by dozy 11 Replies latest watchtower medical
http://www.utvlive.com/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=80831&pt=n
Richard Parker, a member of the Jehovah`s Witnesses, says that the refusal of transfusions is one of their fundamental beliefs
based on what is written in the Bible.It is not forbidden by their faith but is a matter of choice for the individual, he said.
Who is Richard Parker - branch committee? And on what basis is he saying that BTs are not forbidden?
but is a matter of choice for the individualI guess in the sense that the
He's playing forked-tongue games. Sure you can take one and its entirely your choice. We'll just announce that you're no longer a JW, as you evidently DAed yourself by your actions...
You do understand what "matter of choice" means with regard to JW jargon? It means "you can go ahead and do it if you want to...but then you are CHOOSING TO BE DISASSOCIATED when you do." It's a double edged sword. They say go ahead....we wont do annnnnnnything to you. You, however WILL BE doing it to YOURSELF. You choose the action, you chose the consequences and the Society and their legal department come off smelling like a rose.
How slimey is that?
If it's a matter of choice, they should simply get rid of the hospital liason committees! Why are they there except to ensure that the JW DOESN'T get a transfusion? If a liason committee is for informing, not enforcing, then they could simply supply every JW with printed information and go away. And the JW can make his "matter of choice" privately.
bebu
In my opinion, the legal and medical authorities should limit the role and access of Hospital Liaison Committees to that of providing generic advice to the Board of a medical institution.
HLCs must not be allowed to have knowledge of the treatment being provided or offered to an individual patient. This enables the medical service provider to provide unhindered advice and it ensures the patient knows that the HLC does not know anything about their treatment.
It is illegal for private patient information to be provided to a third party (such as to elders).
Patients need to be able to make up their own mind unhindered by the pressure imposed by "shunning".
Feel free to read my latest Paper, which I wrote with medical and legal bodies in mind. (http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/loyalty_test.pdf)
If that URL does not work, go to my site at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940, look for the page on "blood" and download the file named "loyalty test".
Doug
Sure...fearing God & fearing shunning...they have a choice: The Frying pan or the Fire.
Rabbit - Been there and I watched it happen to my Mom.
It is illegal for private patient information to be provided to a third party (such as to elders).
Sadly it seems that the (new ?) "No Blood Card" forces the signatory to allow the HLC to have access to their medical records.
(Note the word "and" in the "and/or" in point 6) Usually these sort of "xx/xx" phrases are followed by "delete as applicable", but it doesn't seem so here.
I guess that the signature could be ommitted from point 6 ???
http://i15.tinypic.com/2woykqd.jpg
Rabbit - Been there and I watched it happen to my Mom.
Do you mind sharing what happened with your mom?
Richard Parker's nose grew longer and longer as he said,
It is not forbidden by their faith but is a matter of choice for the individual
If it "is not forbidden" then there must be no consequences to exercising such free choice, just as there are no consequences when a person chooses to take cream or lemon in their tea. This being the case, I'll bet Brother Parker can name several - perhaps many - Jehovah's Witnesses who have chosen to take a blood transfusion and remained in good standing with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society.
I'll wait patiently why he assembles the list...
