Skeeter Dude I am a little surprised your own misinterpretations and misunderstanding of not only what I wrote but of the material itself.
First just some points though:
-I have never tried to discourage anyone from reading the article. Although it is my opinion that the article's theory is without merit and there is much that is lacking in the article, especialy in terms of actual legal analysis, I do not have an agenda to discredit the article.
-I have never stated that because Baylor is a christian university that it is against Witnesses as you assert that I do. I have only pointed out that from a perception point of view, that as publisher of the article, it may negatively impact the article's utlity and reception among Jehovah's Witnesses who are conditioned to reject or look askance at all such religious sources.
-I did not state in my post that the essay did not discuss blood fractions or current JW doctrine. What i stated was in context of the paragraph you excerpted and to my post of the misrepresentation. Specifically it was with respect to the assertion by Ms. L-W that the pamphlet (blood brochure) was intentionally ambiguous, contradictory and qualified as a "Near Omission" of the acceptance of blood fractions. I stated that to address this point the essay should have included the modern doctrinal position, but this would have been obviously contrary to Ms. L-W's aims of trying to establish a contradiction.
( "Near Omission" = almost forgot to do it. Yup the Society almost didn't tell the reader that blood fractions were permissible. that cracks me up every time.)
-Elsewhere I have indicated that the Blood Brochure is outdated and is due and I believe that is is clearly so. The fact that it is included either on the Society's website or cited in recent KMs is not proof that it accurately reflects today's doctrine on blood. Old literature is frequently offered or used by Witnesses, even the WT Library CD-ROM contains many older publications which reference the old Generation Doctrine, teaching on Sheep and Goats, and so forth. Until a new replacement comes out, the blood brochure may continue to be used but all Witnesses will understand that certain things, particularly the greater acceptance of blood factions, have changed since publication.
-Finally, I like many others, felt that the build-up to the release of the article and the prognostications about its impact were unwarranted and somewhat sensationalistic.
-My comments in this thread up to this point have been about particular issues:
1) concern over an apparent hypocritical policy of moderator Lady Lee threatening to immediately delete even a link to a third-party website which might contain the article in violation of copyright, while tolerating several open posts to websites with copyright violations of the Society's materials. If the policy is going to be that JWD will allow posts or links in posts to websites who may be infringing the Society's copyrights but will not allow posts or links in posts to infringing material which is critical of the Society, then it should be plainly stated. That is certainly within Simon's perogative even if it would be biased. As an aside, legally speaking, the board, Simon or the moderators or any other website usually will not be liable for merely linking to another website where illegal activity such as copyright infringement might be occurring. Thus there is not a protective reason to adopt any policy that prohibits such posts that contain links to third-party websites and so doing so would only be a reflection of administrator's personal views.
2) AS and I have had a minor exchange upon internet jurisdiction and whether the reexaminer site is appropriate or engaging in illegal activity. These are interesting questions but so as not to hijack this thread I have refrained from commenting further.
Turning to the issues in question regarding the JCS article...
In your post-reply, you merely echo what the author herself writes as can be seen from your excerpt. Specifically:
that these three statements were “intentionally ambiguous, if not contradictory as blood components are never mentioned in its medical alternative section, banned altogether in its legal section, yet unexemplicably allowed in one statement near the end.”!!!!!
Yet this is the very contention which I indicated was not only poorly argued but actually a misrepresentation of the Blood Brochure itself. I will take each of these elements one at a time.
a. "never mentioned in its medical alternative section"
As I said in my review post, so-what? This is only the opinion of Ms. L-Wood that such a discussion should be included in the medical alternative section of the brochure. It is not evidence of misrepresentation by the Society. Additionally, in 1990 the number of blood fractions permissible to JWs were limited to a handful, albumin, Factor-h, gamma globulin, etc. unlike today which doctrine permits many others. As will be seen from below, the Society actually never discusses the use of blood fractions in the brochure and consistently ignores the topic.
b. "banned altogether in its legal section"
This was Ms. L-W's misrepresentation which I have pointed out in my review post and in this thread. Let's examine the excerpt again and I will highlight for you the relevant parts so that you can understand that this is precisely Ms. L-W's contention.
Furthermore, page 18 of the pamphlet, in reference to a German consent form, reconfirms that blood components are not acceptable: “As a . . . Jehovah’s Witness, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery.”
As can clearly and undisputedly be seen from the article (and the concluding statement already cited), L-W asserts that the pamphlet "reconfirms" that "blood components are not acceptable" and then follows the quotation as proof. (Actually, it is not a "reconfirmation" of anything since it is only the absence of a discussion on blood fractions in the alternative healthcare section which Wood sees as a "confirmation." of a total ban on blood fractions - something which is obviously complete speculation.) In any case, Ms. Wood is here stating that the Society, via the pamphlet, is communicating a blanket ban on blood fractions.
She supplies the quotation as evidence for the pamphlet's position carefully including ellipsis and failing to indicate to the reader that the quotation is not from the Society or even from the text of the pamphlet itself but is actually a third-party quotation included in a minor paragraph of a side-box. Here it is again in context:
Witnesses will also sign hospital consent forms. One used at a hospital in Freiburg, Germany, has space where the physician can describe the information he gave the patient about the treatment. Then, above the signatures of the physician and the patient, this form adds: "As a member of the religious body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I categorically refuse the use of foreign blood or blood components during my surgery. I am aware that the planned and needed procedure thus has a higher risk due to bleeding complications. After receiving thorough explanation particularly about that, I request that the needed surgery be performed without using foreign blood or blood components."—Herz Kreislauf, August 1987.
I will ask it again: Isn't this type of conduct the exact same kind of treatment of articles and sources that the JCS article is complaining about?
Look more carefully Skeeter. Ms. L-W is not talking about what is on the German cards today, and that is not what I have pointed out. No, she is actually stating that this quotation in the side box of the brochure "banned altogether in the legal section" blood fractions. This is a ludicrous assetion and moreover, it is completely misleading to the current reader of the JCS article and misrepresentative of the Society's position then and now.
c. "yet, inexplicably allowed in one statement at the end!"
Actually, in my posted review of the JCS article I didn't even address this further misrepresentation. (there were many other points to address and too many to pick on every one) but since you have brought it forward it should be discussed.
Here again the author implies that the Society is contradicting itself in the Blood Brochure by first (as she tried to fabricate) stating a blanket ban on blood fractions in the "legal section" can be found from the German quotation. And then now by stating that it has "inexplicably allowed" blood fractions in one statement at the end.
Please note the citation to the footnote and you will see that the source of this "statement" regarding blood fractions is not actually from the Society itself nor again is even from the text of the publication itself, but rather it is contained in the JAMA article which is an appendix to the brochure. Evidently, what Ms. Wood means by "allowed" is that the Society has reproduced without change the JAMA article. (I might add that it is undoubtable that the Society was bound by JAMA reprint rules to include the entire text of the article without modification if it wanted to use it at all. No doubt the article probably contained a few things which the Society would have preferred to write differently or cast in a different light if it were the author of the JAMA article. Whether the statement in question may have been one of those things we do not know.)
--------
As can be seen from the above discussion, the author's assertion that the Brochure is contradictory on the point of blood fractions is a whimsical fabrication.
But more importantly, Ms. Wood's declaration from the outset that the Blood Brochure was published in 1990 does not mollify her intention that the essay " further legal theory regarding the use of tort law as a narrowly tailored means for affording harmed persons legal redress."
If the article were merely a retrospective upon the Blood Brochure and dedicated to pointing out what are in the author's opinion inconsistencies or misrepresentations, there would hardly be reason to object to it.
But it is the entire thrust of the essay that it be used to stimulate present action in tort, using a misrepresentation theory or cause of action.
Because the tort of misrepresentation is limited by a statute of limitations, such misrepresentations have to be relatively current in order to be actionable. Crafting an essay which examines a publication that is 15 years old and which admittedly contains a number of outdated points and beliefs which few if no Jehovah's Witnesses would fail to understand had been superceeded by more recent material and doctrine is just baffling. But more importantly, persons should understand how reliance upon the article might possibly lead to more harm and a worsening of their legal position.
Because of this, I believe that is therefore warranted to give the article as thorough and objective of a critique as possible. And where there are what appear to be clear misrepresentations contained within the article itself, it seems prudent to point these out and call for explanation and examination.
-Eduardo
