If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus 119 Replies latest jw friends

Earnest

All the adult JWs I know have consciously and (to the extent possible for them ) knowledgeably chosen for themselves to take this stand; some even for reasons outside what the WTS has printed (as I confirmed just today). It wasn't forced on them from above (in spite of your and Alan's remonstrations to the contrary).
As one of those adult JWs I wish to confirm that I have knowledgeably chosen to refuse a blood transfusion for myself. When I say that I have done so "knowledgeably" I mean I have considered many different viewpoints including those in the Jensen letters, articles in medical journals (e.g. "Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses", Osamu Muramoto, BMJ, 2001, Vol. 322, pp.37-39), viewpoints on the AJWRB website (http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml), WTS publications, as well as a number of previous threads on this discussion board (including Alan's link to http://mindshadows.morloc.com/articles/jwbloodreview/AbstainFromBlood.htm). In other words, I have considered this question as if my life might depend on it one day - it might.
Despite what Alan and HS have said, such decision is not dependent on the teachings of the WTS and if they changed their teachings next week a blood transfusion would be no more acceptable then than it is now. While I understand the WTS current position on blood fractions I do not agree with it as such reasoning is easily reduced to absurdity. However, the decision to refuse blood I take for myself only. For the past ten years I have declined to sign the blood card of others and do not carry one myself as it would associate my decision with the WTS. And if my permission was required for a blood transfusion for someone else I would readily give it unless I knew they would refuse it if they were conscious. My primary difference with the WTS is that this should be a disfellowshipping offence. A teaching that is dependent on exegesis should never be a matter for disfellowshipping and those that do have blood on their hands.
And for those who would happily over-ride my wish if I were unconscious may I say I would rather die. It has nothing to do with forgiving or not forgiving at a later date. I think a comparison with rape is quite apt though a tad dramatic. A rapist does it for selfish reasons without concern whether or not they will be forgiven. And the victim is left (in some cases) to live a life of self-contempt, and what sort of life is that.
Finally, Craig, I must say it is a pleasure to hear of a mixed family (JW/xJW) as well-balanced as yours. No wonder you produce such thoughtful posts.
Earnest
SixofNine

Earnest, I think you and I can agree that you are a freak, yes? I mean no disrespect by that, but indeed, as Jehovahs Witnesses go, how many do you know that could honestly say what you said in your above post? You are the first I've met personally. In a lifetime as a Witness, I never met anyone who did the research you did, especially of opposing viewpoints.
You truly are a freak, and perhaps you should be proud of that, although I personally have much contempt for the conclusions you have drawn from your research. The lack of biblical support drives my view of your view. In any case, you can rest assured that if some freakish twist of fate left your fate in my hands, I'd respect your wishes.
Btw, on this point:
And the victim is left (in some cases) to live a life of self-contempt, and what sort of life is that.
That, of course, is the choice of the victim. That is why people are urged not to live as victims. You're very right that the rape analogy is "dramatic", you're very wrong that it is apt; it is in fact obscene.
edited for better understanding
onacruse

Earnest, welcome back! Just a couple quick thoughts...I'm working my way back from the beginning of this thread, and have a lot of catching up to do :
I must say it is a pleasure to hear of a mixed family (JW/xJW) as well-balanced as yours.
Perhaps that's why I have a different opinion about the general level of JW "conscientious decision" on this matter. I've not had the exposure that people like AlanF, HS, and Six and others have had in dealing with what I myself would consider "brain-dead" JWs.
No wonder you produce such thoughtful posts.
I can only hope that whatever I post in this forum does come across as thoughtful. In return, my own thoughts have been changed immeasurably by what I read here.
Craig
freeman

You bet your ass I would!
Freeman
AlanF

Hi Earnest,
: As one of those adult JWs I wish to confirm that I have knowledgeably chosen to refuse a blood transfusion for myself.
Ok.
: When I say that I have done so "knowledgeably" I mean I have considered many different viewpoints including those in the Jensen letters, articles in medical journals (e.g. "Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses", Osamu Muramoto, BMJ, 2001, Vol. 322, pp.37-39), viewpoints on the AJWRB website (http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml), WTS publications, as well as a number of previous threads on this discussion board (including Alan's link to http://mindshadows.morloc.com/articles/jwbloodreview/AbstainFromBlood.htm). In other words, I have considered this question as if my life might depend on it one day - it might.
That's all well and good, but you haven't said just what knowledge it is that lets you choose this course. Do you refuse transfusions based purely on medical considerations? If so, do you consistently refuse organ transplants? Do you refuse transfusions based purely on scriptural considerations? If so, on what basis? Is it on exactly the same basis as the Watchtower teaching? Or do you have other ideas? Can you refute the arguments presented in the above sources? If so, are you willing to discuss it? If you're willing to discuss it, are you willing to discuss it in a thread of its own? That would really be interesting because you're one of the few JWs, or JW hangers-on, I've met who was capable of reasoning on matters that contradict Watchtower teaching.
: Despite what Alan and HS have said,
Let me make it completely clear that neither I nor HS have said that all JWs do not make knowledgeable decisions about blood; we have said that most JWs do. My personal experience is that hardly any JWs will even discuss the topic at all, much less discuss evidence that they think could disprove it.

: such decision is not dependent on the teachings of the WTS
That's good, since their teachings are thoroughly refuted in the above sources, and by Raymond Franz writing in In Search of Christian Freedom, chapter 9. But this sheds no light on my questions to you.
: and if they changed their teachings next week a blood transfusion would be no more acceptable then than it is now.
Ok.
: ... My primary difference with the WTS is that this should be a disfellowshipping offence. A teaching that is dependent on exegesis should never be a matter for disfellowshipping and those that do have blood on their hands.
Quite so. Does this hint that you agree with most of the Watchtower's reasoning on blood?
: And for those who would happily over-ride my wish if I were unconscious may I say I would rather die.
As I said, if such a decision happened to be plopped in my lap, if you could convince me in advance that your reasoning was not based on bogus Watchtower teachings, and was truly the product of rational considerations arrived at on your own, and without a hint of coercion (covert or overt), then I would respect your wishes. Otherwise, it would be to me like allowing a nutcase who thinks he can fly to jump off a roof.
: It has nothing to do with forgiving or not forgiving at a later date. I think a comparison with rape is quite apt though a tad dramatic. A rapist does it for selfish reasons without concern whether or not they will be forgiven. And the victim is left (in some cases) to live a life of self-contempt, and what sort of life is that.
The only reason for such self-contempt on the part of someone who has been influenced by Watchtower teaching is that teaching itself. JWs are taught from infancy (spiritual or literal) that taking a transfusion is a gross violation of divine law. It becomes a purely emotional thing for most of them, much like the way sabbath keeping, circumcision, not eating blood, and many other things, became emotion-based traditions for the Jews. A Jew who was forced to eat pork might think he was raped in a sense, and might feel such self-contempt, but it would not be based on rational considerations. Are you certain that, having been a JW for so long, your present thinking is not just as strongly influenced by years of immersion in this emotion-laden teaching?
AlanF
hillary_step

The only reason for such self-contempt on the part of someone who has been influenced by Watchtower teaching is that teaching itself. JWs are taught from infancy (spiritual or literal) that taking a transfusion is a gross violation of divine law. It becomes a purely emotional thing for most of them, much like the way sabbath keeping, circumcision, not eating blood, and many other things, became emotion-based traditions for the Jews.

Exactly, and this is the argument that precludes the notion that all JW's make an 'informed decision' to abstain from blood. As I have previously stated my experience is that very few of them fully understand the medical and often the theological view of the WTS. They feel that they do not need to do so as the WTS, whom they believe research all these things for them, informs them what to do. Remember those JW's who telephoned me after the WTS invented its 'blood fractions' doctrine? They all asked, "What am I allowed to take', they were not interested in the medical implications, just in what the WTS had given consent over. This reaction certainly was not exclusive to myself and many elders in local congregations reported similar reactions.
When a potential JW begins to 'study', he is generally not personally informed on the theology or the medical issues where JW's are concerned, just that JW's as not 'allowed' to have transfusions. They ask why. They are then trained to see the issue through WTS eyes and presented with what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of the WTS. They are not offered alternative theological, or medical opinion on the matter. They then ignore the issue in favor of this wonderful new religion that they have found that answers all their questions, and then become baptised trapped Jehovah's Witnesses. For those born in the religion, the options are even bleaker. How can we view this typical path to the world of a JW as informed? It is rather like likening the process of mental distortion that young German children went through pre WWII regarding the Jews and then describing them as to having made 'informed' decisions on the issue.
I carefully questioned several dozen Witnesses to see if their conscience reacted against the WTS now allowing certain blood components previously banned, to be taken. Only one elderly JW said she would refuse even the allowable blood components, and this was certainly an emotion based decision. When I questioned her closely it became apparent that yet again, she did not understand the whole 'blood fractions' scenario and had made a decision based not on information, but on an honery sense of tradition.
As to scenario I described, that is, if the WTS were to publish a WT next week abandoning their blood policy, how many JW's would continue to adhere to it despite the four decades of previously informed 'theological' arguments from the WTS, you agreed that very few would. Can you not see that this undermines the foundation of an ‘informative decision’ having been made on this matter by most adult JW’s. Even instinct tells us that most JW’s would attach themselves to a theology or abandon that theology not based on informative decisions, but based on what the WTS instructs them to do.
If a JW for example, makes an informed decision to *take* a ‘whole blood’ transfusion, they are punished by the WTS for doing so. In reality the fear of this punishment acts as another mechanism, together with emotionalism and tradition, to preclude the average JW from making an informed decision. As I said, how can we say that a person has made an informed decision when the gun of retribution, social ostracism, and the 'we speak for God theology' is held like a primed weapon to the temple?

Best regards - HS
onacruse

AlanF:
Let me make it completely clear that neither I nor HS have said that all JWs do not make knowledgeable decisions about blood; we have said that most JWs do.
And I apologize for implying that you do; I indulged in a little hyperbole.
Suspending for a moment the issue of what consititutes "knowledgeable consent," I agree that by far the majority of JWs have not either "adequately" thought out this issue, or, for that matter, many of the rest of their doctrines. In that respect, many many JWs are just like many many other people: lazy-minded and looking for someone else to be their spokesman. Thus, a few oddballs like me got known as being the resident "expert" on the Trinity, and most pubs who got dragged into a return visit on that doctrine would come running over to me and ask me to "handle the call." Of course, at the time I considered that as a sign of honor, but in fact I was only contributing to their own continued ignorance and unwillingness to do their own research. I've no doubt at all that a good number of JWs behave the same way re: blood transfusions.
But, back to the issue of what consititutes "knowledgeable consent," if I may be so bold as to use Earnest as an example : He's outlined an impressive amount of personal investigation, beyond what even the WTS demands (or offers). And yet, Alan, you continue to question whether he has truly made a knowledgeable decision. Perhaps you're just pressing the issue as a matter of debate, but I ask: Just how high does the bar go? What in the world would a person have to do to meet that (what is appearing to me to be a utopian) "standard" of knowledgeable decision?
And, using myself as an example: I think you would classify me as a rational adult, and yet, for reasons far less researched than, and somewhat different from, Earnest's, I also have decided to refuse a blood transfusion, even if my life was on the line (and it has absolutely nothing to do with JW doctrine).
Now, suppose Earnest and I happened to be visiting you, and we all went out and got in a car wreck, and you escaped unscathed, but Earnest and I were bleeding profusely. You are the only one who could inform the ER doctors of how Earnest and I decided...would you? Or would you still consider that our decision was misinformed, and refuse to tell the doctors what you knew, even though knowing that you were thereby virtually guaranteeing that Earnest and I received blood?
With all friendship,
Craig
Gamaliel

And, using myself as an example: I think you would classify me as a rational adult, and yet, for reasons far less researched than, and somewhat different from, Earnest's, I also have decided to refuse a blood transfusion, even if my life was on the line (and it has absolutely nothing to do with JW doctrine).

onacruse,
In another thread (you know which one) I almost went so far as to predict that you would admit to this if asked directly, because you kept giving hints that there was much more to your arguments than what was showing on the surface. I submit that some parts of your argument (over there, at least) appeared too strained and personal.
FWIW, my wife had commonly stated that she felt the same way for many years after leaving the JWs. It was only in a relatively recent conversation that she has dealt with reasons that now make her feel differently. (I already "knew" she was wavering, and that she would forgive me if I over-rode a decision in those days.)
I'm wondering if anyone has any statistics on the numbers of people who have on their own, decided against blood transfusions strictly in life-and-death situations. I'm speaking of people with no known connections to religions that had spoken out against blood transfusions. A few months ago, a JW on this forum claimed that most doctors would probably refuse blood because they know the risks. During the height of the AIDS panic, or hepatitis-infected blood in Canada and some other areas, I imagine there could have been several who might have thought that letting them die was better than letting them live with the fear of disease.
It's actually much easier to legitimately refuse blood today than it was even two decades ago, and JWs are to be credited with that. I would be gravely concerned however, that the type of fears that JWs put in people's minds about blood can still effect even exJWs for years afterward. The schools had a fit, but my mother would not let us get vaccinated (nor use aluminum cookware) throughout my entire elementary school life. This was in the 60s and 70s, long after the "Golden Age" of "scientific knowledge" had stopped flowing from Brooklyn. (Maybe it never stopped. I remember a talk by Albert Schroeder, that made it into the WT about heart transplant patients having to fight the tendency to become criminals because they had received a transplanted heart from a criminal.)
I wonder how much fear we JWs instilled in the hearts of our householders.
Gamaliel
Earnest

You truly are a freak, and perhaps you should be proud of that, although I personally have much contempt for the conclusions you have drawn from your research. The lack of biblical support drives my view of your view.

SixofNine, thank you for your candid viewpoint but in a thread where we are talking about "exJW-but-still-actually-JW" thinking I have to say your comments above are remarkably similar to those I receive from JWs on a multitude of issues. While I agree that many JWs do not bother to consider alternative viewpoints I am in regular contact with a number who do and suggest the breed is not as rare as you seem to think.
Alan:
Do you refuse transfusions based purely on medical considerations? If so, do you consistently refuse organ transplants? Do you refuse transfusions based purely on scriptural considerations? If so, on what basis? Is it on exactly the same basis as the Watchtower teaching? Or do you have other ideas? Can you refute the arguments presented in the above sources? If so, are you willing to discuss it? If you're willing to discuss it, are you willing to discuss it in a thread of its own? That would really be interesting because you're one of the few JWs, or JW hangers-on, I've met who was capable of reasoning on matters that contradict Watchtower teaching.
I would agree that any discussion on my reasons for refusing transfusions should be on a different thread if we discussed it at all. This thread is more about ethics than doctrine and the purpose of my previous post was not to argue for the blood doctrine but to support Craig's contention that there are JWs who have "knowledgeably chosen for themselves to take this stand".
The only reason for such self-contempt on the part of someone who has been influenced by Watchtower teaching is that teaching itself. JWs are taught from infancy (spiritual or literal) that taking a transfusion is a gross violation of divine law. It becomes a purely emotional thing for most of them, much like the way sabbath keeping, circumcision, not eating blood, and many other things, became emotion-based traditions for the Jews. A Jew who was forced to eat pork might think he was raped in a sense, and might feel such self-contempt, but it would not be based on rational considerations.
I quite agree that the sense of self-contempt in the case of the Jew and of the one forced to receive a transfusion is based on emotional rather than rational considerations. And that would also be true of someone who was raped. There is no rational reason that they should lose self-respect...but it happens and they have to live with that sense of shame.
Are you certain that, having been a JW for so long, your present thinking is not just as strongly influenced by years of immersion in this emotion-laden teaching?
No, Alan, I'm not certain...and this is well worth another thread. As I accept there are other valid interpretations of the scriptures I have to ask myself why I am more convinced by the understanding I hold than the alternatives. I don't remember being taught the "blood doctrine" as a child when my grandmother had "Sunday School" for us kids. But I will never forget my father's anger (with my grandmother) when he quizzed us one day and discovered we wouldn't take blood. He asked each one of us separately and I can remember thinking of course I wouldn't take blood. That was the end of "Sunday School" but the seed was there. I also remember that I became a vegetarian to avoid eating blood until my mum discovered why and agreed to soak the blood out before cooking it. And this all happened without my ever entering a Kingdom Hall. The recent thread by joy2bfree on "Would you take blood now that you are not a JW and why?" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/51350/1.ashx) shows that there are many on this forum who no longer believe taking blood is wrong but will still only use it as a last resort. When something is so deeply ingrained how can I be sure I am being objective ? There is also another aspect. I have no wish to die and even less to serve as a WT martyr. But there is a certain seductiveness in knowing there is something I am willing to die for. With no strings. Not to please anyone. Not because I fear the consequences. Just for sticking to what is right. It is possible that in weighing two different interpretations of scripture I am seduced by the one that might require sacrifice.
Why am I willing to consider your proposal. Because I know there are other doctrines (such as not celebrating birthdays) which I positively reject (and have always rejected...as an adult anyway) and yet I still feel uneasy when I share in it. I am sure the only reason is indoctrination so how can I rule it out on much weightier matters. I am not conceding that is true in my case, only that I cannot be certain it is not.
Earnest
AlanF

Excellent comments, HS!

As for you, Onacruse!
: And I apologize for implying that you do; I indulged in a little hyperbole.
No problem.
: Suspending for a moment the issue of what consititutes "knowledgeable consent," I agree that by far the majority of JWs have not either "adequately" thought out this issue, or, for that matter, many of the rest of their doctrines. In that respect, many many JWs are just like many many other people: lazy-minded and looking for someone else to be their spokesman.
Then we basically agree on this issue.
: But, back to the issue of what consititutes "knowledgeable consent," if I may be so bold as to use Earnest as an example He's outlined an impressive amount of personal investigation, beyond what even the WTS demands (or offers). And yet, Alan, you continue to question whether he has truly made a knowledgeable decision.
Of course, because as I told him, he did not explain anything about his actual reasons -- he simply stated that he had done research and made conclusions. Thus, I have no way to evaluate his reasons.
: Perhaps you're just pressing the issue as a matter of debate,
Exactly.
: but I ask: Just how high does the bar go? What in the world would a person have to do to meet that (what is appearing to me to be a utopian) "standard" of knowledgeable decision?
For starters, note what I asked Earnest:
"Do you refuse transfusions based purely on medical considerations? If so, do you consistently refuse organ transplants? Do you refuse transfusions based purely on scriptural considerations? If so, on what basis? Is it on exactly the same basis as the Watchtower teaching? Or do you have other ideas? Can you refute the arguments presented in the above sources? If so, are you willing to discuss it? If you're willing to discuss it, are you willing to discuss it in a thread of its own?"
: And, using myself as an example: I think you would classify me as a rational adult,
Don't push your luck.
: and yet, for reasons far less researched than, and somewhat different from, Earnest's, I also have decided to refuse a blood transfusion, even if my life was on the line (and it has absolutely nothing to do with JW doctrine).
: Now, suppose Earnest and I happened to be visiting you, and we all went out and got in a car wreck, and you escaped unscathed, but Earnest and I were bleeding profusely. You are the only one who could inform the ER doctors of how Earnest and I decided...would you? Or would you still consider that our decision was misinformed, and refuse to tell the doctors what you knew, even though knowing that you were thereby virtually guaranteeing that Earnest and I received blood?
That depends on what Earnest decides to say in his reply. It also depends on what your own reasons are, which I don't recall ever discussing. I will pose the same questions for you as I posed for Earnest, plus a few more:
Just what reasons can you give for your choice? Are you certain that your choice is not somehow influenced by leftover JW teaching? If not, how do you know this? If there is any influence left over, can you logically refute the arguments Ray Franz gave in In Search of Christian Freedom, chapter 9? Can you also refute the arguments given in the link I gave that contains the old jwbloodreview.org contents? If your reasons are purely medical, can you convince me why it would be better to die in an emergency situation than to take the relatively small chance that you could contract a nasty disease? Or is just the Eew! factor?
Now let me turn the question back on you: if you saw me dressed in a Superman costume and standing on a roof, proclaiming "I can fly I can fly I can fly!", and you asked me for a rational explanation as to why I thought I could fly, and I gave you one, would you let me fly?
Finally, let me repeat what I said to Earnest:
As I said, if such a decision happened to be plopped in my lap, if you could convince me in advance that your reasoning was not based on bogus Watchtower teachings, and was truly the product of rational considerations arrived at on your own, and without a hint of coercion (covert or overt), then I would respect your wishes. Otherwise, it would be to me like allowing a nutcase who thinks he can fly to jump off a roof.
AlanF

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

Share this