Bethany's battle rages a year after her death
Bethany made headlines in Canada after refusing to undergo blood transfusions and died of acute myeloid leukemia. Bethany’s father claims the Watchtower Society and his wife played a major role in her death. He is now fighting for sole custody of his youngest daughter who lives with her mother and is also a Jehovah’s Witness.
Parents fight for custody of little sister
|
|
|
|
Kerry Williamson |
|
|
Calgary Herald |
|
Lawrence Hughes blames his wife for his daughter Bethany’s |
|
Arliss, Bethany and Cassandra Hughes in May 2003. |
|
Lawrence and Arliss Hughes embraced at their daughter’s |
|
Bethany Hughes |
Thursday, July 17, 2003
When Bethany Hughes was buried at a north Calgary
cemetery after her tough fight with cancer, her parents came
together in tears and hugged beside her casket.
Close to a year later, however, and the once-close
couple is again fighting through the courts, that moment amidst
the grief of a funeral light years away.
“I wish we didn’t have to do this,” says Lawrence
Hughes, Bethany’s father, who fought hard to have his daughter
undergo blood transfusions against her will and the will of
her mother, Arliss. “It’s not easy. But if this fight saves
one life, it’s worth it.”
Hughes and his estranged wife will again face
off in Calgary’s Court of Queen’s Bench this afternoon, a continuation
of a bitter divorce and custody case sparked by the death of
17-year-old Bethany last September.
The Calgary teen died of acute myeloid leukemia
while seeking alternative treatment at Edmonton’s Cross Cancer
Institute.
She made headlines nationwide after refusing to
undergo blood transfusions because of her strong Jehovah’s Witnesses
faith.
Her father went against her and his wife, convincing
the province to force his daughter to undergo 38 transfusions.
Bethany — who used the name Mia in the media
to protect her identity — fought the protection order, claiming
it was her right as a mature person to make her own medical
decisions.
Bethany Hughes even tried to pull the medical
tubes from her arms while bedridden at Alberta Children’s Hospital.
Doctors who first determined she would die without
transfusions eventually decided that she was too sick to face
further chemotherapy sessions and gave up their custody of Bethany.
She died Sept. 5, 2002.
Lawrence Hughes claims the Watchtower Society
and his wife played a major role in his daughter’s death by
fighting the transfusions, and filed a scathing 17-point notice
of motion with the court in April.
He is now fighting for sole custody of the couple’s
youngest daughter, 16-year-old Cassandra, who lives with her
mother and is also a Jehovah’s Witness. He claims he has only
been allowed to see Cassandra three times since last summer,
and is seeking to have her completely free of any influence
of her faith and the society, which he believes has brainwashed
his daughter and wife.
He is also calling on Arliss Hughes to be charged
with criminal negligence over the death of Bethany, and for
his wife and Cassandra to take “regular intense therapy sessions
with a cult deprogrammer.”
“I’m concerned about my daughter, what she’s being
taught and whether she will be allowed to get medical treatment
if she falls sick,” says Hughes.
“I want to be a part of her life. I want to see
my daughter. I don’t think it is right that I have to fight
a billion-dollar corporation so I can see my daughter. I don’t
think that makes sense.”
Shane Brady, the Toronto-based lawyer for Arliss
Hughes, says Lawrence Hughes’ allegations are “outrageous.”
“He’s saying that Arliss basically killed Bethany
because she was so irresponsible, and because of that she shouldn’t
have custody of Cassandra,” says Brady, whom Hughes also wants
off the case because of his connections to the Watchtower Society.
“There’s also some outrageous things being said
about the religious community.”
Arliss Hughes also wishes the court cases were
over. She rigorously defends herself — and her faith — against
any accusations that she put Bethany’s health at risk, and believes
Cassandra should be left to decide whom she lives with.
“I really don’t see what this (Hughes’ allegations)
has to do with a divorce. This is about difference between a
husband and a wife. In that sense, I think the children should
be left out of it,” she says. “This is about a couple who don’t
agree anymore, but who still love their children, and the children
shouldn’t be put in the middle.”
Arliss Hughes says she did all she could to help
Bethany. “I did everything she asked of me. We tried everything
we could think of to get the doctors to take care of Bethany,”
she says.
As the anniversary of her death edges closer,
the estranged couple do have one thing in common: the thoughts
and memories of Bethany.
“To me, it’s the little things that I think of,
that remind me of her,” says Arliss.
“I think of her every day,” says Lawrence.
kwilliamson@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright 2003 Calgary Herald
@crista
You’re a moron. Do you think this is still 1920? We can screen blood to make sure its clean and disease free.
Religion is to be blamed because this foolish woman and her daughter refused blood transfusions for RELIGIOUS REASONS. Did you even read about the case? They specifically state that their particular faith is why they refused the transfusions.
why do you blame a religon?, How do you know that that blood you took from someone was not infected? blood carries infections HIV,SEX DISEASE… Would you want your daughter to have that, saline soloution works faster then blood, I’m not a witness but I have common sense, that accepting blood that might be tainted would risk my life worse.
This is ROT Violet….@Violet
This is rot Violet….
What do the Scriptures really tell us in question of blood and is blood more sacred, in the eyes of God, than the life itself?
The Watchtower Society is a man created organisation that have built a religious house without a parapet, Deuteronomy 22:8 and they have sent thousands and other thousands of spiritual brothers, sisters and their children into a premature death and is therefore a blood guilty Organisation carrying at much bloodguilt, as described in “Insight in the Scriptures” under the item “Bloodguilt”.
They have furthermore placed themselves at Moses chair, by playing masters over others faith, by mind controlling of their members to believe that they speak with the mouth of God, even that they have elected themselves by the principles of majority vote, in opposition to what comes forth in 1 Peter 5:3 and 1 Corinthians 1:24 by their doctrines with sanctions.
If their members don’t accept all their changing teachings, called “NEW LIGHT”, which has coursed thousands of adult and children’s premature death, that vaccinations was the act of Satan, Organ transplantations cannibalism and maked the blood more sacred than the life itself, they will be disfellowshipped and shunned, totally socially isolated and cut of from their family, former and present friends which still are members of the Society.
If we look in the Scriptures, the Jews was given a higher standard that the surrounding nations, compared with Genesis 9:4, but it was possible for a Jew and a resident Alien, in an emergency situation, to eat all the blood in a carcass or by a wild beast torn animal. Leviticus 15:15, to sustain life. Only a ceremonial bath before evening and the matter was settled between God and the Society.
It was not the blood that was sacred but the life itself and the reason for that the blood has to be destroyed was when a kill has taken place, not more or less. Leviticus 17:13.
The blood is a metaphor for life, since the act of covering the blood with dust, was to show respect for the life and so to speak, give the life back to God. Se also John 6:52-56.
In a donor situation no life has been taken and the donor gives a little part of his /hers “life” in accordance to what Jesus said in John 15:13 and therefore there is nothing wrong in using donor or own blood in an emergency situation where a transfusion is the last chance to sustain the life, a question of saving the most scared for God and humans the life itself.
The latest “New Light” from the Watchtower Society in Awake and KM from November in 2006, announce acceptance of storing and use of thousands of tons of killed animals’ blood, in form of Hemopure from http://www.biopure.com.
They give members the right to use Hemopure, 97% of the red blood cells in form of the haemoglobin. The 3 % rest of the red blood cells are the donuts, the shield that holds it together and is not banned, but if a member take the 97 % haemoglobin and the 3 % donuts, which makes the red blood cells in one injection, the person will be automatically be disfellowshipped, but taking the haemoglobin in one injection and the 3 % donut in another, the person will be in good standing.
The men behind the Watchtower Society are sacrificing their members life like those described in Jeremiah 7:31 and their interpretation and manipulation of the Scriptures are very clear when they get use of Act 15:20, 29, where it comes forth to abstain from blood and meat offered to idols, which was not a new law for the Christians but a recommendation not to harm another persons conscience, like Paul he stated in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13.
If abstain from blood was and means a totally no no, how does it then come that Saul’s men wasn’t killed when they eat all the blood in the meat as described in 1 Samuel 14:32? Since it was an emergency situation and Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13 that an Idol was nothing and it was possible to eat meat offered to Idols, but being responsible for that another person stumble, that was the background and issue in question abstain from blood, strangled animals and meat offered to Idols, not that blood, strangled animals and meat offered to Idols was an absolute, a no no, in question of a life and death situation. Se Leviticus 17:15.
A wild beats often strangle its pray to death, but it was possible for a Jew and an Alien to eat the dead animal with all its blood in, since it must have been in an emergency situation, who likes to eat a carcass in a normal life situation with access enough food to eat?
Paul get use of the same word as James in Act 15:20:29 where the men behind the Watchtower Society translate the same Greek word different, to get support for their blood doctrine and through that avoid that Paul should be or look like an apostate, by accepting the eating of meat offered to Idols.
It is so sad to see how people have followed political and religious leaders doctrines through the whole world history, which has caused millions of premature dead adult and children’s premature death, but if we like to be Christians and follow in Christ Jesus footsteps and accept that the scriptures has its origin from God, it will be necessary to read and act in accordance to what comes forth in Psalm 146:3-5 and Galatians 6:5 and nobody can use as an excuse, I was to do so and so, that will not suffice, since everyone has to carry his /hers own burden and following political or religious leaders, which fit in to what Jesus stated in John 8:44, will nor be good examples to follow.
The question everyone has to ask themselves is, do I put my own and bellowed ones lives in religious leaders hands, those who have falsely predicted Armageddon in Jehovah’s name among others, in 1917, 1925, 1975 and now have postponed it to be 20XX, which the Scriptures clearly describe as false prophets in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and manipulate with the Scriptures to get support for their doctrines, like those described in Jeremiah 8:8 and Revelation 22:18,19 or do I wish to follow the words of Peter in John 6:67-69 and go to Christ Jesus instead of a man created organisation, which carries at much bloodguilt, by following the word of Paul in Romans 13:8?
Se also wwww.ajwrb.org
I had friend who died because witnesses do not accept blood. Later the doctors said she would have survived if her mother had allowed to give her blood.
I had a friend who took blood, got a disease and died from it. Later, the doctors said he would have survived if he didn’t take the blood. Ironic.
Even people who are not JW’s pronounce it as Jehovah. It has been confirmed to be the English way we best know how to say God’s name.
“You see without bias the truth is:
Within the circulatory system blood is either blue or green. This means blood turns red when the hemoglobin on the erythrocytes (red blood cells) become covered with oxygen in the atmosphere.
The problem is everything in the air gets sucked into it to.
Like the Oreck filtration system commercials show there’s alot of contaminants (Black stuff) in the air. These contaminants include the diseases accumlated in hospitals (when drawn in hospitals). It is a well known fact that more people get sick in the hopital than anywhere else. There is currently no way to avoid the contamination of blood.
Also Blood like anything else foreign to the body, has the risk of rejection, or atleast causes the body more difficulty in healing itself due to having to adapt to the foreign material. [During the beginning of the AIDS pandemic in the 1980’s over 30,000 hemophiliacs aquired the disease from tainted Plasma which is a component of blood. Plasma screening was the most thorough blood screening system at that time]
Blood conservation techniques have the same mortality rate as using blood in surgery. The major difference is the lack of knowledge in these techniques and the fact that healing time is much shorter in blood conservation.
Another difference would be the use of electrocauterization (Electrcally closing cuts or surgical openings in the body). This almost imediately seals the openings without waiting for stitches to heal.
The truth is the bible used terms such as clean and unclean or holy and unholy to describe thngs that we now are beginning to understand as aseptic/septic (sannitary, unsanitary) or other definitions according to their context. This also applies to the food that we eat according the biblical laws, but those laws are no longer practiced with the admittance of gentiles.
Wether the interpretation of the scriptures are argued one way or another the scientific facts would still exist even with out the Jehovah’s witnesses.”
The sad truth is this girl still died, but her father stole her free will before she died.
Thank you for clarifying this, Markus
Then the whole of the blood doctrine is within itself inconsistent:
Apart from the obvious fact that none of the scripture they quote has anything to say about blood transfusions, then even if we accept their position for a moment, it makes no logical sense:
A JW having received a blood transfusion as a result of a court order has no part in that decision, so cannot possibly be responsible; if we say such a person was responsible, then we would have to say, by the same logic, that a woman having been raped has committed fornication or adultery.
Also, if that is their position, it is ok for a JW doctor to give a blood transfusion to a non-JW, I take it?
Also, the odd thing they say is, that a WHOLE blood transfusion is a sin, but a transfusion of any part is not. So, if they receive one part after the other, rather than all of it at once, that’s ok?
Most importantly, if a blood transfusion before “conversion” (perversion would be a better word I think) can be “forgiven”, why can’t it be same afterwards?
Also, at the risk of sounding vulgar, have you very thought why it is that your own faeces is brown in colour? Well, you guessed it: Humans, like all mammals, “recycle” their dead blood cells by passing them through the digestive system… So all of us “eat” our own blood each day, every day, as long as we live…
I think what has happened here is quite simple: The WTS got themselves into a pickle by first declaring the “blood doctrine” and then discovering afterwards that that was perhaps not quite right; but given the consequences that this false teaching had up to then, it would be very difficult to retract because by then people have died as a result of it. (Law suits spring to mind…)
So they did a bit of back-peddling and now have a wholly inconsistent doctrine as a result.
This clearly makes the point made here several times over: Being a religious teacher is a dangerous business, and it is better to admit not having the answer than getting it wrong. Funnily enough, Charles Taze Russell of all people said exactly that. I wonder why the JW did not listen to him?
Dear Mark,
The JW approach to previously sinning people is similar
to Jesus’s statement of: “go forth and sin no more’.
An explanation of this is unnecessary, but simply put:
Once you are a JW you shall not indulge in blood, if you previously received a tranfusion, and have seen the error of your ways, and as long a you do not do it again
you are just hunky dory.
Remember of course that recruiting members will be somewhat difficult if they said: ‘Sorry you had a nasty blood transfusion and are condemned, so sorry you cannot join us’.
Cheers,
Markus
Hi,
I just want to find out what exactly the position is the WTS takes with regards to blood transfusions.
I know they don’t allow a JW witness to have one, but they can have blood products (?).
I wonder if having had a blood transfusion at some point in your life means that, according to them, you cannot join them.
I tried to find an answer to that searching around on the internet, but nobody seems to know…
What exactly are you referring too? To what is enunciated by the WTS or something else?
Hi again, sorry to ask you again, but I really would like to know this:
Can a person who in the past had a blood transfusion later join the JW?
If the answer is “no”, then it seems to suggest that JW have some kind of cleanliness laws, and I would love to find out the scriptural justification for these.
If the answer is “yes”, then they are effectively saying that ignorance of the blood rule is a “defence” for this particular “sin”. Then they should have no problems at all accepting a bood transfusion ordered by a court, as they have had not part in the decision. Nor should they then have problems giving blood, because the decision what happens to it afterwards is not theirs.
I don’t believe they blood doctrine at all, but I wonder if in itself it is consistent.
Can you, or any JW or Ex-JW shine a light on this?
Yes, I can James, in only 4 words. IT’S ALL A LIE!
You call yourself “The truth shall set you free”. Could you perhaps explain the ‘truth’ that comes from the Watchtower?
I agree with you about the offensiveness of the comment you refer to, but you got the explanation about “Jehovah” wrong, so let me have a go, in case someone is interested in this. It has nothing to do with Latin, but everything with Hebrew.
OK, ONE of the names of God in the bible is “JHWH”, pronounced “Jachweh”, where the “ch” is much like the “ch in German or like the “ch” in “Loch Ness”, and the “j” is pronounced like the “y” in “young”, and the “h” at the end must be audible, so for an English speaking person it is quite a mouthful.
In Hebrew, people only write consonants, and vowels are optional. They are written, if written at all, using small symbols like dots above and below the letters.
Now, the problem was this: The name of God is not to be used in vain, as the bible teaches. In the Jewish tradition, this is interpreted in that it is best to never say the name of God out aloud at all. So, what is there to do, if in a service a bible text is read out aloud, and the name of God appears in it. The solution is simple: Whenever it said JHWH in the text, to this day Jews read out aloud a different word, “adonai”, which mens “the Lord”. To remind people to do this, so that they don’t say the name of God bu mistake, JHWH is often written with the vowels of “adonai” on it, using the dots for vowels. If you then read JHWH with these wrong vowels, you get “Jahovah”, or “Jehovah”, which is a non-sense word. There is no such hebrew word, and nobody who knows Hebrew would ever think of using it. If you want to know the right name of God in the bible (well, one of them at least) it is “Jachweh”, pronounced as described above, but is supposed to be unwise to ever say out aloud.
Thank you, a really well thought out, clear argument few people should have problems with.
I wonder if I may ask a couple of questions?
One:
Do you (or anyone) know what happens if a person who had a blood transfusion and then later in life wants to become a JW? Is he excluded because of this past event or not?
Two:
If a child of a JW is made to have a blood transfusion, say by mean of a court order, then this child nor the parents have not consented. Do the JW say you can commit a sin against your will?
I am not a JW, but I a curious about their teaching, mainly for academic reasons.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.
The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.
Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?
Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.
There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honorable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?
The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.
Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.
That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.
As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.
They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.
Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).
Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.
Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).
In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.
Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.
There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?
I’m sorry Violet but your comments are DEEPLY offensive.
She has taken no stand for JEhovah, as the phrase “Jehovah God” does not appear a single time in the bible – Gods name is Yahweh ” He who is ” not Jehovah (which is artificial (inserting the vowels of ‘Adonia’ [Lord} into the consonents of YHWH and is Latin)
The Bible forbids EATING blood because it effects the digestion and enzymes, and one scripture states " So that is may not be injurious.". How you can relate that to letting a child die is beyond me. If I wanted to refuse a transfusion and die it is my choice as an ADULT. A child caanot choose.
Get your New World Translation and look up Jeremiah 7:3 - All Jehovahs witnesses are is modern day worshippers of Molech.
Dr Jonathan Kaplan [ world renowned international humanitarian surgeon ] says that the hardest thing in his job is that Children die so easily – ” they don’t understand that you’re supposed to fight death, they just quietly slip away and accept their fate.”. – FHM Oct 06
Go back to your child sacrificing cult. I hope you’re all very proud.
Bethany will be back. She is in a more favourable position than any of us she has left behind. She has proved her love for jehovah is over and above love of self, or family and friends…..I think she deserves to be admired for having taken such an amazing stand.