Outlaw said-
“Not every JW is going to be willing to die over a Blood Transfusion.”
I think it's something like 10% who change their mind and come to their senses and accept blood; obviously they'd have to be withdrawn from the study at that point (and now that I think of it, the study was retroactive, so they only looked at data AFTERWARDS, not during). It would obviously be unethical to NOT give a JW blood if they had a change of heart.
That 10% figure is even lower than those study participants in Milgram's study who chose to go along with an authority figure by following orders: 35% refused to harm others to complete the study, but apparently 90% would willingly risk their own death. That kind of makes sense: appealing to their narcissism, JWs are not considering the harm or cost to others, and figure they're only harming themselves.
Simon said-
The real thing we should be focused on has been mentioned several times. Here is the problem with JWs dying because they refuse blood: no one cares. Really, if they choose to die because of their crazy beliefs? Who cares ... no one. They chose it.
Because it doesn't affect them people have no interest. (I'm generalising, some do, you get the idea though). The thing to focus on is not that they die but how it DOES actually affect them. How does it?
Because of the cost. Because of their tax dollars. Because they are a drain on the system. Because they take up a hospital bed way longer than they need to. Because they take blood donations but refuse to donate. Arguing over 5000, 50,000 or 500,000 is a waste of time. We need to think like politicians and make issues into things the electorate care about through how things affect them.
Yup.
When presenting the issue to JWs, the approach to take is to point out how the policy is harmful to them personally; when approaching the general public over the blood issue, the approach is to point out how the blood policy is harmful to them personally! The appeal to personal interests is what is most likely to work, since people are inherently asking themselves, "what's in it for ME?"
It's the same with shunning: whining about how much it hurts only validates that it's working; rather, it's likely more persuasive to point out the dehumanizing effects of "only following orders".
It's interesting to see the White House doing exactly that today in a Press conference, focusing their message by pointing out how the gov't shutdown (due to the stalemate over funding Obamacare) is only harming taxpayers by shutting down their access to gov't services, etc.
Adam
...OUTLAW
