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the PERSON... but solely with the "patient." They have a record to maintain and the number of deaths on their record are counted.

Also, there are people in this world who also believe THEY have a right to say when someone can... or can't die. I don't believe they do, in all cases. I watched my mother die of pancreatic cancer and through that I KNOW that if I decide I don't WANT to live in such pain any longer, NO ONE had better tell me I had to. Again, this is a "child," but should not even a child of 17 be able to say, "No, I don't WANT that"... for whatever his reason, and particularly one of a spiritual nature? We have no problem with young girls getting "morning after" pills, even abortions. But we balk when a 17-year-old boy says, "No, I don't want that [treatment]"... for whatever reason he says it?

This could be a two-edged sword. For example, what if the draft is reduced to 17 years old for, say, young men who've finished school? Should they be compelled to go, even if doing so goes against their conscience? Should ANYONE be compelled to do something that goes against their conscience... even if others don't agree with/understand it? A VERY slippery slope, IMHO.

I do hope a good counselor was involved... and will be there after. Seventeen is such a difficult age to deal with angst, to begin with. If that boy later thinks ANYONE thinks he's "unclean"... or faults him for this... it could spell disaster for him. Even though his father/elders are saying that if it's against his will no one will take issue. Because we KNOW someone will have a problem. Same as some do when someone THEY don't "approve" of partakes. Which is SUPPOSED to be between the individual and God/Christ, alone, and no one else. Unfortunately, many JWs are unable to follow the exhortation to "make your aim to... mind your OWN business." The association is just not conducive to it. And so SOME jackass JW will think they have a right to 'judge' him, either some other peer/child, or some adult JW who's most probably done worse themselves but wants others to THINK he/she is "clean" and "righteous."

Our prayers for this young man, whichever way things to, would be a good thing.

Again, peace to you... and thanks for sharing this account!

YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

Shellama

This is a real tough one...
Not sure if the courts should have stepped in...
I am hoping that deep down the boy wanted this and was simply "putting on a show" so as to put the "blame" for his transfusion on the courts.

Yes Aguest and PaulS..

My thoughts were the same in reading this. Even though we NOW know better about the use of blood and being truly a personal decision, we were ALL there at some point in our lives.
We may have never had to personally face a life or death issue with blood ( at least I didn't with my children and I am SO thankful I didn't) , but knowing how strongly entrenched I was in this organization I understand the reprocussion of this decision afterwards. This poor young man may never feel " worthy again."
He may feel deep down inside ( hopefully NOT) that Jehovah may not forgive him for this sin.
My goodness. 17 years old. Poor baby! He's already sick enough. It makes me crazy sometimes to still think what they allow and expect of our young people.
My prayer is for him to find comfort, and freedom from this fear of displeasing a dreadful, cruel God " Jehovah" that they worship.

May he come to understand the love of CHRIST and tender compassion and mercy that he has for him.

Justmom

I hear you, dear 'Mom (peace, dear one!), but we also have to remember that not ALL of us here were subjected to having to make this "choice," praise JAH. It is very sad that anyone has to, though, regardless of their age... or who they're making it FOR.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama

I'm beginning to have very negative feelings about the whole Western medical establishment. The more I read and learn, the more I comprehend that once a person puts themselves under a doctor's care, that doctor basically controls the person's whole life. I learned that people can be taken to court and even institutionalized for not complying with doctor's orders (either for themselves or those in their care). I've discovered that a lot of medications are given that either do nothing to eliminate the problem or actually make it worse, and that the medical establishment is aware of this but often has "recurring customer" in mind rather than cure. And on it goes...

I've noticed, too, that the expression "life saving" is used more and more in the media, and not just for blood transfusions. I ask myself "are they really that dumb?" and "do they know what they're writing?" "Life saving" has some limits to it, doesn't it? At least timewise?

In the case of this boy, "life saving" would only be accurate if the transfusions did completely cure him and he didn't have any health-threatening side effects or other issues related to the transfusions. I suppose that would include mental or emotional effects.

What bothers me the most is that legal authorities don't seem to pick up on the misuse of the term "life saving". Same questions arise: "are they really that dumb?" If they are, how did they attain their positions? If they're not, is it a buddy system of some kind that keeps this travesty perpetuating? As cynical as I can sometimes be, that doesn't seem to be an option when contemplating this topic.

If I truly believed that the people involved knew what was going on and chose to do it anyway, I'd almost have to believe that "it's a dog eat dog world", and I just can't go there no matter how many of these "inconsistencies" I run into. It would mean to me that almost everybody on the planet is "bad", that is, willing to do whatever it takes to prevail in a given situation, however devious. That's too overwhelming to contemplate.

I fundamentally disagree with the posts above, and it's interesting because all of you were JW's, though I'm not totally sure about AnneB.

Shel, you say "what if his conscience is so seared that he does not wish to live afterwards?"

Do you, then believe in euthanasia? Because that 's then the logical sequitur. I certainly don't.

Our life is not our own to choose to lay down when we choose, whatever the reason. Only God can decide. We have a duty to live our life to the best we can, and doctors have a duty and responsibility to save life when they can. A legal system has to uphold the those fundamental principles if such is its foundation, and as far as I know that is the case in Australia as I believe it to be in Britain.

From my point of view, the Court did exactly the right thing. I'm glad they did, because, as well as being to the ultimate benefit of this young man, it will also serve as yet another precedent for protecting children and young people and anybody vulnerable.

Much was made of this question in my pre-baptismal questions, and I saw that Jehovah's Witnesses see the medical profession as an enemy. Appalling. One more instance where they stand reason on its head.

Hello everyone,

A lot of interesting thoughts on this. I think the one that dear Char has addressed to Shelby is one that for me I am glad that the young man was able to receive blood if it REALLY did help " save" him.
But it could just be prolonging only something, and even prolonging is better than nothing sometimes from a parents point of view.
But this decision could have done more damage than good if depending on how deeply entrenched this young man and his family IS in the WTBS.

All I can do is think back to when I was inside and the kind of witness I was ( sad to say) is had the courts taken my freedom to decide for my child whether to give him blood, and DID administer it to him....I would have spent my entire life ( most likely ) feeling I had allowed the " unforegiveablr sin" and that I nor my child MAY NEVER be forgiven and lose out on everlasting life. That would have haunted me and I know I probably would never have been the same, with all the guilt and stress of waiting until the END!

I know it sounds crazy today, praise Jah that I never had to feel this way regarding blood, because he knew ME and the kind of person I was inside.
My hope and prayers are that this young man and his family do not experience the feelings of eternal UNforgiveness from Jah!

Just a thought
Justmom

Justmom, I think you have described very well the probable thinking of a Jehovah's Witness mother who fully believes the teachings and, moreover, is in thrall to the elders and the GB, so that she fears disobeying their strictures and considers that disobedience to them is disobedience to God (Jehovah).

But that means that the organisation has deceived her completely. She has swallowed the whole lot, hook line ans sinker (very many of them have, and I know scores of them), and so is obeying a lie. I suspect that a prime motivation for the strictures on blood was to ensure obedience and that the organisations members should consider themselves separate from the rest of the world. It is purely and simply a control strategy.

They could have stated that the banana was an invention of the devil, justifying it logically as an abomination because bananas can't be grown from seed. (Did everyone know that, I wonder?) Then JW's would be looking askance, in fear and horror, at the heaps of wickedly enticing evil bananas in the supermarket. Before they knew it, New Light would reveal that the apple that Eve ate was in fact a banana, as the original forbidden fruit. You think I am joking? Not at all. Watch this space for the evilness of bananas to be on the lips of the JW at the door.

Outlaw? Can you find a suitable illustration?

But back to blood. The fact that the poor JW's are so totally brainwashed is absolutely no justification for murder or suicide by withholding or refusing blood, which case would have been the consequence of the Australian court ruling. The State has a duty to protect and safeguard its citizens' welfare.

Thankfully I was never put into a situation about my children receiving blood as a JW. The WTBS used scripture to back up their stance on blood, misapplied maybe, but it certainly validated their stance at the time, without a lot of further research or knowing Christ, as many of us now do. Violating it felt like an abomination to sincere lovers of God.

I'd like to share my personal experience here, which shows another side of the coin. My youngest was only a few months old and pain in my jaw revealed under CT scans that the majority of my jaw was worn away/missing due to an apparent growth in it. Emergency hospital appointments decided that I needed urgent surgery for this 'aggressive' growth. The surgeons explained that they would cut through my jaw, remove 'whatever', and graft bone from my hip to replace the jaw. A lengthy dangerous surgery and post op intensive care for some weeks, which would change my face forever. They said I would have to agree to any necessary blood transfusion. I refused to agree and the hospital committee met and refused to do the surgery.

The pressure was enormous, not only for fear of a probable malignant growth to be removed, and its consequences, but also for fear of leaving my kids without a mother. I decided to unequivocally trust in Jah. It came at a time when the elders in our hall were unhappy at my challenging them about their legalistic ways. We had to fight for help from the HLC, but appts were quickly arranged in alternative hospitals with British surgeons who would be happy to engage in bloodless surgery. The first surgeon biopsied the growth immediately and results showed that the 'mass' in my jaw was non malignant fluid. This led to simpler oral surgery, still painful, which drained the mass. Within a year my jaw bone had regrown. There was no damage to my face.

I wouldn't want to go through all that again, but had I not been a JW, my face would've been completely destroyed unnecessarily.

Just sayin, cos it's exactly what happened. It probably says more about the inadequacy of the NHS than the benefits of being a JW, but it definitely worked out well for me.

Loz x

_________________
"This is my son. LISTEN to Him!"

Yes, dear Char (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!), I did.



I do, dear one, and I will explain how and why below.



I understand.



I have to disagree, dear one. If that were the case, then my dear Lord didn't have a choice to lay down HIS life. Although he didn't take his own life, he GAVE it. In essence, he made the choice... and laid it down. That it was by the hands of others is irrelevant: he could have fought do as NOT to die by ANY's hand. Or just remained silent as to his opposers. Or even denied God. He did none of these things but turned his life over. Something he CHOSE.

And while I don't condone war, I think all of those who give their lives militarily, whether on a local, national, or global level, would also disagree with you. Indeed, if one does not have the right to lay down his/her life... or even choose when that might be... ALL who serve in such capacities... or in any position where they risk their lives (i.e., firefighters, skyscraper/bridge builders, oil riggers, hazmat, where there is) are in opposition to God, yes?

Yet, Christ is recorded to have said:

"No one has GREATER love than to give his life on behalf of his friend."

How can one GIVE... what does not belong to him/her TO give? And if one CAN give his/her life on behalf of others, why can one not do so for himself/herself to, say, end his/her physical pain?

Our lives ARE ours, dear Char... to do with as we please. The best CHOICE... is to use them in service to the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. But that is a CHOICE... which it would not be if our lives WEREN'T ours to lay down. Indeed, it would not our CHOICE to give them to Christ which, for SOME... IS a choice to lay them down.

.

I am not sure about the "duty" as to the first comment - we do have a CHOICE, though. And "doctors" only have a duty pursuant to a vow they take; however, we ALL have that same duty: to save a life when we can. That is the duty under LOVE... and no vow is required to effect it. But that is as to others; their is no duty to save our OWN lives else, again, my Lord would have saved his OWN. Out of such "duty."



I agree, to the extent the law is "good." There is "bad" law, however. For instance, that it's a crime for, say, couples to interracially marry. Bad law. And where a particular law goes against God... who are we to obey? For instance, in my country young men are compelled by law to register for the draft. As a result, some may be called to take up arms against an enemy of the "state." But the one so called learns that such "enemy" is actually not HIS enemy but his brother. What should he do? Who should obey? Man... and his laws? Or God... and His?



I understand your point of view, dear Char, but as you with mine... I must disagree with it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with having been a JW. It has to do with having faced certain situations where the issue came up a few times in my own life (i.e., when my mother, dying of cancer, looked into euthanasia but found it was illegal; when my father became "brain dead" after suffering a combination heart attack/stroke; and when my son almost died at age 10 and the hospital wanted to give him blood... which both he and I refused), and what I received from my Lord when I asked him about the matter as a result of trying to understand what I should or could have done in these instances.

In the case of my mother, if I learned anything I learned that doctors should NOT have the right to keep someone alive if they no longer wish to live due to indescribable pain. By the time my mother finally did die... and her end was horrific... morphine did nothing to ease her discomfort. Goodness, we will put a horse out of its 'misery' for merely breaking a leg. But we will let a human being suffer beyond our own understanding for... what? So that the living won't feel the "pain" of losing them? And it wasn't a matter of "what if (we) find a cure?" Her organs were gone, removed by multiple surgeries as the cancer ate through her. What "cure" by that time? Something that was going to return her stomach, gall bladder, kidneys, pancreas, parts of her intestines? It would have been MERCIFUL for them to have let my mother go... as SHE had made her PEACE with going. But, no... oh, no... those self-righteous "I took a vow" and "it's against God" egos wouldn't allow that. And here, I thought the vow was to do NO HARM. How is letting a woman exist in such pain, unable to eat, unable to sleep, unable to relieve herself... absolutely deprived of dignity... doing "no harm"?

In the case of my father, he had listed my name as the person to decide whether to pull the plug and/or resuscitate once they did. I know my father... and I did what I know he would have wanted: pull the plug; do not resuscitate. Why? Because the prognosis wast that even if he "lives" once off the respirator, etc., his "quality of life" would have been that of a "vegetable." Sorry but I wasn't going to let that happen to him. And had he asked me, I would have pulled it myself... or sat by as he did it, yes.

As for my son... too long an account to go in. Let's just say we faced that issue and HE chose that he didn't want to take blood and I supported that decision. I knew my son and know him still. Maybe he could have taken blood and still lived, but what would his quality of life been had his conscience been "seared"? I can't answer for any other culture but mine, but there are already too many young men with bad consciences out there... and on alcohol, drugs, in jail, prison, getting girls pregnant, and all what not. Would I have talked him out of his choice? No. I will tell you what I did... and what I would do again: turn it over to God and Christ. The same as Abraham did. And in neither case did our sons have to die.

Finally, I learned from my Lord that no one can tell me that I MUST live. Not even the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. And I mean no disrespect to Him, at all, but per my Lord, He made that right MINE... and mine ALONE. If I had no choice, then the Adversary's accusation would be pointless: I couldn't choose to curse God... and die... or NOT curse Him... and live... because it wouldn't be within my RIGHT to choose. But it IS my right to choose. Because life... and death... is a CHOICE:

"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love JaHVeH your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Deuteronomy 30:19

Now, of course, I choose life, but the life held out by the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, is not life with regard to the flesh. It is the life of the SPIRIT that is held out and that is at risk. The flesh will return to the dust from which it came, but is it the SPIRIT that gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. John 6:63

If, then, my flesh... or the flesh of a loved one... is suffering SO much that it can longer WANT to live... then I think MERCY would allow me to let another let the flesh go... as well as allow JAH to forgive me or them for doing so. Because SICKNESS and PAIN can cause one to do all manner of things, including not want to... indeed, be ABLE to... live (in the flesh) any longer.

And notice, I said if my FLESH is suffering so much... not if my SPIRIT was suffering. Even so, if one no longer wishes to live because of sickness of the SPIRIT, then, again... I believe God's mercy will cover that defect. Because it, too, is a form of sickness. And sickness is not blasphemy against the spirit. Blasphemy is something born of hate, haughtiness, arrogance, hypocrisy, anger, and things like that. Not of illness... of the body OR mind.

Of course, I do not include suicide that is borne of a hatred such that it wants to kill OTHERS, itself being considered only collateral damage. That is another KIND of sickness, rooted in hatred that leads to depravity and perversion.



They do, unfortunately, which it totally irrational. Sure, doctors don't have all the answers, but they have many of them. They are not always right, but they very often are. Everyone should advocate for themselves when dealing with the medical profession, yes, but for the most part one must trust those who care for them medically. The WTBTS, however, holds its positions due to the intent to control by fomenting fear and distrust... which they can do due to the ignorance of its members.

While I do have great trust in the medical professionals, I don't have ALL trust in them, due to my own experiences. I have even been told by those IN the field that one should ask questions and not be bullied into treatment even advocate for oneself, when necessary. And sometimes it IS necessary.

Now, I don't know how it is where YOU are, dear one, but here... well, doctors kind of think of themselves as gods. As do many people. I DO give a bit more credence in that regard to surgeons (they are demigods, IMHO - LOLOL!), but I wouldn't advise one to consider a regular doctor as such unless one knows that doctor... and that doctor knows them... really well. As one of my own doctors recently said to me:

"Be careful. Not all doctors graduate from first rate schools, let alone at the top of their class. Even the lowest guy in the rolls, and from the lowest school, is practicing somewhere."

And when I attended NA meetings with the ex, let me tell you: along with the police, sheriffs, corrections officers, fire fighters and others, there were quite a few doctors. So...

Anyway, I TOTALLY understand your position, dear one, and receive it. I just don't share it. And that's okay, as far as I'm concerned. But I hope this helps you see MY position.

Again, peace to you!

YSSFS of Christ,

Shellama