If I could PROVE that your diet and lifestyle was KILLING you, but you refused to heed my good advice, that's the end of it. If I KNEW that the ONLY way that you could live a normal life and get healthy again would be to staple your stomach and give you proper nutrition, BUT, you refused what I and other doctors told you is your last chance for survival, then what??? Would you FORCE the procedure to save a life?.....You know, just because we KNOW better than another person, it doesn't mean that we have the right to make their decisions.Now, who's the "think police"?
If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?
by minimus 119 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AlanF
Minimus said:
: If I could PROVE that your diet and lifestyle was KILLING you, but you refused to heed my good advice ...
This example is very poor because it goes a big step beyond Onacruse's example of refusing blood in an immediately life-threatening situation. Hardly anyone is going to argue that lifestyle ought to be dictated by anyone else, even it's one that statistically results in early death. Hardly anyone is going to argue that anyone ought to prevent a gay man from having unprotected sex with another man he knows is AIDS positive. Eating that Big Mac is not likely to kill anyone on the spot. Refusing a blood transfusion when you're bleeding all over the emergency room floor is guaranteed to kill you. You're comparing two completely different situations.
AlanF
-
Will Power
Min..., great question
Your example above is not really the same thing. If a JW relative needed blood scenario suggests an accident or surgery gone wrong, or immediate life threatening circumstances. Smoking or obesity etc doesn't always lead to death and a person could carry on for years then make the decision to quit, same with hitting rock bottom going to AA etc. Don't you think that immediate intervention is not really necessary to save a life?
I know what JWs think about abortion. and I know what they say about worshipping idols & venerating symbols. Now how is this same person to be described as making and adult, informed, long thought out decision when they will make the SYMBOL OF LIFE more important than the actual life it represents.
great thread, thanks
will
-
hillary_step
Onacruse,
You note:
And according to whose standards do we determine that an adult has made a truly informed and rational decision?
Society determines those standards, that is why the law of 'involuntary coercion' exists. The WTS are arguably outside of the boundaries of this Law, but due to the US courts not having as yet connected the subtle and often unsubtle coercion involved in a JW avoiding blood transfusions, this has yet to be defined by law in this particular case. Those of us who have been Jehovah's Witnesses and left, know only to well how the WTS contrvenes this law in many divers ways.
Good lord, if we demand that every adult decision be as free from intellectual error, outside influence, poor choice of authority figures, and as fully knowledgeable as we would "like," then 99.9999% of the human population would be classified as incapable of making an informed choice. And so then who do we set up as their thought-guardians? to dispense to them each and every one what we have decided is right or wrong?
You clearly did not understand why I included the examples in my post of JW’s who do not even understand the issues involved in refusing a blood transfusion but blindly follow what they are told because they believe that their leaders speak for God on the matter. In a matter of life and death, such as this one, the WTS, or any other responsible organization is bound by law to divulge to those whom it influences all the pertinent details.
They haven't decided to refuse blood tranfusions simply because the WTS told them so.
Yes, many of them have! I quote your previous post to which I responded and would again disagree entirely with you assertion. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to take blood because they have been told not to take it by the WTS. My examples are living evidence of this.
JWs are generally misinformed, but they didn't just wake up one day and say "Gosh, it just occurred to me, I think I'm gonna refuse blood transfusions." The elders didn't walk up to them and say "Here, take this blood card that we already filled out for you." So I say again: It's their moral choice, and my ethical obligation to abide by their choice.
True, but in submitting themselves to a ‘Bible Study’ at which facts and theology, manufactured to avoid presenting the whole truth about the subject and clearly designed to affect impressionable minds, has led to persons being subtley coerced into believing the WTS has the correct view on the matter. The vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not very well educated on such matters before they became Jehovah’s Witnesses. Once Jehovah’s Witnesses they learn only one truth regarding the matter. So I would re-iterate, many JW’s refuse to take blood transfusions, not due to informed decisions, but because they have been told not to by the WTS who then threaten them with punishment if they do take one. Informed decisions cannot be made with a shunning gun held to the head.
Best regards - HS
-
AlanF
The kind of scriptural arguments that cannot be answered by any JW -- not even the Governing Body and its minions -- can be found in the article 'Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood"' at this location:
http://mindshadows.morloc.com/articles/jwbloodreview/AbstainFromBlood.htm
AlanF
-
minimus
"Refusing a blood transfusion when you're bleeding all over the emergency room floor is guaranteed to kill you". No it isn't.......People make good and bad decisions all the time. They make choices in life that are based upon their attained knowledge and experience.If a person makes a long range decision to do something that YOU consider destructive, that is ultimately, their business. To force your will upon them is wrong.
-
Gamaliel
onacruse,
For a while there, I thought you were onacrusade, yet we may not be as far off as you keep indicating:
You say that if you saw a hesitation you would give them the blood, too. Also you've repeated that you can base a good part of your answer on what to me is a "foundation argument:" the idea that the JWs have chosen rationally not to accept blood. That foundation doesn't hold for me, and I'm thinking that someday that same foundation could stop holding for you, too.
When I first left the JWs it was not just because I had discovered dishonesty at the "highest levels," but because I was specifically asked from the "highest levels" to be dishonest to help cover up problems until Jehovah saw to it that the corrections were made. Blood was something I hadn't even thought of until a few months after I DA'd, and I still held some ingrained prejudices against its use for a while longer.
I appreciate what Hillary_Step and AlanF have already said about your "foundation argument." It would only cloud the issue, for now, to start talking about other situations and other medical treatments. This one is easier for me to decide because even adult JWs are effectively innocent "children" when it comes to the non-acceptance of blood.
I know my JW relatives well. If the WT changed the stance on blood in the July 1 Wt and the emergency happened the week after they read the article, then they'd accept the blood; if the accident happened the week before they received their copy, they still wouldn't accept the blood. They wouldn't even have to hear what the WT reasoning was, only what the WT had concluded. Also I have many JW relatives, but I really think that all of them would finally understand my reasoning if only they would allow me just a couple hours to explain it. So far every one that sincerely opened up to talk about JW issues has soon left (cousin, brother, sister, another cousin, and many others who weren't relatives but had been close friends, former roommates, etc.)
I saw the other new thread you started, thanks. I thought that this subject seemed to be veering off towards ethics and morals in a very general sense. When I get back later tonight, I'll respond to that thread.
Gamaliel
Ecclesiastes 9:4 ,[5] As long as we are alive there is hope. [After that there is nothing]."A live dog is better than a dead lion." (9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.)
-
onacruse
AlanF:
I think that the highest ethical obligation is to preserve life.
Not necessarily. For example, there are numerous societies that consider euthanasia ethical (including doctor-assisted suicide here in Oregon); also, the right to refuse any number of medical treatments (e.g. chemotherapy, corrective surgery, etc), even though such refusal will, according to all the best medical opinions, result in the "premature" termination of life (even as with my brother; he declined "standard" treatment for his cancer, and as an informed adult he was fully within his rights to make that decision, regardless of the oncologist's protests). As HS says, "Society determines those standards." If, therefore, a certain practice is deemed acceptable by Society, than that determination, and that determination alone defines "ethical." Granted, what is considered ethical may not meet up with our own moral principles, but what we personally consider to be morally correct is by definition self-determined.
Playing Superman (yeah, like you'd fit into the suit LOL )...hmmmmm, good question. To be consistent, I'd have to say that if I was satisfied that you were sane and sound, under no external coercion, and fully aware of the inevitable consequences of your act, then I'd let you jump. Out of curiosity, I just called the local police department, to see what ethical standards apply in Oregon; I'm under no legal obligation to prevent you from jumping. Obviously, I would have an extreme sense of moral duty to do everything within my power to prevent you from jumping, but as a consenting adult you are free to terminate your existence whenever and however you want. Although, as I said above, it would make my heart ache to let such a thing happen.
HS:
blindly follow what they are told because they believe that their leaders speak for God on the matter
I didn't miss the point of your examples. And I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done anywhere near as much as others like you, AlanF, hawkaw, etc in breaking through to JWs and helping them see the error of their doctrines. But, imho, the issue here is not whether their doctrines are right or wrong, because what I quoted from you about "blind following" applies to virtually all humans on this planet. So then, do we sally forth from the halls of JWD and forcibly educate the masses of all mankind, using the Book of AlanF, HS, and Farkel? (I absolutely mean no disrespect)
Sincere best regards to you too.
Gamaliel:
I thought you were onacrusade
LOLOL Katie and I got a big kick out of that! Yes, this topic has cranked me up, hasn't it? And I appreciate how you all are tolerating my rant-and-rave.
I have many JW relatives, but I really think that all of them would finally understand my reasoning if only they would allow me just a couple hours to explain it.
Like what teejay is doing, to re-visit the issue with our JW relatives is key. Katie and I just discussed the scenario where I was in the ER, my Dad is laying on the table, and every doctor in the room is telling me in no uncertain terms that "just one pint of blood is all he needs, and he'll get through this just fine." They could pull out every medical textbook and statistical chart on the shelf, and convince me beyond all doubt that my Dad would live through this, if only I would authorize that one pint of blood. Nevertheless, in spite of the pain it would cause me to refuse, and to watch him die, I would refuse, because my Dad has made his beliefs on this matter as clear as crystal. It's his choice, not mine.
Craig
-
Gamaliel
teejay,
Damn, Gamaliel! I don’t know exactly how I feel about that. In a way I’m glad you left this discussion because your provocative perspective was beginning to make my head swim !
Shouldn’t our decisions be at least SOMEWHAT affected by others’ beliefs? And, outside of minors in our care, how far should that sphere of rights that we individually have impinge on the rights of others? (No need to respond... just thinking out loud. Or trying to.)
It's nice to feel welcome..lol. I didn't mean to "leave" the discussion, I just felt badly that I seemed to be pushing people away from the original subject. I'm not trying to say what "our decisions" ought to be, I was just explaining what I would do and why. Other posters felt the same, but I guess my mistake was adding the "and why" part.
My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs. Why should I care if my good deeds will be punished? – Gamaliel
I guess that was the big provoker. This example goes a bit beyond the blood issue, it's just a general statement about our motivation to act. When the Samaritan picks up the guy on the side of the road, was he supposed to ask what this person believed in before he decided to help? If I'm pulling Kool-Aid away from Jim Jones followers, am I supposed to ask why they are taking it? If someone is hijacking a plane into a building should I inquire about his religious beliefs? (OK, I admit, I sometimes take my examples too far)
I was just saying that in general we probably won't think about our prejudices when we are in an emergency situation saving a life. Most of us don't think about legal repurcussions either. Doctors have invoked their Hippocratic Oath to save a JW life and gotten in trouble over it. Doctors have also learned to hesitate over potential legal repurcussions, and many JWs have died because of that. They are doing what they are supposed to do. But now we have a question about what we'd do if we could be part of the equation. I'm hoping I will not let my once-held prejudices (for JW beliefs and against blood) keep me from making a life-saving decision. Damn the consequences!
Gamaliel
-
hillary_step
OnaCruse,
No disrespect taken and thank you for your comments. I do understand the spirit of what you state and am in agreement with some of what you say, the exception, which encouraged me enter the thread being the following statement :
They haven't decided to refuse blood tranfusions simply because the WTS told them so.
I simply do not agree with you and believe that my examples showed this not to be the correct view. Many of the JW's that I dealt with, and as I say my experience was by no means unique, do not understand the real issues behind their decision especially those involving 'blood fractions', and would be certainly hard put to explain them logically to others. Their are various reasons for this attitude, the most outstanding being that they have never been offered and alternative theology to the one that the WTS taught them and that the WTS has made this doctrine a tenet of faith which cannot be discussed openly without fear of reprisals against individuals and their families. Against such a backdrop it is not surprising that many accept orders without question where the transfusing of blood is concerned.
I think the point at issue can be settled conclusively by asking what would happen if the following occured : imagine that next week a Watchtower is published informing JW's that is is quite acceptable for them to take a blood transfusion. In all honesty, how many would still adhere to the previously held view, despite reams of 'scriptual' evidence. that blood transfusions transgressed a Divine law? A very few perhaps, who over time would gradually be won over by the social consensus of opinion.
When JW's stops asking, 'What are we allowed to take?', they might them prove that they have indeed made an informed decision on the issue, rather than following their leaders commands.
But, imho, the issue here is not whether their doctrines are right or wrong, because what I quoted from you about "blind following" applies to virtually all humans on this planet. So then, do we sally forth from the halls of JWD and forcibly educate the masses of all mankind, using the Book of AlanF, HS, and Farkel? (I absolutely mean no disrespect)
Of course not. Forcible education is where we have all come from! I also appreciate that this is not an issue of correct doctrine, it is an issue of whether JW's make decisions based on their *own* view of a doctrine, correct or otherwise, or if they do just what they are told, or coerced into adopting by Brooklyn.
Best regards - HS