In Argentina, a young woman is refusing a blood transfusion that would save her life

by dgp 32 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  On the subject of coercion, do any of you remember when the Awake! published an article critical of enforced celibacy in the Catholic church? (February 22, 1999)

  A Catholic objected to the idea of "Enforced Celibacy" and said:

  "For some years I have been a reader of your magazines. I have to protest you 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."

  Note that this is the exact same defense almost word for word that Jehovah's Witnesses now use regarding blood. "There is no enforced refusal of blood" they say. "There is only a voluntary chosen refusal of blood that is a prerequisite for being one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

  Now note the JW response to that objection:

  "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."

  Indeed..... What happens if we substitute "Celibacy" with "Refusal of blood?"

  "We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase enforced refusal of blood and the notion that people are forced into refusing blood. 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 refusal of blood” in the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses."
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  To normal people, there is a difference between disfellowshipping and disassociating.

  The Borg allows that misconception to flourish OUTside the JWs while indoctrinating members INside that there is NO difference. Taking blood is an automatic DA in many countries. I don't even think they form a JC for it.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  My bad. They do form a committee, but it is STILL NOT a DF. It is a DA. From the fleece the "Flock" book:

  "Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. If somone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the infididual's attitude. If he is repentant, the committee would provide spiritual assistance in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and Jude 22,23. Since he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for special privileges for a period of time, and it may be necessary to remove certain basic privileges. Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: "The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance." On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation."
• 

  PSacramento

  We can play fast and lose or tight with interpretations of what the WT MEANS to say about blood, but the sad fact is that they covered their bases in reagrds to legal issues about blood.

  It is and always has been, technically, an individual choice of the individual JW's.

  We KNOW it is a coerced choice, but still a choice and one in which coersion is virtually impossible to prove legally.
• 

  dgp

  Ok, the person is dissasociated. As if there were any differences.

  Legal proof would be important, but that is not the heart of the matter to me.

  THIS IS SICK AND IMMORAL. They first deceive people into thinking this is right, then they coerce them into doing it, and, in case someone should mess with them, they lie and say it's their choice. The Watchtower guys don't so much cover their bases as they cover their asses. And people die over this.

  I'm not concerned just about the stupid death. I'm also concerned about the people who are deceived into the cult and then "technically choose" things not just as accepting a blood transfusion, but also things such as shunning the person who accepted it. Because that is also "technically" their choice, right? It's not like the Watchtower tells you to shun people. And then this situation would only happen if someone were "unrepentant" about the fact that he or she didn't want to die.

  I noticed Dune's statement that:

  in her own reality she's doing the right thing.

  But, in reality, is she doing the right thing? If we talk about individual realities, then I could perhaps kill someone and claim that "in my own reality" I did the right thing?
• 

  dgp

  By the way, if this is right and witnesses should be ready to stand all sorts of pressure from this wicked system of things, Satan, et cetera (add your lie here) in order to do what Jehovah tells you, how come the Governing Body is so careful about not being legally responsible about this thing? Shouldn't witnesses consider taking legal responsibility for it as a good thing? Why would it not be right to say "Yes, we do it, and we do it because it's right as it was ordered by Jehovah".
• 

  PSacramento

  By the way, if this is right and witnesses should be ready to stand all sorts of pressure from this wicked system of things, Satan, et cetera (add your lie here) in order to do what Jehovah tells you, how come the Governing Body is so careful about not being legally responsible about this thing?

  Because they KNOW it to be wrong and I am sure thei legal department has made it more than clear.
• 

  TD

  Coercion doesn't not take away freedom of choice.

  Let's suppose that I'm backed against the wall with the flash suppressor of an HK-98 up my left nostril. (Might actually improve my ugly mug - LOL)

  I would still have freedom of choice and I would still be free to disregard any imperative that was screamed at me under those circumstances and suffer the consequences however messy they would be.

  What's been taken away is my ability to exercise that freedom of choice. And that's all you can ever take away from anyone unless you can somehow control their mind too. Even at the height of the Inquisition, that's all that was taken away.

  If there are sanctions for non-compliance then the ability to exercise freedom of choice has been checked.

  The concept of "Automatic disassociation" makes the question a matter of religious affliation and in that Jehovah's Witnesses have found themselves a nice large legal shield. No court (At least in the U.S.) is ever going to touch this with a twenty-foot pole because no court is ever going to question whether religious affliation is not entirely voluntary.

  On one hand, it's brilliant and clever, but on the other it's evil. If there is a hell, then Satan is busy preparing an entire amusment park for those responsible.
• 

  Mary

  Excellent point TD....I also understand though what PSacramento is saying. With all high control groups, there is a huge amount of coersion with the rank and file members (whether they realize it or not) and it can indeed be very difficult to prove legally. Jim Jones had nothing in writing saying what the punishment would be for anyone who didn't want to drink his kool-aid and it was only after the fact that it was obvious that his actions were criminal and resulted in multiple deaths.

  The average 'worldly' person has no idea of why disfellowshipping is, to many Witnesses, a fate worse than death. They have no idea of the mind control the religion exerts over it's members or the power they have to literally destroy your life if you cross them. There are some articles in their literature you could use that outlines the complete shunning of family members who are disfellowshipped. The problem is that the courts still allow disfellowshipping as part of the WTS's 'freedom of religion' and as of right now, they won't do a f**king thing about it. So the Society continues on with impudence and continues to murder their followers.
• 

  dgp

  no court is ever going to question whether religious affliation is not entirely voluntary.

  It's about time people those fools are enlightened about it. You'd think they know better, particularly in view of the fact that they all know about something called Inquisition.

  Because they KNOW it to be wrong and I am sure thei legal department has made it more than clear.

  Exactly

  As to freedom of choice, I can tell a joke that is only half a joke.

  "White man can choose. Either we eat him for dinner tonight, or he agrees to be raped".

  "I choose being your dinner tonight".

  "All right. But we'll rape you first".