Marvin, thank you for your reply. You said:
“If I was overtaken by poor health or injury and required some form of blood to survive then I would okay it if asked. If HLC members were at my bedside I would do something very simple—tell them to leave.”
Of course you would and the HLC probably would honor the request. However, many JWs will not have the confidence under such circumstances to make such a request and even more unfortunately, they may trust the HLC member more than their own physician, thinking that the “Society” knows more about blood and healthcare than does their own physician! In my experience, even if the HLC member does leave he will be back soon to find out what decision was made and to learn how “things” are going.
When hospitalized a while back in one of the US’s major medical centers, in critical condition, I learned that the HLC member that usually covered that center was nick-named “the Gestapo” by the medical staff. That should tell you something about how he conducted his official business there.
“If necessary I would remind the doctor that I expect his and the facility’s confidentiality, and in fact demand it.”
Demanding confidentiality is usually unnecessary; at most a gentle reminder is all that is required, unless a JW happens to work in that facility and he/she has access to your records. My experience has been that the medical staff offers confidentiality (my doc volunteered that if anyone divulged my record he would personally see to it that that person was fired).
“Usually having HLC members asserting themselves is rare. So I really don’t foresee a problem there.”
My experience has been different. My wife had to stand guard at the door to keep the HLC and other JWs working at the facility away. When one is in an ICU it is less difficult to keep unwanted visitors away, but on general floors most visitors can come and go as they please.
“Let’s just say, though, that a HLC member did somehow assert himself or otherwise found I had accepted some forbidden form of blood. To hell with him! At least I have the benefit of acting according to my conscience and, hopefully, I will live, which is better than the alternative without congregational action. My scriptural belief is that God knows my sincerity, and that I am acting out of a clean conscience before him. How could He possibly demand more?[!]”
As long as one is not concerned about family ties being broken your approach is fine, but for some it is not that clear cut, is it?
“As you can see, my convictions are firm here to the point of not having any qualms about just what my Christian conscience would demand, so my personal circumstance is not too troublesome for me. But you latter inquiry is a critical one.”
“You inquired, “I’d be interested in knowing how you advise JWs who know the “truth’ about the blood issue in these circumstances.”
“Whether they know the truth about the blood issue or not, if I am faced with a publisher dying over the issue then I will explain to them that there is no discernable scriptural prohibition that should lead them to feel that dying is better than accepting life-saving blood therapy for Christians. If they want to know the details I will tell them, starting with the June 15, 2000 Watchtower! Otherwise my standard recommendation is that they do what is best for their health and there is no need in me or any other JW being present to impose our conscience on them. I advise that they talk with their doctor about the matter and then keep whatever treatment they decide upon where it should stay, between them and their doctor. I then head to the door and tell the doctor to take good care of my friend! I also tell the doctor if there is ANYTHING he thinks I can do to help save a life to let me know. I act accordingly.”
Good for you! Isn’t it too bad that the GB does not refrain from attempting to impose its conscience on all JWs. If they kept their weak consciences to themselves your words and the patients actions would not have to be cloaked in such guarded language.
“I will add one further point of fact.”
“Based on The Watchtower of June 15, 2000, I would point out to an ailing publisher that the WTS’ doctrinal position is that EVERY SINGLE BIT of blood is acceptable as long as it is broken down enough. I would then emphasize, “This should TELL YOU SOMETHING about how to best proceed.”
Unfortunately most JWs, including most elders, do not see that point when they read that QFR. Most see little if any change in the blood policy. The WTS does not write these articles in plain spoken language, nor do they point out the changes from previous positions. The plan is to obfuscate their message and unfortunately it works on most JWs.