by dgp 32 Replies latest watchtower medical
I can say this, the last time I was at Bethel doing a tour (2 years ago) I was told that the taking of Blood was a matter of personal concience.
Fact is that even in a leagl setting and with multiple people swearing that disfellowship is the penality and what that truly means to people, ther eis no PROOF that people are getting disfellowed if they take Blood.
@dgp. We're kind of hitting that area where we have decide whether or not it's ethical to save people from themselves. Personally, i believe that she's giving up the chance at a long and enjoyable life for a lie, but this is her life, not mine. I'm big on the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, with the caveat that the action doesn't adversely effect the lives of others. I know this opens issues concerning right-to-die, mental health, and the feelings of the loved ones she's leaving behind, but that's life.
With regards to the Automatic disassociation, i remember how visiting a JW in the hospital with an elder and being told to wait outside of the room because the sick JW was going to explain to the elder what was going on. As a JW, I remember being irritated at the idea of having to 'brief' someone who had no financial or emotional stake on the procedures i would be undergoing. Just give me my card and a prayer and get out of here.
As evil and despicable as the WTS blood policy is, if an adult chooses to allow the WTS to coerce them to hold to the letter of their law on it, then in the end, it does become their choice, their responsiblity. A poor choice made on misinformation, but their choice nonetheless.
It's a little bit like a doctor telling someone they have to quit smoking or die of TB, yet that person consciously, knowingly continues to smoke. Oh, they can blame the cigarette company for the addictive nature of the product, but in the end, they knew the risks and they continued to engage in deadly behavior.
While we may grieve the person who died of TB or cancer, inside we know if only they had listened, they might could have beaten it or lived a few years longer. Same for grieving a JW who refused blood. I'm sad they died needlessly...but it could have been avoided.
While I'm somewhat nonchalant about adult JWs and their decicions to refuse blood, I get incensed when I hear of children who are refused blood because of the JW parent. While the parent may choose to die for what they believe, offering up your child for what you believe is nothing more than child sacrifice.
If a JW parent were to allow that child blood to save his life, does that mean that the WT god would then destroy that child at the pending Armageddon? Or would just the parent suffer? For the JW parent to allow a child to die means that they believe that the child would be punished for something it didn't do, which is not what a merciful god would do - or - the parent is so afraid for their own life, they're willing to give up their child in sacrifice in order that they, the parent, will not suffer death.
What parent would not give their life for their minor child? Not a JW parent, apparantly.
Suppose that adult is a born-in and never had an opportunity to know anything else.
Personal responsibility is relative. The Watchtower bureaucrats deny they exercise any sort of coercive influence over their members. We know that's not true. We know they exert persistent and consistent tactics of influence, aka mind control, to get the JWs feeling, thinking, and behaving in Borg-mandated ways.
So yeah, they're adults and free to make "their own" decisions. I would assert that the decision to refuse a blood transfusion is NOT "their own" decision.
It is NOT a personal conscience matter, PSac, no matter who told you it is. I quoted the "Flock" book on the previous page. It is clear. The paragraph I quoted is from chapter 9 on Disassociating and it isn't the only "offense" that is an automatic DA unless you can cry/repent your way out of it. Take a transfusion and you are no longer a JW. Spin the semantics however they like.
@dgp. We're kind of hitting that area where we have decide whether or not it's ethical to save people from themselves. Personally, i believe that she's giving up the chance at a long and enjoyable life for a lie, but this is her life, not mine. I'm big on the idea that people should be able to do whatever they want, with the caveat that the action doesn't adversely effect the lives of others. I know this opens issues concerning right-to-die, mental health, and the feelings of the loved ones she's leaving behind, but that's life.
Very good point, Dune. I think this is why some people refuse to get involved while others, like me, are horrified that this happens at all. But in the end I think that you and I are of the same mind, basically. I would fully agree with you if these people were indeed free to choose.
To take advantage of the example Undercover gave, my father chose to smoke one cigarette after another. No kidding; he could smoke two or three packs a day. He's in good health for the time being, but very likely he will have lung problems at some point. That was, however, his choice. He said he would rather die at 68 of lung cancer than at 92 peeing in his pants, and, well, that was his choice. My father had all the information he needed about the damage tobacco does to your body, and he said that, well, that was all so bad that he'd rather not read anymore. This he said when he was like 50, so there is no question he knew what choices he was making. No one among us threatened to stop talking to him if he didn't stop smoking. I don't think this girl had the same information, or the same freedom to act.
Also, were those "Youths who Put Jehovah First" free to act? Were they aware of what they were giving up? Did they have all of the information? This is part of the blood policy. It doesn't affect just adults.
By the way, an idea just came to my mind. Do the members of the Hospital Liaison Committee adversely affect the lives of others? I think it is very clear they are doing just that. Why are they there, in the first place?
There's a legal doctine in the U.S. concerning persons in positions of trust. They're held to a much higher standard. A doctor who offers misinformation cannot absolve themself of responsibility on the premise that it was entirely the patient's choice to follow it or not. Ditto for an attorney. Ditto for a Pharmacist, etc.
I think the very first time this concept was applied to a clergyman was in 1974. (The denomination was Catholic) I'm fairly sure it has never, ever been applied to unpaid, lay ministers like JW Elders, Mormon Bishops, etc. But the legal climate does seem to be changing.
Broken Promises, you have PM.
How many innoncent people must be sacrificied in the Altar of WT's evil God?
Why so much pain?
I'm a father and I have gone through a similar situation. Unfortunately when you have an adult child your hands are tied, and all you can do is praying,
THE GOVERNING BODY ARE A BANCH OF MURDERS
THE GOVERNING BODY ARE A BANCH OF LIARS AND COWARDS
They are always acting like that... they bring up the conscious issue so they can get way from legal issues and responsibilities.
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.
I think TD's identified the problem in the above statement . . . the mind control factor. For a person to be truly coerced it needs to be established that the freedom to choose has been comprimised. This is exceedingly hard to do when the individual in question is making what appears to be an informed conscientous decision according to their religious belief. The whole issue of mind-control must then be presented and proven. Under those circumstances, disfellowshipping, shunning etc doesn't equate to coercion if the individual is in agreement with it. They would have to indicate at some point that it was not entirely in accord with their wishes.
One thing I have noticed, is that there is growing public intolerance toward JW's in a number of South American countries. Brazil for example, has had a number of public protests in recent years over the shunning policy of JW's. While the GB is ambivalent to such protest and arguably even invites it . . . growing public frustration at these types of incidents will only increase. This will at least make prosyletising in these countries more difficult . . . hopefully.
Ok, here goes, I know for a FACT that, sometime ago, there was a case here In Canada ( I won't get into specififc since this is a public forum) in which a child needed a BT to be saved and the parents didn't allow it because they were JW's, there were a couple of l awyers that got involved because the Hospital wanted a courte injunction.
To get to the point, after MUCH research into thw WT with the sole purpose of seeing if they could basically "sue the pants off of them" to make a statement, the lawyers found that there was NO WAY to prove coersion in a court of Law.
They found no concrete current examples of it being plainly stated ( in the offical publications and
rule books, WTF those are) that a person that gets a BT will be "shunned" and for every ex-JW they could find that said YES, there were current that would say NO.
I know this because a very close friend of mine worked on the case as an investigator.
