Evacuated

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I am a bit surprised that there is no opinion from any jw what so ever about the latest ARC

Elsewhere on the forum

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

patients are often not aware of what their conscience allows until the "Church Council" lets them know if something is "approved" or not.

Seems this is the truth for many sadly:

WHEN faced with making a personal choice, one woman told a friend: “Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier.” WT (Study) Feb 2017 p12 para 1

PS NYT said " He and Dr. Smalley quoted a 1977 article in the Journal  ....

50 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

allowed

Why do people keep abdicating responsibility for their own decisions? 

Probably needs a new thread on this one. 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The publications have made use of the fact that the major/minor distinction refers to the size of the breakdown in fractions, based on the KM chart which highlights the "minor" percentages after breaking down blood into 4 "major" fractions.

Funny this. I never read it as relating to volume particularly. That applies to my point re plasma which you comprehensively answered. I didn't have an agenda re ranking by volume there, just seeking clarity which you provided.

Blood is a highly specialized tissue composed of more than 4,000 different kinds of components.  Four of the most important ones are red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma: 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/blood/blood_components.htm

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes

So the major/minor for me relates to importance rather than volume. And the connection of this ranking with donated blood separation appears relevant to the arena of confrontation also.

It is a complex subject obviously, far more so than when the prohibition was given. Blustering tirades of the "Read my lips...  A--B--S--T--A--I--N!!!" variety are unhelpful. (I don't think a carnivore can actually do this practically can they?)

The paragraph quoted below (“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love”(2014)  p215) states our position quite well I feel. It certainly renders invalid the assertion that the medical use of blood fractions other than the popularly designated and prohibited four primary components would somehow be sanctioned by Jehovah's Witness elders, whoever they may be.

Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be poured “out on the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

Seeking to inform is one thing. Seeking to impose is very different.

PS. I see the New York Times referred to Gene Smalley as a Dr. Is that correct and if so, is it as an MD?

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/29/us/2-doctors-tell-of-treatments-jehovah-s-witnesses-accept.html

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It looks like there is no such thing, technically, as a "major" or "minor" fraction. Blood is either whole, or it's broken down into fractions. Calling any of them major or minor is arbitrary.

I'll get back to this later as time allows, but just one thing I have noticed is that it is not the Witnesses who have arbitrated on the ranking of blood components or fractions. It is the general practice in most dicussion on the subject to designate in this regard:

"Blood is a specialized body fluid. It has four main components: plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets."

The American Society of Hematology (http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/)

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

99% of Plasma was acceptable as a "minor" fraction.

This is a fascinating topic and one I have never considered. I'm glad you raised it, although it's hardly a new subject. Without exhaustive searching, I can see lively (despite repetitive) discussion going back to 2009 in public forums (inc. B Anderson input on the proportions debate), also medical discussion on treating Jehovah's Witnesses with these components earlier still.

BUT....I dont fully catch your drift. Some ambiguity here. Do you mean that cyrosupernatant is acceptably termed a "minor" fraction? or that as a "minor" fraction it is therefore acceptable as a therapy? or both?

Also, by "minor" do you mean minor in significance to the overal function of blood? or "minor" in respect of it's position in the heirachy of blood components? or "minor" in that it's use is of little consequence to Jehovah's Witnesses in deliberating choice in respect of non-blood medical management?

And a composition question: Plasma appears to be 92-95% water. Cryoprecipitate is 1% (reasonably solid by definition). So, Cryosupernatant would appear to be mostly ...water, despite it's high proportion as a component? So leaving aside the water, what is it's % composition of plasma? about 4-5%? (Just trying to get a perspective).

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Yet, if someone we have deemed to be an expert  has evidence that can result in an adjustment to our teaching, then do we lose interest in his expertise because it makes us uncomfortable?

Certainly not, but it is their expert opinion we want surely? Not someone else's half remembered; half made-up; half distorted memory of what they might think. (There's a lot of "halfs" there! I might have invented a trinity!)  

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

he gets a divorce

unscripturally based?

32 minutes ago, bruceq said:

We have museum quality items as well such as Dead Sea Scrolls

???????

41 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Taking whole blood will GET YOU DISFELLOWSHIPPED, and your life will be DESTROYED

This is as extreme as saying the only way to demonstrate repentance over breaking God's law on the misuse of blood is to return the blood that was transfused into you.

This view exhibits the logical fallacy of causal oversimplification as does the 13 part-at-once scenario.

HOWEVER...you are entitled to your view so unambiguously expressed.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above 

Thought provoking though the cartoon is, it misleads in that no one takes all of the blood fractions at one time.

I still feel it is pointless and damaging to speculate on Bro Smalley's supposed view.

3 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

the elders' recommendations

What is the matter with these guys??

5 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What should be done if the “victim” and the “guardian” plea to the Elders NOT to contact the local authorities, as was the case in Australia?

Valid points made in AllenSmith's posting. 

The inconsistency and complexity of legal requirements in Australia was recognised by the ARC and the Society's affirming a desire for something consistent and simple was invited.

Compare the confusion in Australia:  

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/mandatory-reporting-child-abuse-and-neglect 

with that in the US: 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/ 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/clergymandated/

where definition on who constitutes "clergy" is inconsistent or vague with only Guam making any sense, and where "clergy-penitent" privilege is abrogated or permitted depending on constantly changing state law.

This is compounded immeasurably when considered on a global scale. For Jehovah's people who aim to transcend the fragmentation of nations, operating in a united way in such a Babel-like confusion is an enormous challenge. Rom 13:1 demands respect for Caesar, but today there are many Caesars. Applying a global policy is impossible, hence region-specific instruction and the Branch contact requirement. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.

Quite true, but no reason for a weak policy as some abuse comes to light considerably earlier. And surely the aim in part is to promote this?

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own document

Agreed. Left hand and right hand comparisons tempting here.

To be fair though, the intense scrutiny levelled against Jehovah's Witnesses in this situation would probably mean that anything submitted would be crticised unless virtually worded by the the ARC themselves. It was prudent to wait for the ARC comments before distributing the policy doc even if the proclaiming of the wisdom of doing so came across as a little self-promoting.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

three openings

The fudged discussion on defining "inactivity" and "disassociation" was embarrasing. Is that included?

37 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's more like 'forensic evidence' that counts as a 'second witness.'

However, where is that documented in the elder guidelines?

All witness testimony requires some level of interpretation does it not? No less so 'forensic evidence' surely. That's where the professional input comes in.

Prompt reporting to the authorities would (hopefully) enable due attention to be given to safety of actual and potential victim(s) and initiate the appropriate type of investigation to deal with the criminal element of the matter. Let's face it, if you found someone hit by a car in the road, you would call for professional help immediately to deal with both injury and safety, as well as investigating the cause, would you not?

In the case of abuse, the spritual side could then proceed, greatly facilitated if there was a witness issue. However, if an arrest had taken place there may well be challenges to the progressing of a judicial matter from the congregational standpoint.

Not sure I recall this aspect ever being discussed, let alone documented, although there was vague reference to circumstantial evidence in the form of "trauma" serving as a "witness" in both Case Study 29 and 54.

As for the inevitable "slagging" of secular authorities that occurs in discussion threads on this matter, this serves about as much purpose as that done in connection with JW attempts to handle this heinous crime and, quite frankly, for me, obscures the real issue, which is the protection of children and the successful prosecution of those who abuse them.

7 hours ago, Kurt said:

"Yes, but if there are not two witnesses you don't accept it, do you?"

Doesn't a professional opinion count as a second witness??

10:00amAEST=00:00amGMT

On 3/8/2017 at 2:14 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

(You do the math for local time...)

On 2/11/2017 at 1:03 PM, Ann O'Maly said:

Give it time. 

Don't think you will ever see one of Jehovah's Witnesses voluntarily nailed to a cross!  

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine

Shame. I'd rather hear Gene Smalley's view.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

Actually, isn't this silly logic? Like saying even though I don't believe in war, I stilll defend it because of all the people who have died.

Rather contradictory reporting here about a boy who was told he would go to hell by someone who also told him hell does not exist???? 

Maybe not fake but certainly confuse news!

Regardless, the topic is certainly inappropriate for discussion between a 7 yr old and an unrelated adult.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Tweet him and find out?

Can't get any agreement.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So God's Org emphatically denies its elders are clergy while Caesar's law considers the Org's elders to be clergy. Who to believe, hey?

What does "Caesar" consider the Org's elders to be?

22 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Angus Stewart was trying to make the point that the apostles granted the "multitude of disciples" to select the seven for themselves,

Seems there is a mutual misunderstanding here. The selection process to me implies recommendation rather than appointment, the latter being something done by means of the 12 on this occasion, subsequent to the selection by the 'wider group'. Both seem to miss clarity on this.

In the context of the selection and appointment of those brothers assigned as "helpers" to the GB today, I am not aware of the mechanics of that process and do not recall any detail being discussed in the exchange you reference. (Although that in itself is no guarantee that the matter was not discussed).

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It's you.

So he doesn't imply an understanding that the seven reputable men selected themselves?

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

"brothers select for yourselves seven reputable men", that a broader congregation of believers would make the selection, rather than the seven themselves?

Is it me or does this question demonstrate an ignorance of how the process of selecting the "seven reputable men" is described at Acts 6:3-6?

1 minute ago, Ann O'Maly said:

So what's the argument here?

No argument from my standpoint. Just an observation on the truly pathetic attempts of society in general, "lay" or "professional", religious or secular, to effectively address the problem thus far.