Petition To Make Refusal of Blood on Religious Grounds Illegal

by Kenneson 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gill

  Very, very dangerous ground.

  My son was, at a few weeks old judged by two doctors to need major surgery, but at the time we were JWs. They said because the surgery was major it could not be done without blood and if he did not have the surgery soon he would die, and it would be our fault.

  We decided to go for a second opinion to an eminent surgeon in the field. He said absolutely no way should our son have such surgery unless it was absolutely necessary.

  We went for another opinion from another very eminent surgeon. He said the same. No way should our son have the surgery unless it was imminently dangerous for him to be left as he was.

  If blood could be forced on ANYONE, our son would have had an operation that at worst could have killed him, and might well have crippled him for life.

  After twenty one years he has never needed the surgery.

  No treatment should ever be forced on anyone, especially an adult.

  The state already, rightly so, takes care of children of Jehovah's Witnesses and protects them.

  It would be dangerous to be able to force ANY treatment on ANYONE at any time.

  Also, a person has to be taken as a 'whole' being. If their mind says NO, even for 'wrong' reasons to a treatment, they should be protected and nothing should ever be forced on anyone.

  I am no JW apologist. I am totally against their blood policy and allowing their members to die needlessly, but to force anyone to do anything they consider wrong, is a wrong in itself and can sometimes, as I illustrated above, possibly result in more harm than good.
• 

  johnny cip

  junction guy makes a greeat point. "make all religions that deny healthcare to their members be responsible to pay for the family's survivor. junction guy makes a great point: " if the wts had to pay all the $$$$$$$$$$$ that letting jw's die for blood would cost in the long run. you would see how fast they would get new light. follow the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ john
• 

  abbagail

  I'm with GILL on this one. Waaaaay too much government interference these days, yet people keep clamoring for more... to MAKE this person do that, or to keep THAT person from doing this and that, etc. Definitely not a good thing to be asking for MORE government rules/regs/laws/interference.
  
  "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  -- George Washington
  
  "Giving money and power to government is like
  giving Whiskey and Car keys to teenage boys"
  -- P.J O'Rourke Parliament of Whores
  
  /ag
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Our founding fathers provided for religious freedom in the constitution, they wanted to make sure that religion couldnt overpower the state and to help prevent rampant abuses of religion. The way the government is set up now, religion is almost untouchable, the WT Society and various other groups can hide their assets and are free from public inquiry. What if the government decided to do a study on the long term costs and effects of deaths due to no blood in the WT Society? I doubt they could, because the JW's would scream persection and freedom of religion. Secular corporations are subject to policies from the government, why should "religion" be all powerful and exempt?
• 

  sammielee24

  help prevent rampant abuses of religion

  This is an interesting subject and one that sits on the line. While I don't advocate legallizing anything to the extreme, I also recognize that society generally wants to live within some rules that benefit the majority and that protect the vulnerable. How can we say polygamy is wrong? Who does that hurt? yet it is not legal and the critics are widespread and vocal. All polygamists are not pedophiles but many end up on state assistance. So - if it's a monetary issue rather than a religious one, then should not the WTS be forced to pay out all the money it took from unsuspecting members? Members who sold their houses, who did not go to school, who refused to sign up for pensions - at the direction of the WTS in 1975 are hurting now. Religion is dangerous when it becomes fanatical and when children are exposed to fanaticism and trained to follow that - who can blame them as adults?

  I would advocate to legally stop the practice of shunning for any reason - including the blood issue. One simple reason. Shunning removes contact from family members who might otherwise be there to help those who are JW's when they are faced with major decisions like medical or financial. They can be the voice of reason and logic. They can ensure that their families are not being held up by the WT to sign over their houses or their insurance policies. They can be there to explain all the doctrinal changes as in blood, that many witnesses are trained to ignore. By removing the shunning, it increases the lifeline thereby effectively removing the number of people so willing to give up their lives, their childrens lives and their grandchildrens lives. sammieswife.
• 

  Mary

  launched an internet campaign calling on the government to make it illegal for a person to refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds.

  That's not going to happen. While others have made mention here that a person should have the Right to refuse medical treatment, even in the face of death, we all know that most Witnesses would accept a blood tranfusion, were the repercussions of doing so, not so (potentially) serious. If there should be a petition on something, it should be that a religious group cannot enforce shunning someone for accepting a blood transfusion. But even that's tricky and most likely not going to happen any time soon. I spoke to a politician about this and the bottom line is: they don't like to get involved in this whole shunning by religious groups, especially the Witnesses, since none of them even vote.

  Yes it's frustrating and disgusting that the Governing Body members are sitting their with their fingers up their asses, while God knows how many Witnesses have died from this ridiculous, antiquated interpretation of theirs. I'm sure that without the threat of wholesale lawsuits hanging over their shoulders, they would have abandoning this stupid doctrine ages ago, but they seem unwilling to admit their error, even in the face of countless more deaths.

  The best thing we can do is to continue the bad publicity that the WTS is getting. With assimilation and donations slowed to a crawl, maybe eventually, they'll wake up and realize that they're doing themselves more harm than good.
• 

  Morocco

  Abbagail said:
  
  "I'm with GILL on this one. Waaaaay too much government interference these days, yet people keep clamoring for more... to MAKE this person do that, or to keep THAT person from doing this and that, etc. Definitely not a good thing to be asking for MORE government rules/regs/laws/interference.
  
  "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
  -- George Washington
  
  "Giving money and power to government is like
  giving Whiskey and Car keys to teenage boys"
  -- P.J O'Rourke Parliament of Whores"
  
  
  
  
  
  Sure the government isn't perfect. They basically steal from us by taxing everything, but at least they tell you. And how else are we going to pay for everything we use? The government can be abused like anything else, but at least the governmental ideas of morality are far above a lot of religious views. There are penalties for murder, there are consequences for "immorality" like having sex with minors. And the morality they impose is pretty basic.
  
  I know what is at the heart of this. This is an issue if the government should impose "morality" on us. Who are they to tell us what we can and can not do with our bodies? With our minds? With our beliefs? Right? I don't think they should take it too far, but face it, religion can kill. I'm not saying the governments should tell us how to eat and sleep, but let's get rid of those disastrous things. It doesn't take the bible or god to tell you that murderous teachings are immoral. So yes, governments; impose that morality. Impose the idea that you can not persuade people to passively give up their lives, impose you can not teach people to hate one another, impose you can not teach people to commit suicide. Impose it because God isn't.
  
  People are calling for more rules and regulations? How about we get rid of some of those rules? How about we do away with the Geneva Convention? Why don't we strike out a few lines in that Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Why hasn't anyone applauded the fact that governmental powers are trying to create a system that marginalizes the inhumanities in warfare? Why hasn't anyone commented on the fact that rules can be good and we need them to help us?
• 

  kvalich

  bttt
• 

  jinjam

  John W. Gardner
  
  "Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all."
• 

  Navigator

  jinjam is correct on this one with his quote on political extremism. Could it be that the problem is neither political or economic, but spiritual? Could it be that the basic problem is what we believe about God and about our relationship to God and our relationship to each other? It is not possible to legislate morality. Governments can set up rules to protect society but shouldn't delude themselves that morality is involved.