is it considered a df offence if you actually agree to your child having bloodj
by brainmelt 10 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
-
blondie
It is no longer a DF offense to accept a blood transfusion....you are considered as having DA'd yourself...it has only been recently that the elder's book has it in writing; before that the CO told the elders verbally and no "letter" was given them. There is nothing in the publications though.
Blood Transfusions
The other issue of importance to the Bulgarian government was regarding blood transfusions. The authorities felt Witnesses should not be coerced to forgo life saving treatment at the threat of being disfellowshipped. For Jehovah's Witnesses to be recognised as a religious organization in Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society had to ensure that, regarding blood transfusions, "members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association." 2
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bulgaria-blood-transfusions.php -
jhine
I recently watched a hospital drama that was set in the 60's . The story was about a child of JW parents who needed a transfusion and the parents not giving premission . The docs then got a court order etc . In a n empassioned speech the "JW" father said that because the authorities had forced the new born baby to have a transfusion the child would be an outcast from his religion and not be able to live on paradise earth . The obvious implication being that the child would be punished because of the actions of the adults around it .
Now , of course this was a fictional incident but from what I do know the Watchtower teachings do seem to have been well researched . So my question is did the Watchtower ever put onto parents the emotional blackmail that if they made the decision for a baby to have a transfusion , that baby , even though the desicion was not it's own would be DF'd ?
-
amos77
Don't know about US or other countries. In Ozzie land, I do recall having friends who had a baby that needed blood, and the court order ensured that it did. The mum did tell me that the baby was treated like a leper by the congreation, even though it was not the parents (or, I preume the baby's) fault. Also heard of another JW, who had a BTransfusion, brought before the elders, and was subsequently disfellowshipped, not for actually having had the offedning blood transfusion but when they asked the question, would he "have one again if the same circumstances presented?", he said YES, and was promptly DF. is that like being punished in advance, ie even before the "wrong" is committed. Crazy stuff.
-
respectful_observer
I believe there was a sample form letter sent out about a year ago (can't remember if it was distributed just to elders or not) around the annual Blood Card Service Meeting talk that could be drafted for parents to sign. If memory serves me correct, the gist of the letter was that the signer personally opposed using blood to treat their child, but they were trusting the doctors to use any possible treatment to avoid using blood.
The letter must have been crafted by about a dozen WTS attorneys because it never says the parents are consenting to the use of blood, but it essentially absolves them of (congregation) guilt in case the doctor does use blood after all other means of treatment have been exhausted. This WTS-drafted letter doesn't have any use whatsoever in governmental courts, only in Jehovah's Witness courts a judicial committee.
I'm sure someone with better search skills on this site can find it better than I.
R_O
Edit: the above poster is correct that it's considered disassociating yourself now, not that the Org is disfellowshipping you (thanks to Bulgaria). Yet another example of WTS playing legal Twister.
-
BluesBrother
As far as I know, Yes it is. (although they call it d/a in this case)
What if a parent signs the consent for the child to have blood, but the careful surgeon avoids having to do it? That would be a brain teaser. It is my guess that the elders would interview the parents ,if they got to know. ......The outcome would depend on the parent's attitude. If they were insistant that they felt it was right to do so they may be d/a'd...perhaps call it "brazen conduct"
-
Watkins
amos - that's crazy about the baby being treated badly becuase of something that was completely out of their control! How can a child be df'd if they've never been baptized as a witness in the first place? 'Marking', I guess, is the same as. Never-ending guilt... yeah, that's REAL love. I can only hope that as the child grew they could see the hypocrasy and it caused them to never ever become a cult member.
Very sad that parents are put thru this horrible emotional abuse only because they love their child and don't want them to die. Besides - the wt's stance is completely unbiblical, no matter which verses they use as proof - there are other substantial Bible proofs that trump it all!
I soooo hate the wt over this BS. Children's LIVES, for heaven's sake.
-
Calebs Airplane
I was told about 2 years ago that the new "unwritten" JC procedure for this scenario is something like...
1) Hit the parent(s) hard with guilt-inducing Bible texts to make them realize the import of their error.
2) If the parent(s) start to cry and/or express deep remorse, a private reproof will be sufficient. In the rare occasion that no remorse is evident, please contact th Legal Department for direction.
If i recall correctly, this was to be hand-written in one of the wide margins of the secret elder's manual (Shepherding the Flock) while attending one of the elder schools... bur I could be wrong
-
jhine
thanks everybody , it really is quite remarkable isn't what lengths the org . will go to ?
Any wavering JWs who stray onto this please consider these issues carefully . is it right to use an iinnocent child to blackmail parents into obedience ?