Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views?

by Celestial 15 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  People have a right to believe what they want even if it makes no sense at all and medical professionals generally respect that. Faith by it's very nature is not rational, so attempting to deconstruct a purely faith-based proposition with scientific observation and formal logic is a complete waste of time.

  However, I would argue that Jehovah's Witnesses are a special case. Jehovah's Witnesses not only eschew the notion of blind religious faith, they ridicule it. They believe the world we perceive is a real one and reject systems like Christian Science or Hinduism which teach that only the mind or spirit is real. Jehovah's Witnesses believe what they believe, not as matters of faith but because they believe that the evidence when honestly examined leads to their belief as an inescapable conclusion. That's the whole basis for the "Preaching Work" and the notion that ours is a time of judgment. As Penton observed, they are rationalists par-excellence.

  Their stance on blood is no exception. It is not an ontological argument. It is a mechanical argument of physical equivalency between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood. Because of that, it's inherently technical in nature inasmuch as the adherent is obligated to bridge the gap between religion and science every time they attempt to state that equivalency.
• 

  Celestial

  I know that Baylor College of Medicine indoctrinates their students with evolution.

  Indoctrinates?

  I stated the overall position in the scientific community, not necessarily my own. Baylor acknowledges theism out of respect for persons of faith, but it's not taught as a part of their curriculum.
  
  http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77372
  
  Science and Faith Resources
  
  "The Bible and science are not out of harmony with each other….. when the heart is responsive to God, the mind is usually without prejudice to investigate all facts in search of the truth."
  
  1923. Dr. S. Brooks, president of Baylor University, report to the Baptist General Convention of Texas in response to criticisms on the teaching of evolution at Baylor.
  
  We in the Biology Department are persons of science and faith. Sometimes we are asked by individuals outside of science how we integrate our faith and our careers in science. For this reason we offer this list of references as a starting point for others to learn about the many ways scientists integrate a life of faith and science.
  
  The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
  
  Francis Collins, 2006. Free Press.
  
  Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding.
  
  John C. Polkinghorne, 1988. Templeton.
  
  Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
  
  Kenneth Miller, 1999. Harper Collins.
  
  Perspectives on an Evolving Creation.
  
  Keith Miller (Ed.). 2003. Wm. B. Erdmans.
  
  Coming to Peace With Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology.
  
  Darrel R. Falk. InterVarsity Press. 2004. ISBN 0-8308-2742-0
  
  Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.
  
  Stephen Gould, 1999. Ballantine.
• 

  vanyell

  Simply put, blood from a living human being given to another living human being to save the life of the latter, in what way does this violate God's laws?? God desires mercy not sacrifice. Same thing with doctors, which is far more important? The saving of a life or acceding to the illogical requirement of an impersonal organization?
• 

  rebel8

  It's just not the job of healthcare providers to debate theology. Even if it was, it's none of their business. People aren't at a hospital or doctor's office to be schooled on why their religious beliefs are wrong. I don't even understand this argument at all. It strikes me as patently ludicrous.
• 

  TD

  It's just not the job of healthcare providers to debate theology. Even if it was, it's none of their business. People aren't at a hospital or doctor's office to be schooled on why their religious beliefs are wrong. I don't even understand this argument at all. It strikes me as patently ludicrous.

  Rebel8,

  You're right. Healthcare professionals should not debate theology. At the time the captioned article was written, (1998) there were three areas of concern:

  (1) Misinformation: Jehovah's Witnesses have not seen fit to teach the blood doctrine as a matter of pure theology. They taught it as a matter as a matter of good science and superior medicine.

  (2) Third party intervention: The JW parent organizations via the HLC had a long history of making decisions on cutting edge treatments only when individual JW's were confronted with such a decision. Patients are not autonomous when church officials are making their decisions for them.

  (3) Coercion: Even for the average, run-of-the-mill JW patient where the church position was clear beforehand, there was still the element of coercion in the form of sanctions of noncompliance. (Disfellowshipping) This also was a potential autonomy issue.

  Theology aside, any one of these three things is a potential ethical dilemma for a physician. Patients need to be properly informed and autonomous. Muramoto's mention of dissenting views within the JW community was only to alert physicians that there can be varying levels of commitment to the teaching. He was not encouraging healthcare professionals to join in the theological debate and he clear about this in Parts II & III.
• 

  rebel8

  He was not encouraging healthcare professionals to join in the theological debate and he clear about this in Parts II & III.

  It was my understanding the OP was encouraging that, and cited the article to support his contention. His #2 and #3 items in the first post are doctrinal arguments that doctors would disagree with. I thought he was suggesting they argue with dubs on those points.

  I agree it's good to educate physicians about the HLC coercion.