Awake!, May 22, 1967

Download: PDF — Awake!, May 22, 1967

MOST VITAL NEEDS

What are the most important things to you, above all else in life? Health? Wealth? A good name?

No one can deny the value of these things, but are they vital? Health can bring happiness, but are all healthy people happy? "Money is for a protection," said wise King Solomon. It can buy needed food, clothing, shelter. Yet Jesus said: "Man must live, not on bread alone." Even a good name in the community is not in itself your most vital need, because Jesus said: "Happy are you when people reproach you . . . and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake." What is most vital? To complete Jesus' statement quoted above: "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah's mouth." Do you have a successful program working for you to satisfy this need? Are you receiving spiritual health, treasure to be laid up in heaven and a good name with God? You can. Read the Bible regularly with the aid of this rewarding book

Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God

This 418-page, hardbound book, with subject and scripture indexes, will help to supply this vital need. It was designed to strengthen your faith and hope in a truly "free world." Send at once for your copy. It is only 50c.

WATCHTOWER

117 ADAMS ST.

BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11201

Please send me the book Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God. I am enclosing 500. For mailing the coupon I am to receive free the booklet Healing of the Nations Has Drawn Near.

Name ... Street and Number

or Route and Box ...

City State Zone or Code

IN: AUSTRALIA address 11 Beresford Rd, Strathfield, N.S.W. ENGLAND: The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7. CANADA: 150 Bridgeland Ave, Toronto 19, Ontario, UT. SO, AFRICA: PRIVATE Bag 2, P.O. Elandstonden, Transvaal

THE REASON FOR THIS MAGAZINE

News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interest. "Awake!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ties; it is unhampered by traditional creeds. This magazine keeps itself free, that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.

The viewpoint of "Awake!" is not narrow, but is international. "Awake!" has its own correspondents in scores of nations. Its articles are read in many lands, in many languages, by millions of persons.

In every issue "Awaket" presents vital topics on which you should be informed. It features penetrating articles on social conditions and offers sound counsel for meeting the problems of everyday life. Current news from every continent passes in quick review. Attention is focused on activities in the fields of government and commerce about which you should know. Straightforward discussions of religious issues alert you to matters of vital concern. Customs and people in many lands, the marvels of creation, practical sciences and points of human interest are all embraced in its coverage. "Awaket" provides wholesome, instructive reading for every member of the family.

"Awakel" pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of God's righteous new order in this generation.

Get acquainted with "Awake!" Keep awake by reading "Awake!"

111 121 131 141

PUBLISHED SEMINOLOGY BY

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.

117 Adams Street

N. H. KNORR, President

Brooklyn, N. Y. 11201, U.S.A.

GRANT SUITER, Secretary

Average printing each issue: 4,500,000

Five cents a copy

Office: Yearly subscription rates for continuing edition offices: Americas, U.S. B, 117 Avenue Street, St. Louis, 13202. Australia, Australia, 11 Berringham Road, St. Louis, N.S.W. 81 Canada, Canada, 11 Berringham Road, St. Louis, 19. Oct. 19. The Ridgeway: London, W.7. 7/7 New Zealand, 623, New North 86th, W.1. 1/4 South Africa, 623, South Africa, T.1. (Monthly editions must be the above rates). Resumptions for subscriptions should be sent to the office in continence, and your contribution to Brooklyn, N.Y. should be sent to the issue notice letter subscription capita.

Now published in 26 languages

Seminolehly - Ardizouane, Cisano, Danish, Dutch, English,

Plimish, French, German, Greek, Hokie, Haiton, Japanese,

Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalog,

Bantamly - Chinese, Chinese, Hikigano, Malawian, Polish,

Ukrainian.

CHANGES OF ADDRESS should reach us thirty days before your new date. Give us your old and new address (if possible, old address address). Write us your new address. 7 Adams Street, Breaking, New York 1210, W1.

Second-class postage paid at Brooklyn, N.Y. Printed in U.S.A.

The Bible translation regularly used in "Ankhei" Is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1963, edition. When other translations are used, this is clearly marked.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

CONTENTS

Your Personal Choice Threatened 3

Will Parental Rights Be Lost? 4

Conflict with Constitutional Guarantees 9

Integrity to Superior Law 12

Maintaining Integrity Despite Pressure 16

Blood Transfusions Are Hazardous 20

Doing Without Blood Transfusions 24

Does Coercive Medical Treatment Make Sense? 27

Brooklyn, N.Y., May 22, 1967

Volume XLVIII

Number 10

IF YOU hired a contractor to build a house, how would you feel if he insisted that you accept his choice of design and materials instead of your own? And when you kindly refused, what if he became angry, telephoned a judge and obtained a court order forcing you to accept his choice, without your even having a chance to defend yourself in court?

Would you not consider such high-handed treatment a

gross violation of your freedom of choice? The one hired to perform a service is an employee, not an employer. He can make suggestions, but may not go beyond what you authorize.

Likewise, when you employ the services of a doctor, you may wish to take his advice, but you also reserve the right to reject it. Yet, this right to reject unwanted medical treatment is being seriously threatened in the United States today.

In Florida, a mature woman was told she should have her leg amputated because of gangrene. She rejected this advice. But then the doctors obtained a court order and her leg was amputated, despite her strenuous objections.

In another case doctors appealed to the court for authority to amputate the enlarged arm of a twelve-year-old girl over her mother's objection, although admitting there was a serious risk of death if the amputation was performed.

Then, again, both the public and the professional press have reported an increased

tendency on the part of doctors to experiment on human patients without their consent. Similarly, children and even adults have had blood transfusions

forced upon them over their most strenuous objections. But why would anyone object to this form of treatment? One reason is that, on the average, one person dies every twenty-five minutes in the United States alone from blood transfusion complications! A surgeon, Dr. M. M. Simon, stated: "The computed annual death rate from blood transfusions now exceeds that reported for many common surgical illnesses." And a Canadian doctor, B. Chown, said: "At least half of all transfusions are unnecessary; personally I think the proportion is much higher than that." An additional reason may be religious, based upon one's understanding of the Bible, the Word of God.

For such reasons, to force any medical treatment on objecting persons is a threat, not only to their freedom of choice, but to your freedom of choice also. For while it may be someone else involved today, tomorrow it may be you.

IN Pontiac, Michigan, last year, a nine year-old boy was injured in an auto accident. The parents refused to accept the doctor's view that the boy must have blood. Next morning when the parents returned to the hospital the nurse informed them that a court order had been obtained authorizing the transfusion, and two pints of blood had been given. There was no hearing or any opportunity for the parents to present their views. When they asked to see the court order they were informed that no records would be revealed unless the doctor ordered it.

In another case in Pontiac, Michigan—that of a baby girl born in 1965 with a liver ailment—the doctor said she had to have blood. Both parents objected. The hospital administrator informed them that a court order had been obtained and that blood would be given. Blood was given, and the child died. As far as the parents knew, no hearing had been conducted, and when they asked at the hospital to see the court order they were told that the doctor's approval must first be obtained.

There is also the case of an Rh baby admitted by its parents to the Children's Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. The parents signed papers forbidding the giving of blood to the child and exonerating the hospital and doctors of any responsibility stemming from such decision. Nevertheless, pressure was brought to bear upon the parents to permit the transfusion; but they were firm. They were told that the

hospital would obtain a court order requiring the transfusion and that they would be notified of the time of the hearing in Juvenile Court before Judge Lincoln. The father called later the same evening, only to be informed that the judge could not be contacted and the hearing would be held some other time. Next morning on arrival at the hospital the parents were confronted with a fait accompli. A court order, evidently obtained over the phone, had been granted and the baby transfused at 3:30 a.m.

There can be no doubt that in these and other similar cases the right of the parents to select the type of treatment to be given their children has been arrogantly shoved aside. Though in fact occupying only the relationship of employees of the parents, such doctors audaciously turn the tables on the parents and act as though they were the employers. Were the final decision in such cases left to this kind of doctor, the right of parents to choose medical treatment for their children would be lost.

Not All Doctors Arbitrary

Fortunately, not all doctors adopt this unreasonable stance with respect to parental rights. Indeed, many private physicians will go out of their way to accommodate the conscientious scruples of their patients, be the patient Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or one of Jehovah's witnesses.

Such men are not imbued with the idea that their superior knowledge must overbear and cancel out the wishes and opinions of their clients. They are well aware of their own limitations, of the fact that in diagnosis and prescription they are far from infallible.

Said Dr. Arthur Kelly, Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association: "I believe that persons of union and the work

modity and the dicta of yesterday are being modified and superseded by the knowledge of today. Let us not, in our pride, become arrogant and demand this subjection of our patient's will. I consider it preferable that certain individuals should die before their time than that we [doctors] should undermine their ultimate right and duty of being custodian of their own health."

that parents of minors and the next of kin of unconscious patients possess the right

of unconscious patients pos to interpret the will of the patient and that we should accept and respect their wishes. Holding these views, it should come as no surprise that I do not admire the proceedings of a moot court assembled at 2:00 a.m. to remove a child from his parent's custody. The rights of the individual in our society are being

Medical men who hold this mature view of the relationship between doctor and

hip between doctor and patient or patient's guardian neither need nor ask for court orders enabling them to ride roughshod over the rights of parents and guardians. They do not take too seriously their own position and their own ability to determine what is best for patients.

impaired and eroded by many laws, customs, rules and regulations, and I think it is high time that doctor's orders should be recognized for what they are—our best advice according to our current

knowledge. Advice and counsel are ours to give and for the patient to accept or disregard. Enforcement, except by explanation and persuasion, is not our function." Windsor Star, March 11, 1967.

Position of the Courts

But what of those judges who put the stamp of legality upon medical usurpations of the rights of the parents? Merely because a doctor calls them on the

phone in the middle of the night and declares that an emergency has arisen, should they dispense with proper legal procedures and allow themselves to be pressured into granting a court order?

Dr. Kelly himself had been deeply impressed by the following statement made by a professor during a course in medical jurisprudence and ethics: "We can't order people to do what they don't want to do and we can't predict the outcome of a given case even if our superior knowledge is disregarded." Admitted Dr. Kelly: "Medical omniscience is a very rare com- MAY 29, 1967

Should they accept one-sided testimony, and make a mockery of the law as it now stands, a law that does give some measure of protection to parental rights?

The function of the law and the courts is to protect the rights of all citizens, with favor to none. When a judge is approached by a doctor seeking a court order authorizing transfusion, the judge is well aware

that there is a second party to the question at issue, and he bears a responsibility toward that party, as indicated in Section 17 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Michigan (1963): "No person shall be .

. . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." Life, liberty and property embrace the inalienable rights of the citizen, and it is therefore incumbent upon each judge to bear all parties and reach his decision not

ember 18, 1966) Already persuaded that the doctor knows best, they decide the question prejudicially to the interest of the other party.

These judges may mean well, but good intentions do not justify ignoring the requirements of the law, nor are they a sound basis for depriving citizens of their rights.

Dear and Merry Christmas

near all parties and reach his election, not upon the basis of one-sided testimony, but on the terms of the law as applying to all the facts.

In the state of Michigan probate judges have jurisdiction "in proceedings concerning any child under 17 years of age found within the county whose parent or other person legally responsible for the care and maintenance of such child, when able to do so, neglects or refuses to provide proper or necessary support . . . medical, surgical or other care necessary for his health."—Michigan Statutes Annotated

Proposed Michigan Law

As the law stands today there is some degree of protection for parental rights. But a broad attack is now being mounted against parental rights in matters pertaining to the health and welfare of their children. The following report appeared in the Detroit News of December 18, 1966: "State legislation which would allow doctors and hospitals to give emergency care to minor children despite religious objections of parents is sought by two Detroit-area probate judges. The proposed law would apply to 'life-or-death' cases and

3178 (598.) (b) (1).

Neglect or refusal on the part of parent or guardian to provide "proper or necessary" care must be proved. In order to comply with "due process" requirements, a proper hearing must be held, at which both parties have equal opportunity to be represented. It is quite possible that another equally learned doctor, called in as witness by the patient, might entirely disagree upon the need for a transfusion.

Some judges, however, ignore the law and permit a flood of emotion to upset

would allow doctors to proceed without first obtaining a court order. The proponents of the law—Juvenile Court Judge James H. Lincoln, of Wayne County Probate Court, and Oakland County Probate Judge Norman R. Barnard."

Passage of such legislation would grant to doctors almost unlimited discretion, for who but the doctors would determine when an "emergency" had arisen and just exactly what was a "life-or-death" case? It would play into the hands of a type of medical man who little deserves such con-

good judgment. Thus we have the admission by such probate judges as James H. Lincoln of Wayne County Probate Court and Norman R. Barnard of Oakland County Probate Court in Michigan that "they frequently make technical violations of the present law by giving 'telephone consents' to treatment before a court of hearing is scheduled." (Detroit News, De-

fidence, men who are proud of their professional standing, who have no tolerance for the opinions of ordinary citizens, who consider it an affront for a patient to disagree with them. Gone would be the right of patient or guardian to disagree with the doctor on any point, as well as his liberty to dismiss one doctor and engage another who would have more respect for his views.

The proposed law would open the door wide to abuse of power by medical men.

The danger of putting through legislation that requires people to submit to certain medical treatment has already been pointed up by recent developments. The legislators in thirty-seven states were told that a certain treatment for babies with an inherited defect that may lead to mental retardation is so unquestionably valuable that laws should be passed to make the treatment compulsory. Now they have to admit that it is not that good, for Medical World News of December 8, 1966, reports: "Compulsory PKU Tests Come Under Fire." "Expert calls legislation premature." A university of Maryland pediatrician and biochemist challenged the laws: "We don't even know enough about PKU to diagnose the disorder let alone treat it," said Dr. Samuel P. Bessman. In fact, he believes the treatment is harmful and that several deaths have resulted from it. "Why should we tell the public that the answer has been found when the fact is that we may be doing as much harm as good?" he asked.

Dr. Bessman concluded that the PKU case "marks the first time that what is actually an experimental treatment for a disease has been crystallized into law. We should re-examine the basis on which we've made PKU testing compulsory."

Obviously, in a field characterized by change and development, it is unwise for legislators to 'crystallize into law' any form of medical treatment or give unlimited authority to its practitioners. Where are they going to draw the line? What guarantee have they that this or that type of treatment will not soon become outdated? Blood transfusion therapy, the fad today, may soon fade out as did that great panacea of yesteryear—bloodletting.

Judges Who Uphold the Law

It is indeed refreshing to note that not all judges are prepared to disallow the right of parents or guardians to select the treatment to be given their ailing children. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a mother decided not to accept the advice of doctors who urged removal of her six-year-old's spleen together with accompanying blood transfusions. The mother was charged with neglect of her child and the court was urged by the doctors to make their medical treatment obligatory.

Judge Howard G. Brown of the County Court, Children's Division, Milwaukee County, ruled:

"On numerous occasions in the past, the attending physicians recommended that transfusions be given to Henry [the six-year-old] when he was in crisis, stating to the mother that without such transfusion he would not survive. She has consistently refused consent to the transfusions, she has released in writing the hospital and doctors from liability by reason of such refusal, and the child has survived without them . . .

"Unquestionably, there is a serious risk of possible adverse effects of any transfusion. Medical advice as to the dire need for such blood transfusions has been proved wrong in this very case in the past, where the doctors have told the mother that transfusions were needed to save his life and it turned out not to be so. The court finds the mother in this case has not abused the parental discretion as to the care of her child."—Crisis and Delinquency, issue of October 1966.

Judge Brown is to be commended for using his judicial authority to protect the rights of this mother.

Instead of accepting the say-so of the plaintiff doctors, Judge Brown preferred the testimony of disinterested medical authorities. In evidence before him were excerpts from the well-known surgical work, Complications in Surgery and Their Management, edited by Doctors Curtis P. Artz and James D. Hardy (1960), which points out that "the annual mortality from only three complications of blood transfusion, hemolytic reactions, overload and serum hepatitis, is computed to be 16,500 people."

The same authority goes on to reveal that between three and five thousand deaths each year have been estimated as resulting from human errors in administering blood. Thus we have the appalling total of over 20,000 deaths annually.

The same authoritative work makes the astonishing admission: "In terms of disability and loss of life the sequelae of blood transfusions rival some of our major public health problems." And that is tantamount to saying that the promoters of the blood transfusion therapy have created an additional serious public health hazard. How, in the face of this, can any doctor maintain that the risk from blood transfusion is minimal, and that danger is just some foolish idea of the parents? How can he represent this treatment as anything other than a risky procedure?

Threat to Parental Rights

If doctors are granted freedom to give blood to minors whenever they choose, is it not equally reasonable that they can perform any other surgical procedures they choose? Precedent would be provided for compulsory amputations, experiments, removal of the eyes and other drastic procedures. The substitution of medical opinion for parental discretion in the treatment of children is also a dangerous break into the sanctity of the family. Once enacted into law, what other inroads will be made? True, parents will at times make mistakes in judgment, but can any doctor, legislator, judge or lawyer honestly claim he never makes mistakes?

The threat of the proposed legislation is not alone against Jehovah's witnesses. It is a threat, too, to people of many religious groups whose opinions differ in some respect from current medical thought. Are

the courts prepared to take all their children away from them in order to administer treatment dictated by medical men? Commenting editorially, an official Catholic newspaper, the Canadian Register of January 14, 1961, had this to say: "It is only one step from imposing blood transfusion on patients by law to subjecting patients to sterilization and abortion on therapeutic grounds . . . because this obligation rests on the conscience of the patient, no medical or civil authority has the right to force him to accept such treatment against his conscience. . . . And since the responsibility for the life of a child rests on the parents . . . the state cannot force them to subject the child to treatment which they consider morally wrong."

The proposed Michigan legislation would, in effect, hand over minor patients to the doctors without so much as a court hearing, and would open the door to unending abuses. The parents would have jurisdiction over their children only as long as they continued in good health. Doctors would no longer be employees like all other professional people, available to be hired and dismissed. They would exercise police and judicial powers, arbitrarily determining when a child should be taken from its family and what type of surgical or other treatment should be given it.

A grave responsibility, therefore, lies upon each judge of the courts today in his disposition of cases involving the right of parents to determine what treatment their children shall have. Will they afford protection to parental rights, or extend unwarranted privilege to the medical profession? And as to the proposed legislation, will the legislators of Michigan protect the rights of parents against further encroachment? Yes, parents are keenly concerned about the matter. Will parental rights be lost?

CONFLICT

LEGAL pressure to deny one the right to

accept or reject medical treatment comes into conflict with provisions

of the United States Constitution. The proposed Michigan law that would give doctors control over minor children is a radical departure from the basic principles of democratic law, which assures parents the right to guide the care, education and potential future of their families. If enacted, it would be a major step toward undermining the Constitutional guarantees of due process of law and free exercise of re

tution's Fourteenth Amendment declares: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Constitution of the State of Michigan, in full accord with these lofty sentiments, allows: "Every person shall be at

region within the family circle.

But why is it that Constitutional guarantees enter the matter? Because in the case of Jehovah's witnesses the basic reason for their refusing blood transfusions is their worship. They have no objection to other forms of treatment, such as use of so-called blood substitutes or plasma volume expanders; but they believe that the Bible prohibits the use of the blood of any other creature to sustain their own life.—Acts 15:28, 29.

Hence freedom of religion is involved. And in this record it is vital to refer to

liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience."

An Infringement of Religious Liberty?

On March 18, 1965, this very matter was taken into consideration by the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case styled Brooks v. Aste. There the question was discussed: Is it an infringement of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of worship to deny one the right to reject unwanted medical treatment? When one's action, or refusal to act, does no harm to the society of which he is a part, can

And in this regard it is vital to refer to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Not only is the Congress of the United States forbidden to make such unjust laws; so are the individual States. The Consti MAY 22, 1967

the society of which he is a part, can treatment that violates his religious beliefs properly be forced on him?

Mrs. Bernice Brooks had been forced by court order to submit to a blood transfusion against her will. Although the contention was made that, since the blood transfusion had already been given, the matter was no longer of practical signifi-

cance, the Illinois Supreme Court did not agree.

It considered the matter of "substantial public interest," and so heard the case. How did this high state court rule?

In summing up, the Supreme Court stated:

"Even though we may consider appellant's beliefs unwise, foolish or ridiculous, in the absence of an overriding danger to society we may not permit interference therewith . . . In the final analysis, what has happened here involves a judicial attempt to decide what course of action is best for a particular individual, notwithstanding that individual's contrary views based upon religious convictions. Such action cannot be constitutionally countenanced."

Interference in one's personal choice of medical treatment 'may not be permitted!" "Such action cannot be constitutionally countenanced"! Thus ruled the Illinois Supreme Court, and properly so. For support of its conclusion the Court referred in its opinion to a decision of a statutory three-judge district court (affirmed by the United States Supreme Court), which said:

"For the courts to attempt to distinguish between religious beliefs or practices on the ground that they are reasonable or unreasonable would be for them to embark upon a hopeless undertaking and one which would inevitably result in the end of religious liberty. . . . The religious freedom guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendment means that he shall have the right to [freely worship God], whether his belief is reasonable or not, without interference from anyone, so long as his action or refusal to act is not directly harmful to the society of which he forms a part."*

Clearly, it is an infringement of religious liberty and a violation of the Constitution of the United States to force a particular medical treatment upon anyone against his religious convictions! To pass a law that would permit a child to be taken from its parents' jurisdiction and given

treatment that is religiously objectionable to them is a deplorable invasion of the fundamental rights of free people! Especially when the treatment is, as admitted in the book Complications in Surgery and Their Management, responsible for a "tremendous loss of life," tens of thousands of deaths a year in the United States alone!

In all honesty it should be acknowledged that there are risks in either taking or not taking blood transfusions. And when there are two risks, a decision must be made as to which one will be accepted. This decision is not properly the right of the State or the doctor to make, but of the parents to whom the child belongs. No decision is neglect; but if the parents elect one risk instead of the other there is no neglect, no basis for official interference.

Good Intentions Not Enough

But it is argued that laws to enforce blood transfusions have good intentions behind them. Still, what did the Supreme Court of Illinois say about a lower court ruling that upheld the right to enforce transfusion? "While the action of the circuit court herein was unquestionably wellmeaning, we have no recourse but to hold that it has interfered with basic constitutional rights."

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." Clearly, a court order that takes a child from the jurisdiction of its parents on the testimony of a doctor, without even a hearing for the parents or opportunity for them to produce witnesses in their behalf, is not adhering to "due process of law." It is high-handed, unconstitutional procedure! Similarly, the proposed Michigan law that would give doctors the arbitrary right to administer treatment that the doctors deem advisable would also deprive citizens of their "liberty .

. . without due process of law." Medical treatment then could be forced upon persons without any recourse on the part of doctors to legal procedure.

Often judges of the United States Supreme Court have pointed out the danger of undermining such procedural safeguards. Explained Mr. Justice Douglas: "It is procedure that spells much of the difference between rule by law and rule by whim or caprice. Steadfast adherence to strict procedural safeguards is our main assurance that there will be equal justice under law." And, too, it is advisable to recall the wise words of the late Mr. Justice Brandeis, who stated: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding."

Moreover, though there may be good intentions, there is no guarantee that good will result from a blood transfusion. In view of the many risks in use of blood transfusions, as shown later in this magazine, one may well ask whether the time will soon come when blood transfusion is sent along with bloodletting into the cemetery of treatment proved harmful. Then how much damage will have been done not only to little children but also to public confidence in the administration of justice? Courts, judges and lawmakers who have abdicated their functions and rubberstamped uncertain medical opinion will have lost much in the way of public respect. No one can make adequate restitution for the damage to the individuals and to the families who have had the sanctity of their homes invaded.

Doubly damaging is the abandonment of the judicial function, turning over to doctors the authority to suspend the rights of their patients.

All Families Threatened

The matter of the proposed legislation in Michigan that would turn children over to doctors without due process of a trial is not something limited to Jehovah's witnesses. The issue affects the whole nation. Before anyone countenances such invasion of religious liberty, it is well to consider the words of Mr. Justice Sutherland:

"Do the people of this land—in the providence of God, favored, as they sometimes boast, above all others in the plentitude of their liberties—desire to preserve those so carefully protected by the First Amendment: liberty of religious worship . . . ? If so, let them withstand all beginnings of encroachment. For the saddest epitaph which can be carved into memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."

Those who are seeking to turn children of Jehovah's witnesses over to doctors and to deny them due process of law may be well-intentioned, but the proposed actions in Michigan are contrary to the constitutional limitations. Such legislation would violate the basic principles of the common law, which protects family life and the authority of parents to do what is right for their children. This is a God-given as well as a constitutionally protected right. Any infringement of it is a danger to the State and to all who live within it.

All the evidence brings us to the sensible conclusion of Dr. Arthur Kelly, Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association: "No doctor can be positive that a person will die if he doesn't get a transfusion or live if he does." "It is perhaps better that the odd person die rather than the fundamental right of refusing medical treatment become impaired."—Religion, Medicine and Law, Reprinted from The Canadian Bar Journal, October 1960, pages 27 and 36.

INTEGRITY TO Superior Law

THE ancient Roman Empire prided itself in the fact that it excelled in law. Yet, the empire also excelled in lawlessness, for slavery and social injustice abounded.

Part of Roman law was the requirement of emperor worship. But the early Christians, while submissive to Roman law, were also bound by a superior law, the law of God, which forbade idolatry. Thus they refused to worship the emperors, as that requirement of Roman law conflicted with God's superior law. As a result, many were thrown into the arenas to wild beasts, where young and old were killed.

It must have seemed strange to the populace for the Christians and their children to suffer when it would have been a simple matter to escape such. How? By merely complying with the Roman law that required emperor worship. One historian states: "It was difficult at any time for a Roman to understand and excuse their refusal to scatter the handful of incense on the altars, that would satisfy the law and set them free."40

God's just laws were made for man's benefit, and the early Christians refused to violate them. Did this make them fanatics? On the contrary, those who insisted on idolatrous practices and who threw innocent people to wild beasts were the fanatics. But did the Christians not want to live? Of course, but not by breaking

God's laws. While breaking them might have saved them from being killed in the arenas, it would have resulted in their losing God's favor. The Christians would rather displease man than displease God.

True, by maintaining integrity they may have forfeited a few years of life. Yet, they would die in a few years or a few decades at the most anyhow. When they would die was not as important as their maintaining integrity until death to the supreme Lawgiver, Jehovah God. In this way they could look forward to receiving the rewards for faithfulness.

Integrity Rewarded

That God rewards integrity to his laws the Bible makes plain. The Christian apostle Paul said that God "becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him." (Heb. 11:6) He confidently urged: "Consequently, my beloved brothers, become steadfast, . . . knowing that your labor is not in vain in connection with the Lord." Paul had this confidence because he knew that "it is impossible for God to lie." —1 Cor. 15:58; Heb. 6:18.

Even if the Christian is killed for his integrity, Jesus Christ assured: "He that loses his soul for my sake will find it." (Matt. 10:39) How? By a resurrection from the dead to life in God's new system of things, even as Jesus Christ himself said: "This is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day."—John 6:40; 11:23-25.

The early Christians who maintained integrity to superior law, although perhaps forfeiting a few years of life, were thus assured of being in God's book of remembrance and receiving his reward. But where would they be if, after having exercised faith in God and in his Son, they now turned their back on Them and made the decision to be willfully disobedient to divine law? As God's own Word so clearly puts it: "If we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."—Heb. 10:26, 27, 31.

Why Required

Why does God require integrity to his laws? Because his laws are always right. They are better than those that man devises, and they always work to the benefit of man. Without obedience to God's laws, there is chaos. It is this disregard for superior law that has resulted in so much crime, delinquency, bloodshed and immorality in our time. All this disobedience has plunged the human family into great anguish. And now, in our day, disrespect for God and his laws has reached a peak. This is why mankind is in its most severe time of trouble.

However, God has allotted a specific time for this corrupt system of things to go its rebellious way. That allotted time has nearly run out. Soon, God will bring this system to its end. Then what? Then, by means of His heavenly kingdom for which Jesus taught Christians to pray, He will rule the earth in righteousness. Marvelous benefits will go to those who respect divine law, for the Great Lawgiver

guarantees obedient ones that life then will not be temporary, but endless; that happiness will not be short-lived, but permanent; and that poverty, sickness and even death will be gone forever.—Matt. 6:9, 10; Rev. 21:4.

Knowing that integrity to divine law is required, Jehovah's witnesses believe that when they are asked to take a blood transfusion, they are in effect being asked to make a decision to renounce their faith. It is that serious, for a deliberate turning of one's back upon God and his Son means that "there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left," but only adverse judgment. Hence, when Christians in the Roman Empire maintained integrity to God's laws, even though it meant their death, it also meant they would be judged favorably by God and rewarded with a resurrection to everlasting life in a new system. —Heb. 5:9.

Likewise, when Christians today maintain their integrity by obeying God's laws, even though they die prematurely, they too can look forward to a grand future in God's new system of things. No, Jehovah's witnesses are not religious fanatics. They do not hate life. They love it, but are willing to give up a few years in this corrupt system in order to gain God's approval and everlasting life in a far, far better arrangement.

So when Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions, it is not because of fanaticism, nor because they decline all medical treatment, because such is not the case. Indeed, they accept other forms of medical treatment, including "blood substitutes." But when they refuse to accept a blood transfusion it is because they respect the law of God in this regard.

God's Law on Blood

Some object to the belief that the Bible prohibits the taking of blood. They say the Bible does not so teach.

Others contend that, even if it does, the prohibition was only for the Jews.

However, long before the Jewish nation was ever formed, in fact, 856 years before, about the year 2369 B.C.E., this prohibition was placed on the human family. Following the global flood of Noah's day, God said: "Flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat."—Gen. 9:4.

Centuries later, in the year 1513 B.C.E., God made a covenant with the nation of Israel. The Law that he thereafter gave them included a restating of the prohibition on the use of blood. Leviticus 17:12, 14 says: "No soul of you should eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: '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.'"

When animals were killed to be eaten, what was to be done with the blood? "The blood you must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water." (Deut. 12: 16) Hence, blood was not to be used nor was it to be stored. It did not matter what kind of blood it was, for Leviticus 17:10 shows the prohibition was on "any sort of blood."

In the days of King Saul of Israel the people on one occasion began "taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood. So they told Saul, saying: 'Look! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.'" (1 Sam. 14:31-34) Eating blood, even under emergency conditions, was "sinning against Jehovah."

Was the law regarding blood, given after the Flood and restated to Israel, carried over into Christianity? Yes, for

Christian Greek Scriptures state: "Keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication." (Acts 15: 29) Could Christians take this lightly, carelessly? The same scripture adds: "If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper."

If a Christian was carefully to keep from anything associated with idolatry, if he was carefully to keep from committing fornication, then surely he could not ignore the part of the command that tells him carefully to keep from the use of blood.—See also Acts 15:19, 20; 21:25.

Hence, the reason why Jehovah's witnesses do not take blood transfusions is that they recognize it as a breaking of God's law stated more than 4,300 years ago, restated to ancient Israel almost 3,500 years ago, and again restated to Christians over 1,900 years ago.

Some maintain that these prohibitions were on eating (or drinking) blood, and that a transfusion is different. Actually, transfusion is only a faster method, going directly into the bloodstream instead of through the mouth and digestive system first. Either way it does not do what Acts says, to "keep yourselves . . . from blood."

If a doctor told you to keep away from alcohol for health reasons, would you inject it directly into your bloodstream instead of drinking it? If he told you to keep away from smoking, would you inject the tars and nicotine into your veins? Similarly, when the command is given to "keep yourselves . . . from blood" it means just that.

However, does this refusal of Jehovah's witnesses to use blood mean they clamor for legislation to outlaw blood transfusions? Do they try to prohibit others from taking blood? No, that is not their responsibility. The Christian makes his own choice as dictated by his conscience, but he does not try to force others to do as he does.

Each bears his own responsibility before God.

The Right to Obey

There are lawmakers and medical men who recognize that the Christian should have the right to obey God's law even when it conflicts with man's law. Indeed, one doctor, writing in Clinical Pediatrics of December 1966 stated the following:

cipies might be foisted on whose children. Organized religion would be no more than a meaningless faroe and a mockery; the state supreme."

However, this doctor next notes a most important part of the issue, the part that explains why the early Christians could allow themselves and their children to die in the arena. It explains why Christians today would rather die than break God's laws.

"Most people in the Western World profess to be Christians. They respect other Christians and almost defy the early martyrs who were fed to the lions in ancient Rome rather than renounce their faith. Almost defy them! Yet those early martyrs joyously allowed their own children to die in lions' jaws. . . Why for religious reasons can the involuntary, artificial (and much more grotesque) death of children then be almost divine, and the involuntary but entirely natural death of the same kind of children for the same reasons now be almost criminal? After all, in both instances minority beliefs were and are involved. Who's the difference?

"Perhaps the most fundamental question is what is the value of terrestrial life, anyway? Is it to be valued above all else? If so, then society's present outlook is correct. Save the life of the child at all costs! Spend all the money; use all the material; smash all doctrines! ...

"If not, if there is some principle higher than life, . . . then the 'good guys' are wrong. The life of the child becomes less important than the integrity of the religious principles to which the parents adhere and according to which they wish to raise him."

Jehovah's witnesses have faith in the God of the Bible. They believe his prom-

"Lack of reason and common sense, and emotionalism, and hypocrisy—these make the difference."

This doctor notes the conflict at times between man's law and God's law. Of this he says:

"Which is the highest ideal and the greatest Good, religion or secular law? If one answers law, then for him the problem doesn't even exist. . . This is . . . basically irreligious or atheistic. If one answers that both are equally Good, the conflict becomes insoluble. . .

ises of everlasting life on a paradise earth under God's righteous rule. As the early Christians, they know that nothing, not even a few more years of life in this system of things, is worth compromising their integrity to God. They know, as the psalmist wrote under inspiration, that "evildoers themselves will be cut off, but those hoping in Jehovah are the ones that will possess the earth. . . . and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will provide us upon it." De 27 01 19

in the supernatural is higher than law, then the problem is again easily resolved. Where the two conflict, religious tenets will prevail...

"The dilemma bolls down to a vital philosophical argument; in questions involving personal highest principles of parents versus law or society, which should hold sway? If the latter, as is now the case, then pure socialism is the greatest Good, . . . and one could never know (or care) which prim-

reside forever upon it. —Ps. 37:9-11, 29.

Jehovah's witnesses love life, for themselves and for others. They love their children and will do everything in their power and in the power of modern medicine for their welfare, except break God's laws. But this willingness to help rather than hinder is not always manifested by others. Note how this has been so.

N VIEW of the plain language of God's Word forbidding the taking of blood into one's body, Jehovah's witnesses have had no alternative but to refuse blood transfusions regardless of consequences. It has not been easy for them to do this, for much pressure has been brought upon them to accept blood.

Their course has brought them into conflict with members of the medical profession who have not appreciated the position of Jehovah's witnesses. Not willing to grant these their right to freedom of religion, they have used pressure in the form of warnings and threats. At times these have even resorted to questionable legal methods to force blood on the Witnesses in utter violation of their religious scruples and convictions.

How have the Witnesses responded to this pressure and what have been the results of their adhering to their religious convictions? Have the doctors' dire warnings that death would ensue if blood were not accepted invariably proved true? Have blood transfusions always proved lifesaving? And who has been shown in a better light—the doctors and judges who have insisted on blood transfusions or the witnesses of Jehovah and those members of the medical profession who have respected their convictions? Let us see.

Integrity Severely Tested

A notable case of severe legal, medical and religious pressure occurred in New

York city in December 1966. Alida Avila, 14 years of age, had been brought to New York from Puerto Rico by her mother earlier in the year. The purpose of the trip was for Alida to undergo an operation for the correction of heart and liver ailments. These ailments had caused her to have a massive hemorrhage three years ago, losing about half of her blood. At that time she survived without the use of blood transfusions. However, the condition remained.

Alida and her mother, both baptized witnesses of Jehovah, had tried many times in Puerto Rico during the last three years to arrange for surgery that would relieve the condition. But because of the integrity of both of them to God's law, which prohibits the taking of blood, the doctors they contacted would not operate. Not wanting to put themselves in the hands of those who would not respect their wishes, they came to New York, hoping they would find someone who would perform the operation without using blood.

However, on Saturday night, December 10, Alida had another hemorrhage while at home. She was rushed to St. Luke's Hospital in New York in a police patrol car. The doctors at the hospital were able to stop the bleeding, but said that Alida would have to have blood transfusions, as she had lost a great deal of blood.

But her mother, Inocencia, refused to give her permission because both she and her daughter objected to blood transfusions on both religious and medical grounds.

A clergyman, the hospital chaplain, used pressure and urged that the Bible passages on blood should not be taken literally. When it was pointed out to him that the fornication and idolatry mentioned in Acts chapter 15 were literal, making the prohibition on blood in the same text also literal, he had no defense. Then he was shown how Galatians chapter 1, verse 8, states that even if an angel out of heaven declared something different than what was recorded in God's Word, he would be accursed. The clergyman was visibly affected, but his stand remained the same as that of the hospital staff.

During the early hours of Sunday, while doctors were pressuring Mrs. Avila to change her mind and break her integrity, the assistant director of the hospital called a lawyer, Robert M. McCulloch, Jr., who in turn sought the advice of Robert A. Derzon, First Deputy Commissioner of Hospitals in New York. Mr. Derzon was sitting in as "night mayor" in City Hall. Derzon said he would call for legal aid.

Shortly afterwards State Supreme Court Justice Arthur Markewich was contacted. He called the lawyer, Mr. McCulloch, by telephone. The New York Times of December 13, 1966, comments on what happened:

"The lawyer briefly repeated some of the details to the justice, who then said he was 'as of now' appointing Mr. McCulloch special guardian of the girl 'for the purpose of directing and carrying out life-saving procedures, particularly the transfusion of blood'. ...

"Armed with the verbal order from Justice Markewich, whom the lawyer has never seen, he went with the Rev. James Walworth, an Episcopalian minister and

one of the four full-time clergymen at the hospital, to ask Mrs. Avila's permission to give her now unconscious daughter blood transfusions.

"But she still refused. Mr. McCulloch then gave the legal go-ahead to give the child blood."

At about 3 a.m. Alida received six pints of blood. The next night she received two more pints. Within two days of those blood transfusions Alida was dead.

On the basis of a verbal order from an official this child was taken away from her mother and given medical treatment to which both she and her mother objected on religious and medical grounds. Not only did this procedure violate Mrs. Avila's God-given right to obey superior law, but it violated her constitutional right to refuse medical treatment to which she objected on religious grounds and her right to due process of law, because she was not even given a proper hearing in court.

In addition, what can be said of any clergyman who not only fails to assist a Christian to maintain integrity to God's laws, but actually pressures her to break them? Such person is indeed reprehensible, disgusting to God. The Bible states: "Whoever stumbles one of these little ones who put faith in me, it is more beneficial for him to have hung around his neck a millstone such as is turned by an ass and to be sunk in the wide, open sea."—Matt. 18:6.

Overlooked by the press in its emotional presentation of the case is the strong possibility that what killed Alida was, not her loss of blood, but the transfusion itself. She had survived the loss of half of her blood several years ago, but once the massive transfusions entered her body, death quickly resulted.

Pressurers Proved Mistaken

In December 1966 one of Jehovah's witnesses in Oregon developed severe complications and blood loss after the birth of her baby.

Her doctor explained that the count of the hemoglobin carrying oxygen to her body tissues was less than three (grams per 100 milliliters of blood), about one-fifth of normal. The specialist said to her: "I've never seen anyone that needed blood as bad as you do." He said that he had seen people live with a count of six, but only with a blood transfusion. But she answered: "No blood." So she was given iron to build up her blood. Her hemoglobin count steadily increased. It went up to 3.7, then to 5, then jumped to 7.3 and then to 9. In a month her hemoglobin count had gone from less than 3 up to 13.2. And this without breaking her integrity to God.

In another instance, one of Jehovah's witnesses in the state of New York had an emergency operation for a ruptured appendix. But then poisoning and gangrene set in. The doctor said that blood must be given to her. She refused. For the next three weeks her condition became worse. She raised a fever varying from 104 to 106.9 degrees. The doctor said another operation was necessary, but he would not perform it without blood. Her husband then took her by ambulance to another hospital, where a doctor agreed to perform the operation without blood. After the operation the surgeon left for a vacation. When he returned two weeks later he found that she was not only alive, but much stronger. Neither he nor the hospital staff had anticipated that she would live. The doctor remarked: "The God that you believe in and have so much faith in is a great doctor, so continue worshiping this God for he performs miracles."

that has a beneficial effect on their physical condition.

While Jehovah's witnesses do not claim such miracles, they do know that Almighty God, with his energizing spirit, sustains his people in their time of need, giving them comfort and strength of mind

In the state of Kentucky an adult who had been studying the Bible was admitted to the hospital with bleeding stomach ulcers and a ruptured blood vessel. Although not a baptized witness of Jehovah, he firmly stated that he would not take a blood transfusion. The doctor kept demanding it, stating that he had lost two-thirds of his blood, and urged: "Take blood now or you have one hour to live." The patient refused and recovered enough to have a completely successful operation without blood. Doctors and nurses marveled and stated: "What a man of faith . . . he came out of the operation with a higher blood count than when he went into the operation."

Yes, time and again those who have tried to pressure the witnesses of Jehovah to take blood have proved to be mistaken, for in spite of dire warnings the Witnesses repeatedly have recovered without the use of blood. As was true of the early Christians, although severe pressures have been brought to bear against them they have maintained their integrity to God and to his righteous principles.

Respecting Integrity-keeping

However, it must be said that not by any means do all doctors try to pressure the witnesses of Jehovah needing surgery to take blood. Many of them do respect the right of the patient to decline a particular form of treatment because of religious scruples and are willing to proceed along lines that are in accord with the patient's conscience. As one doctor put it: "Well, I haven't become so stiff-necked that I wouldn't treat someone unless they let me use blood."

In fact, it might be said that the more skilled the surgeon is, the more willingness he shows to limit himself by the religious scruples of his patients.

Thus it has been found that top-ranking cardiologists, neurologists and urologists have evinced a readiness to operate without blood. To give but one example:

Mr. C——, age 55, was rushed to a Baltimore hospital in midwinter a year ago with a fever of 106.2. He was at once packed in ice and then operated upon, being found to have a paralyzed bladder. Two surgeons, one of them a leading urologist in the United States, took his case. First they cut out ten inches of his upper bowel and sewed the bowel together again. This section was cleaned and then to it were fastened the two urinals of the kidneys. An inch and a half opening was made in the side of the abdomen to which the bowel section was fastened. Then a plastic tube was cemented to this opening and it led to a rubber bag fastened to the side of one of the legs. The entire operation lasted eight hours, and during this operation not one drop of blood was used.

What was the outcome? Mr. C——attended the assembly of Jehovah's witnesses this past winter in San Juan, a year later, looking fine. He stated that he was in top shape and able not only to get around and work but even to engage in sports such as swimming.

That more and more specialists are being found that respect integrity-keeping on the part of Jehovah's witnesses and the details of how these men proceed will be found in the article "Doing Without Blood Transfusions," in this magazine.

Brushing Aside Religious Convictions

However, not all doctors are so minded. It is to the shame of some that because a patient rejects one form of treatment, they will not treat him at all, even when the patient willingly releases the doctor from responsibility for any supposedly ill effects from not using blood.

Does it make sense not to do all within one's technical skill just because one form of treatment is rejected? Does it make sense for a doctor to declare that without an operation the patient will die, and then refuse to perform the necessary operation just because the patient objects to a blood transfusion?

In regard to using pressure, particularly repugnant was the legal, medical and religious pressure used in 1966 regarding the three-month-old son of one of Jehovah's witnesses in Wisconsin. The infant had been admitted to a hospital with bronchitis, but because of inadequate facilities he was transferred to another hospital in Madison, where he contracted "staph" pneumonia. The child's condition worsened, so four doctors assigned to his case recommended a blood transfusion. When the father refused, he was taken to court. The court ordered the baby taken away from the father, a new guardian appointed, and a blood transfusion given. But the new guardian the court appointed had the baby baptized a Catholic! What "dark age" mentality is it that not only takes the child from its father but, knowing full well he is of another faith, has the child baptized a Catholic? Individuals who perform such medieval practices must answer to God for their actions. And the baby? It was given a blood transfusion and then died within twenty-four hours.

…