Do Jehovah's Witnesses have free choice on blood transfusions?

by kwr 8 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • kwr
    kwr

    http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=d2cea7c5-f7ce-4917-a338-55f42571ff1d&k=93098

    Do Jehovah's Witnesses have free choice on blood transfusions?
    B.C. Supreme Court to hear sextuplets case today

    A group of top academics as well as former Jehovah's Witnesses are raising stark warnings about the ethical ramifications of a Vancouver court case delving into whether blood transfusions should have been forced this year on at least two of the surviving premature sextuplets of Witness parents.

    -snip-

  • Gill
    Gill

    Yes! Of course they have a free choice, as long as they're willing to take the consequences of their free choice!

    If they refuse blood, they have to take the consequences of possible death, or a long recovery period due to severe anaemia, even though they escape the risks of possible blood reactions.

    If they accept blood transfusion, they have to take the consequences of no longer 'being one of Jehovah's witnesses' and therefore being shunned by all their former 'friends' and relatives!

    Free choice = Consequences.

    Howevver, when it comes to accepting blood, they have the thumb screws on of fear of being shunned which can be viewed as pressure to conform to the teachings of the WTBTS! Therefore, is that really free choice when someone is holding a figurative gun to your head?

    When it comes to accepting blood, they have the thumb screws of fear of the disproportionate fears engendered by the WTBTS of many diseases that are carried by blood. Therefore, is that really free choice when again the WTBTS is holding a loaded gun to your head?

    Once someone tries to influence you with fear tactics, is that Free Choice anymore?

  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    Right!

    Free choice = disfellowshipping yourself!

    See paragraph 5! http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/wtletter6-16-00.jpg Nevada-

  • trevor
    trevor

    They have not always ruled that blood transfusions are wrong. At one time, the Society ruled that vaccinations and organ transplants were wrong but later changed their mind. Recently the Society informed all elders that those members who accepted a blood transfusion were not to be automatically disfellowshipped. This change of policy was not made known to the ordinary members. This change may well have been the result of pressure to conform to the legal requirements of The Human Rights Act.

    Until recently the Society had insisted that the use of all blood parts such as red or white cells including hemoglobin, plasma and platelets were also banned. To accept any such treatments was the same as having a transfusion. This ruling was based on the Biblical admonition to “abstain from blood.” Now they have decided that some of these blood parts can be used!

    Members in the USA are expected to fill in a “Durable Power of Attorney” and distribute this legal document to friends, relatives and their doctor so that in the case of an accident, the hospital would know that they were not to give the injured person a blood transfusion.

    On 1 December 2000, elders in the USA were informed in writing by the Society that in line with articles appearing in both 15 June 2000 and 15 October 2000 Watchtower magazines, the DPA forms had been amended to allow members to accept the previously forbidden fractionated blood parts.

    Using the name Lee Elder, the founder of AJWRB, a group that has been set up to determine the feelings of Witnesses regarding the ban on blood, stated the following:

    “ Even more significant is this further comment from the Watchtower Society: “only a small percentage of the brothers have filled out the Society’s DPA form.” This recent statement from the Watchtower Society is very important in that it shows that level of commitment to the Watchtower Society policy is very small. If a Jehovah's Witness is unconscious and exsanguinating and no DPA can be presented, I believe a very strong argument exists that the person is not committed to the Watchtower Society policy. Especially in light of this recent disclosure by the Watchtower Society, which reveals dwindling support for its partial blood policy. It is also noteworthy that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of disfellowshiping Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood or the blood products that are still forbidden; the Watchtower Society has never informed the general membership of the change. Only the congregation elders have been informed to date.” (www.ajwrb.org)

    One elder, writing under the pseudonym Mr Shilmer, to avoid disciplinary action has asked the Watchtower’s head office to justify this turn-around and clarify the position. A copy of his letter was sent to The Regional Ethics Council in Portland USA. A reply was received from Dr. Osamu Muramoto, which reads in part:

    “I appreciate Mr. Shilmer’s comment as an active Witness elder. Compared with Mr. Bartlett's letter, the opinions of Mr.Shilmer and Mr. Elder testify how diverse the views are on this issue among Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Mr. Shilmer raised the question of partial abstinence from blood, I would like to add one example to show how the new WTS blood policy is NOT abstaining from blood.

    As I stated in this paper, and as clearly stated in the new version of the Durable Power of Attorney form printed by the WTS and distributed to the JWs in the United States last week, the new policy allows JWs to accept “all fractions” of “any primary component.” The WTS has emphasized in its literature that those "fractions" are "small” and therefore acceptable.

    When I ask JWs why those "fractions" are acceptable, most would reply, “because they are tiny fractions.” Under this new policy, the most important “fraction” JWs are now permitted to accept is hemoglobin-based blood substitutes, which had been prohibited until recently. How “small” is hemoglobin as a fraction of the blood? Let me quote a simple sentence from a college- level anatomy textbook: “Discounting its water content, an erythrocyte [red blood cells, which WTS determined unacceptable] is over 97% hemoglobin, the molecule that binds to and transports respiratory gasses.” (Reference 1. Marieb E. Human anatomy and physiology. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA:Addison Wesley Longman Inc; 1998:630)

    “If God commands to abstain from red blood cells, as the WTS teaches, why does the WTS also teach that accepting 97% of what God prohibits does not violate God's command?” (US spelling)

    As the Society have changed their mind on so many other verses of scripture, and applied the scriptures on this matter in so many different ways, perhaps they will change their mind on this issue completely. If they do, it will be of no comfort to the relatives of those who have died as a result of their ruling.

    More critically for the Society, these changes further undermine their claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit to dispense accurate knowledge which they insist the members eternal lives depend upon. By making the Bible’s comments on the use of animal blood into a law regarding the life-saving use of human blood, have they carried out their “duty of care” towards the present lives of their members?

    Taken from the book - Opening the Door to Jehovah's Witnesses by Trevor Willis

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    Bttt - More from experts in the fields of medicine and WT illogic..........

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    They obviously do not have a free choice in the matter since if they do go ahead and have blood transfusions they will be punished with ostracism just like a critic of the FDS. Having a free choice is just deceptive legal talk to shift the blame on the victims as if they decided to have no blood without the WTS being behind his decision pushing the issue on them through threats and false biblical interpretations.

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    What can I say or do if a loved one is in danger of losing his life because of the blood issue?

    There may be little time to act....

    CoCo

  • DJK
    DJK

    I think they have a choice but it isn't on a blood issue. Thier choice is being a loving parent or being a follower of the WTS. There should be a law that guarantees a minimum 15 year prison sentence to any parent who refuses life saving medical treatment to a child and the child dies. Voluntary or involuntary, it's homicide IMO.

  • TD
    TD

    There's a big difference between freedom of choice and the ability to freely exercise it. The former is nothing more than an abstraction that cannot be taken away even at gunpoint.

    JW leaders and policy makers most certainly understand this difference

    Notice for example the following letter and response appearing in the February 22, 1999 issue of Awake!

    "For some years I have been a reader of your magazines. I have to protest your one-sided reporting about the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: Is Celibacy a Requirement for Christian Ministers?" There is no "enforced celibacy" in the Catholic Church! There is only a voluntarily chosen celibacy that is a prerequisite for a certain profession. Whoever claims that he was forced into celibacy is lying."

    "We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase enforced celibacy and the notion that people are forced into celibacy. If, for example, a corporation establishes a dress code and hires only those who agree to adhere to it but fires those who violate it, then it could be said that the corporation has an "enforced" dress code. In a similar sense, it is fair to say that there is an "enforced celibacy" in the Catholic priesthood."

    Now reread this article and substitute the phrase "Enforced celibacy" with "Enforced refusal of blood"

    See what I mean?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit