If they changed their blood ban…would their be a floodgate of lawsuits?

by Londo111 46 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Londo111

  I know nothing about legal matters, but there are those here who are quite keen at these things.

  If they changed the No Blood teaching, would this open the Watchtower Society up to litigation?
• 

  ?evrything

  If so it would be unprecendented as you are talking flock/former flock suing a large Religion. Im sure if WT is legally strapped they can arrange some kind of cap so that they could only get sued a certain amount. They would probably love to pull of a "settle out of court" type deal. It would definetly ruin their reputation but not as bad as getting sued and going bankrupt. They seem to find away to bounce back from most missteps and no one blinks an eye. Sued for every penny and people take note. Poor lost followers.
• 

  BizzyBee

  I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that this is exactly why WTS legal department adamantly refused to let the GB let go of the blood doctrine.

  Nevermind the lives at stake.
• 

  LostGeneration

  I don't know what the odds would be of a successful lawsuit based on blood, but its obvious the WT doesn't want to even go down that path.

  They realized that more than 10 years ago when they rolled out "fractions" for the rank and file. My understanding is that the HLC actually tries to educate JWs on their blood options. This of course to minimize the number who actually die from refusing blood products.

  Keep the fractions policy in place for another 20 years and there will be fewer who have died from the policy.

  Then new light will flash forth making all blood a conscience matter.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The WT is a religion. I don't see liability. Individual JWs refused blood as individuals. They had choice. No one held a gun to their head and made them refuse blood. Other religions change doctrines, too. The courts are not overwhelmed with successful law suits. We did make individual choices. No one forced us to drink the Kool-Aid a la Jim Jones People Temple.

  Roman Catholic women who did not have abortions cannot sue the church for life support of the child. The WT is dictatorial but we decide to listen. We are not held against our will.
• 

  adamah

  Londo 111 asked-

  If they changed the No Blood teaching, would this open the Watchtower Society up to litigation?

  No, since they've reinforced that death from refusing blood is an individuals right, under both the "freedom of religion" angle AND from the secular concept of a patient's right to informed consent (i.e. the legal right to refuse ANY treatment for whatever reason, based on the idea of patient's owning their own bodies and allowed to decide, provided they are of sound mind).

  That combination of factors makes the situation insurmountable from a wrongful death case. I doubt even the GB coming right out and admitting that they're frauds would allow someone to sue WTBTS for wrongful death of an adult family member, since the WT still has the deniability of pointing to the person's right to exercise their informed consent....

  Instead, we'll see a slow back-peddling away from the whole issue, with a slow move towards allowing transfusions, no doubt eventually making it a conscience matter. By then, the deaths will be those of people who lived in the last century, and no one will remember (just like most JWs don't care about the Golden Age magazines, let alone what was found in them).

  Compare that situation to the pedophile issue, where one of the questions being considered in the appeal of the Conti case is whether the WTBTS had a duty to protect minors before mandatory reporting laws for clergy for suspected child abuse came into effect. If so, we'll likely see many more similar cases coming out of the woodwork.

  Adam
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Londo111 it's interesting that you should bring up the subject of the blood doctrine itself.

  For the past number of years the WTBTS has always used January as a kickoff for the new year to bring up the subject of blood in the January KMs to remind the rank and file to have on their person current & up-to-date blood cards in the event of an emergency.

  Unless I'm mistaken in last January 2013 KM the subject did not surface and this January 2014 KM does not look like it's going to be discussed either. In fact it's been a long time to my recollection that the subject of the blood doctrine has been brought up in service meeting parts at all.

  I wonder if the omission of the subject of the blood doctrine is a sign of some major changes soon to come or are they just going to let the monster die on it's own.
• 

  Band on the Run

  It would be nice.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Faders and people who were df'd or lost a family member may think about it. I don't think the average JW would. I don't think it will ever change, just because of the chance of litigation now. Maybe in a couple of decades?

  The new GB/FDS could just say, " We are so humble that we are making this a conscience matter. After much prayer and meditation, we can see that the scriptures do not mention transfusions. What are we to conlude about all those who died faithful to Jehovah while adhering to their personal convictions in the past? Should we mourn their loss or become enraged against Jehovah? Never may that be the case! Those faithful ones are assured of the resurrection! Yes, after the fast approaching GT and the Big A has passed, how thrilled we will be to see those faithful ones!"

  The rest of dubs will just think that is what was always taught...

  DD
• 

  Londo111

  It is interesting going to the JW Online Library and searching for new articles on blood. There are very few in recent years.