it acts as a source of authority in peoples lives and therefore has a duty of care to protect its members with sound information
Awesome blog re blood issue
by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends
-
watson
-
sir82
I frankly don't see how the the JW position in it's totality is comparable to the Catholic church's position on condoms.
Good point. JWs teach, orally and in print, that not only are blood transfusions (well, some of them anyway) against God's law, but also are bad medicine and more dangerous than "non-blood alternatives" (see the Reasoning book, How Can Blood Save Your Life, etc.)
As far as I can tell, the Catholic position on condoms and birth control is entirely theological.
Now if the Catholic hierarchy were to make arguments that "condoms cause AIDS" or "even used correctly, condom use is far more dangerous than non-use" your argument would hold water.
-
steve2
The bottom line is this: JWs refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons. The medical arguments they adduce are used to support their religious stand, not vice versa. Therefore, even someone with only 101 knowledge of Law knows the Courts are not interested in believers' rationale for their beliefs - primarily because adult believers are assumed to have the mental capacity to make their own decisions - unless they are viewed as incompetent to decide - which is an altogether totally different matter.
The tort argument advanced in the 2-year-old speculative paper that was supposed to deal a potential death knell to the anti-blood teaching is a dead duck.
-
willyloman
On the two issues raised, 1) that JWs fully realize what they are getting into w the blood issue (which was slim's point); and 2) that the purpose of the HLC elder is to actually promote blood use (in the form of fractions):
Back in the day, I knew an HLC elder who got hired to run the "bloodless surgery" program for a large area hospital. From his perch at the hospital, he did daily "rounds" visiting dub patients. The rest of the time he worked closely w medical staff on medical management of cases involving JWs who came in for surgery.
I asked him how many of the hundreds of patients he visited really understood the Society's position on fractions/alternative treatments. His answer: Almost none. I asked how many opted for the full set of options once he explained that "Mother" said they were conscience matters, not forbidden. His answer: Almost all. He estimated that he was able resolve 98% of all cases in what he called a "win-win" manner, with little persuasion needed. The typical dub patient's attitude: "What am I allowed to do? Do it!"
That's when I realized the whole blood policy thing was a steaming pile of cow dung.
-
slimboyfat
Good point. JWs teach, orally and in print, that not only are blood transfusions (well, some of them anyway) against God's law, but also are bad medicine and more dangerous than "non-blood alternatives" (see the Reasoning book, How Can Blood Save Your Life, etc.)
As far as I can tell, the Catholic position on condoms and birth control is entirely theological.
Now if the Catholic hierarchy were to make arguments that "condoms cause AIDS" or "even used correctly, condom use is far more dangerous than non-use" your argument would hold water.
Actually that is pecisely what the Catholic Church has done. Didn't you hear about the recent controversy? I just assumed others would have heard about it too. I should have been more explicit. The parallel with JWs is closer than you think. The Pope, in addition to saying using condoms is morally wrong, has also ventured to say that they make the Aids problem worse; a statement that has angered many trying to deal with the problem. Please see:
-
leavingwt
That's when I realized the whole blood policy thing was a steaming pile of cow dung.
Winner!
-
slimboyfat
Do you mean to say that because wts hid their own rules from their members, which had dire consequences for about 1% of their members, that is a violation of US law?
Surely Haemophilia is a loss less common than that?
And the wts hiding and lying about medical facts to their members, which had dire consequences for many (and potentially could have affected any one of them), that is not a violation of US law?
It seems worse to me because while people will tend to have all sort fo views about all sorts of medical treatment (witness how MMR vaccinations came under suspicion in the UK in recent years) in the case of factor VIII the Witness leadership actually harmed people by not letting all sufferers know as soon as possible that the official stance on the blood fraction had changed. And the reason for the delay was to save face. That is in a different category than simply promoting a minority view with regard to the safety of non-blood treatments or confusion resulting from the complexity of what fractions are allowed or not allowed.
It sounds like you believe US law can regulate how a church chooses to share doctrine with its members, but cannot regulate a church's lies?
I have no idea about the situation in law. But morally I just find the situation as described by Ray Franz surrounding the change on factor VIII to be morally reprehensible. It is one thing for a religious organisation to take a stand against some form of medicine, it is another thing to needlessly harm members by not sharing a change in policy with them.
-
skeeter1
Followers CAN sue the WTS for deciept (i.e. misrepresentation) in its medical recommendations concerning blood...or so says an Alberta Appeal's Court http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw317.html Proving it is another matter.
The issue here is religious BELIEF versus religiously motivated ACTION. You have the freedom to believe in anything you want, including Tinkerbell. You do not have the freedom to absolutely act on that belief. The government can and does stop people. Hence, polygamy is illegal.
-
slimboyfat
The point surely is that individual JW's are taking life and death decisions for themselves, and worse, their children based on FAULTY THEOLOGY as well as twisted medical information.
Frankly many of us are not convinced there is such a thing as a true theology against which a "faulty theology" is to be compared. People are free to believe all sorts of fanciful things, that is their privilege. I don't think we should desire a situation where the beliefs of anyone are scrutinised for their coherence or rationality in a court of law.
Would it be so wrong to insist that all patients, of whatever belief system, are informed of these issues if at all possible, and if it cannot be proved that they have, then their view is not taken as informed consent? and more freedom to the medical profession be given in law to practice their informed medical techniques.
No because whose standard of "informed consent" are we going to insist upon? It quickly gets ridiculous. Like are we going to force Catholics to read Has Kung as well for example? People need to be trusted (unless they are metally incapable as Steve points out) to have informed themselves to the extent that they desire. If someone has chosen not to look for opposing points of view regarding their beliefs then that is an informed choice on their part too and should be respected.
-
slimboyfat
The issue here is religious BELIEF versus religiously motivated ACTION. You have the freedom to believe in anything you want, including Tinkerbell. You do not have the freedom to absolutely act on that belief. The government can and does stop people. Hence, polygamy is illegal.
Of course beliefs should not be tolerated where they harm others or result in discrimination. That is why I think religions that teach homosexuality is perverted may run into trouble in the future, just as the Mormons had trouble maintaining their racists views about black people. But a fundamental human right for anyone is to be able to determine what happens to their own body. If people want to refuse blood or other treatment for whatever reason that must be respected.