If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them? (page 3)

Gamaliel

Craig,

I agree with you, that "do unto others" plays a very important role for Christians. And I agree with your stance on why you wouldn't.

I didn't mean to quote Bible verses to imply that because this is the reason I would do it, that others should, too. That's why I think this is such a good question, because it's one of those questions that we have to decide on our own.

I think conscience and personal decisions should play a larger role for Christians than written guides (including Bibles). It's one of the things that makes the "golden rule" such a core Christian concept. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a positive expression of Christian love that gets right to the heart/conscience. For me it might make me consider a different answer than it would make you consider. I look at it and say, yes I would rather have someone try to save me in the best way they know how rather than let me die for my own idealism. To the JW, I basically "raped" them (their words), but did not destroy both "soul and body."

I didn't mean to make this a discussion of Christianity, except to show that there are potentially Christian reasons that a JW should also understand. And again, I'm not saying I think it's in any way unchristian for anyone else to let them die with their dignity. If the golden rule and Christian love motivates you to let them, then you did the Christian thing. For me, for now, if the golden rule and Christian love motivates me to act -- then I also did the Christian thing.

Gamaliel

onacruse

Gamaliel:

it's one of those questions that we have to decide on our own.

Exactly. And if an adult JW (or any other competent person) makes their own wishes clear on a certain matter, then do we have the ethical prerogative to abrogate those wishes simply because that person is temporarily incapacitated?

Beyond Biblical principles, I believe it's our societal obligation to respect the reasoned decisions of others. We may disagree with their reasons, but unless there is an over-riding determination by some other equally valid social mechanism (e.g. a court ruling), then we have no right to arbitrarily impose our own decisions on others.

Craig

Will Power

This is a factor, don't you think?

(or any other competent person)

Anyone using WT logic to come to the conclusion that the real god of the whole world makes the "statements" that he does to the only printing company he trusts for the reasons that they print should not be in this category. If the person choosing to die at the time really had an INFORMED choice then the possibility that they would change their mind is overwhelming. Besides, if one takes blood and is truly repentant, the elders will forgive their sin and not kick them out (right away, so says their own website-new ight) so if the decision was made for them while they were incapacitated, how could it be their fault.

Surely the real person trapped in the JW mind deserves consideration.

I'd risk the fall out, or the quiet thank you. Mind you, it would be extremely slim chance of me or someone like me (vocal on position) to be faced with this dilema.

I'd rather go the "prevention is worth a pound of cure" route. EDUCATE EDUCATE EDUCATE

will

onacruse

WillP:

If the person choosing to die at the time really had an INFORMED choice then the possibility that they would change their mind is overwhelming.

Along with the idea of "competency," I'd consider myself a competent adult. Still, and without feeling sanguine about it, I've rather strongly concluded that when it's time for me to die, it's time for me to die. I don't want a whole bunch of organ transplants, transfusions, radiation, chemotherapy, etc to prolong the existence of my degraded physical organism. That's my informed choice, based on the best available knowledge I've accumulated up to this point in my life. That may change tomorrow, but for now, that's the way it is. That I don't know everything about everything, or that some of what I now believe to be true may actually be wrong, doesn't mean that I'm incapable of making an informed decison.

So also with most adult JWs. They haven't decided to refuse blood tranfusions simply because the WTS told them so. Whatever may be said about the validity of their theology, the fact remains that they have deliberately considered the matter and voluntarily chosen to refuse that treatment. That decision should be respected, if not supported.

Craig

Will Power

Craig

Sorry, I'm under the impression that the person refusing is doing so for biblical reasons. Although I'd venture to say that these would also use all the "acceptable" excuses for deciding to die. The "biblical" reason conclusion has manifested itself through a biblically proven liar and "mischief" maker. Strong's Concordance word # 1943 = hovah = mischief. If I knew this to be the reason for refusal, I would interject.

will

onacruse

Will, and so why would an erroneous interpretation of scripture be grounds for over-riding a personal choice? If that was a valid basis to interfere, then virtually every belief-system on this planet would be subject to review, and every personal decision made according to those beliefs would be suspect.

As I see it, the point here is not whether the fundamental beliefs are "correct," but whether the adult decisions made on the basis of those beliefs are within accepted social parameters. For example, if a person chooses euthanasia (for whatever reason), and the local social/legal system supports that decision, then the dignity of personal choice must be respected. If society sees otherwise, then religious interpretation and laws eventually change to deal with the matter (though even those changes may subsequently be changed).

However, enforcing my own current personal view on some other adult, even for what I consider to be perfectly justifiable reasons, is simply a violation of the human spirit.

Craig

Country Girl

Dang straight I would! If it was someone in my immediate family. I'd rather have them alive and shunning me, than dead and leaving flowers at their grave.

CG

Gamaliel

I don't mean to be graphic, but I thought it might help if we used practical examples. What would you do in this situation:

If you were 50 had a daughter who was 21. The daughter had became a JW at 21, her wallet contains a no blood card, but was not retrieved from the scene of an accident, for example. You are at the emergency room and have a chance to tell them about the blood card yet you know it's an obvious unequivocal situation where blood would save her life and not getting blood would sacrifice her life.

If you would use a parental prerogative to save her life even though your daughter is an adult, then think about whether or why you might treat it differently if she was carrying the blood card and you were therefore asked if you would give overriding permission. (BTW, in Canada I think that the child is considered an adult in terms of accepting or rejecting medical treatment as young as 16 or so in some Canadian courts.)

In the first case you merely didn't speak up to honor her known wishes, and perhaps she had never spelled them out to you although you were aware. In the second situation you choose either to let her die or override her wishes at the request of her doctors or the emergency staff who have seen this same situation 100 times before.

If you would accept responsibility over your daughter's wishes, what were the reasons? Would you use different reasons on your parents, because perhaps they are older, or because you "honor" them in a different way? What about a grown cousin, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew. If I'd save a life of one of them (e.g., daughter) and my reasons were loving, I don't see how I could sacrifice the life of another relative if it were in my power to do otherwise.

I'm sure I could be wrong even from a true legal standpoint, not just JW law, but some of these principles seem bigger than either civil or JW law to me.

And one more example, a little less likely (I hope): Your fundamentalist mother-in-law has been heaping vitriolic hell-fire sermons on you and your wife for years. Your wife, in fact, had a stroke and died due to her abusive mother. Now this same mother-in-law, after doing 5 years in the slammer for hiring a hit-man to kill you, has just joined a snake-charming cult. The cult doesn't believe in doctors or medical attention of any kind. Also you know you are in her will for $250,000,000 after estate taxes and you have been broke for these 10 years because she personally has seen to it. She gets bitten. What do you do?

Gamaliel

Francois

How many relatives are involved in your question? First there was one, then there was an unknown number of them and they needed a transfusion. So wot de story?

francois

P.S. I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. Why would it be more honorable for me to violate a person's wishes than the other way 'round? I mean really. If I wanted my daughter to have a transfusion and my sister insisted that she shouldn't have one, why shouldn't I kick my sister's ass as soon as I had the chance for foolin' around in my life doing things I think are dishonorable? So how come, when my sister refused a transfusion, I was there and saved her life by forcing a transfusion on her?

This issue isn't quite as black and white as it seems at first is it?

Yerusalyim

For the kids, YOU BET. For my wife?????? I don't know.

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

Share this