Is 'Religious Belief' the card that will trump all
Historically yes, but that is rapidly changing, thank $%#*!
Can the WTBTS be sued for Murder?
by Gill 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
sweetstuff
-
Mary
I've long thought that the Governing Body members should be held responsible for the needless deaths of those who have died refusing a transfusion. The laws need to change dramatically to ensure that no whacked out religious belief can shelter those who can make life and death decisions for the members of their religion. That should apply, not only to Witnesses, but to Scientologists, Old Order Amish/Mennonites (who do not approve of procedures like a hysterectomy, even if it means the woman will die without it) and any other religions who enforce their own warped views of religion and medical procedures.
Personally, I think the Governing Body members should be charged with either manslaughter or second degree murder as outlined below. If the laws changed to where the leaders of these cults were facing years in The Big House, I guarantee you that there would suddenly be "new light" regarding the acceptance of medical procedures that are currently banned.
A person commits manslaughter by "recklessly causing the death of another person ...." In this context, recklessness means "that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk" of death. As is the case in negligent homicide, "the risk must be of such a nature and degree that disregard ... constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe...." Manslaughter, a Class 2 felony, is punishable by up to 12.5 years in prison and a $150,000 fine.
A person commits second degree murder if, without premeditation, the person "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life ... recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death and thereby causes the death of another person." Second degree murder is a Class 1 felony and is punishable by up to twenty years in prison
-
greendawn
"One potential complicating issue is that JWs have argued that, even if blood transfusions were 100% safe, they'd still refuse them because of the Scripturally-based beliefs"
They are using religion to justify their crimes, where do they draw the line even Jim Jones could use religion to justify killing so many people.
What's more the FDS has shifted his views over time allowing things now that were banned before and if allowed back then they would have saved some lives.
Surely a court won't accept their new light trash doctrine which basically boils down to god allowing them to pass on erroneous info to the R&F which he subsequently corrects gradually over time. -
steve2
Can we as a human race, continue to allow religious belief as the argument for all kinds of evils?
Hate to say this, but isn't this the main kind of reasoning that dominant groups use to try to squash minorities? E.g., during World War 2, the Catholic Church advanced a similar form of reasoning in its attempts to persuade governments to ban the JWs? And, by extension, isn't it that kind of reasoning that has led the JWs to try to squash interest in "apostate" literature (e.g., claiming it is evil and poisonous). I'm not discounting your line of reasoning - just that it's the bread-and-butter reasoning used by one group of humans against others.
-
steve2
Surely a court won't accept their new light trash doctrine which basically boils down to god allowing them to pass on erroneous info to the R&F which he subsequently corrects gradually over time.
People, please slooooowwwwww dowwwwnnnn:
The passing on of questionable - and even erroneous - information is part and parcel of what makes the world go around. It happens in all spheres of life, not just religion. Those who promote homeopathy, or Chinese herbal medicines or vitamins are often at loggerheads with scientific research findings - yet the adherence to alternatives continues unabated.
JWs are just one of numberless groups that seize hold of a topic and put their own spin on it - and, yes, the spin costs lives.
I work in a base hospital and had a recent case of an Oriental woman who vehemently declined urgently needed neurosurgery because she believed her Chinese herbal medicine would cure her. Her Confucianist literature supported her stand. It was quite clear that she had been fed incorrect information by her mentors but she clung to her beliefs and died two weeks ago.
One example among many I could cite of people being "fed" biased or incomplete information that has life or death consequences. The criminal justice system would be even more bogged down than it currently already is if the law took a more decisive stand on what constitutes "correct" information. Stalin's Russia came pretty close to marrying the medical and the judicial. We need to slow right down before even going there.
-
Gill
Steve2 - There is a world of difference between following 'natural therapies' and following the 'medical advice' of the WTBTS.
The WTBTS WILL punish with excommunication, (even indirectly with an announcement of being DA'd or 'no longer one of JW's) if a person accepts a blood transfusion. Such a person will lose family and friends. The rule is there FORCED on the blood refusing JW with dire consequences.
No seller of homeopathic remedies has that kind of power or influence!
Therefore, the WTBTS is actively responsible for the deaths of its members by punishing those who do not comply to their blood refusal requirements!
-
skeeter1
bttt
-
steve2
Therefore, the WTBTS is actively responsible for the deaths of its members by punishing those who do not comply to their blood refusal requirements!
This is the kind of stuff that "legal departments" were made for: By consenting to a blood transfusion the individual ipso facto is no longer a JW and an "innocuous" statement to that effect can be read by the elders to the congregation. You have a double whammy: The individual's own actions prove they are no longer a JW (otherwise they would have refused the transfusion) and the local congregation treats them as if they are dissociated. From a legal standpoint, the aggrieved individual has no leg to stand on. Yes, it is shocking from moral and ethical standpoints, but from a legal one, the Watchtower Society is "off the hook".
On a related note, two questions:
- Do you personally know of any individual who has been disassociated due to consenting to a blood transfusion? I don't.
- Do you personally know of any individual who consented to a blood transfusion whilst still a JW in good standing but who kept the decision from the congregation? Yes, I did in 1979. Since then, I have been in contact with three other New Zealand JWs who consented to blood transfusions whilst still in good standing - and our respective local congegations didn't - and still doesn't - have knowledge of this!
-
sweetstuff
- Do you personally know of any individual who has been disassociated due to consenting to a blood transfusion? I don't.
- Do you personally know of any individual who consented to a blood transfusion whilst still a JW in good standing but who kept the decision from the congregation? Yes, I did in 1979. Since then, I have been in contact with three other New Zealand JWs who consented to blood transfusions whilst still in good standing - and our respective local congegations didn't - and still doesn't - have knowledge of this!
I do know someone who was disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion. This person was a mother, who faced a severe blood loss after a surgery and the elders were there ASAP to "advise" her to be strong and faithful to "Jehovah". This mother thought of her three young kids and how they could be left without a mother and had the blood transfusion anyway. They didn't even wait till she was out of the hospital to announce her disfellowshipment.
I don't know how it works in New Zealand but here, if you go into the hospital and one single JW knows you are in the hospital the chances of you being able to "conceal" a blood transfusion are very slim. The Blood Bangers are at the hospital pretty quickly, speaking to the doctors on your "behalf".
-
steve2
I don't know how it works in New Zealand but here, if you go into the hospital and one single JW knows you are in the hospital the chances of you being able to "conceal" a blood transfusion are very slim. The Blood Bangers are at the hospital pretty quickly, speaking to the doctors on your "behalf".
The example you gave shocked me! What about the hospital's responsibility to protect patient rights, including confidentiality of treatment? And the responsibility of medical staff to carefully check the impact of visitors on patients??
Here in New Zealand, patient rights are fiercely protected in law. Medical staff are especially sensitive to the consequences of patients feeling pressured by any party to accept/reject medical treatment.
For example, medical staff will go out of their way to accommodate your wishes and keep your wishes strictly confidential. They will, if deemed necessary, even withhold information from a spouse if they consider the mental health of the patient at risk. And they will not tell the spouse or others that information has been withheld. That is why, even if elders are buzzing around the hospital, medical staff can keep them out of the loop. We also have enshrined in law patient advocates and a health commissioner - if a patient's rights are not respected by any party - including religious ones - the law comes down heavily on the offending party. Interestingly, JW elders are aware of the huge legal implications if they are even suspected of applying pressure to JW patients - so the elders tend to have a very "respectful" presence - if they present at all!