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

by minimus 119 Replies latest jw friends

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Howdy again Onacruse,

    :: I think that the highest ethical obligation is to preserve life.

    : Not necessarily.

    I certainly didn't mean the above as a blanket statement of my opinion, covering any and all circumstances. I even gave examples of exceptions where I would let other considerations supercede it. And keep in mind: I am not stating this as a principle by which anyone else ought to conduct himself, but only as to how I conduct myself.

    : For example, there are numerous societies that consider euthanasia ethical (including doctor-assisted suicide here in Oregon);

    Within strictly defined limits, of course. In Oregon, if I remember right, the person must be judged by a panel of doctors to be terminal, and the person must pass strict tests to prove to the state that he is of sound mind and knows exactly what he is doing. This is precisely what my example about me and my wife is all about; we fully agree with Oregon's law. This stance, I think, is consistent with the general intent of my above expressed opinion.

    : 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).

    I understand that. But we're not talking about refusal of treatment in such cases. We're talking about refusal of treatment that will result in the near-immediate death of a person in dire circumstances, such as bleeding profusely in an emergency room situation. When such a person loses all his blood, he dies, period -- Minimus' protestations notwithstanding.

    : As HS says, "Society determines those standards."

    That's one aspect of the issue, of course, but we each must also determine our own standards. Sometimes those may differ from government-issue societal standards. A good example is in the majority of American states where any kind of euthanasia is illegal. The standards differ from Oregon's. Who is to say what is right in an absolute sense? By absolute sense, I mean apart from the vagaries of opinion that result in the laws of one state being different from those of another. I know that this isn't particularly sharp, but I think you know what I mean.

    : If, therefore, a certain practice is deemed acceptable by Society, than that determination, and that determination alone defines "ethical."

    Not at all. It determines what is legal. What is ethical and what is legal often differ tremendously. I'm sure you can think of examples as well as I can.

    : Granted, what is considered ethical may not meet up with our own moral principles,

    Precisely my point about expressing my opinion on this issue, as opposed to stating what others should do.

    : but what we personally consider to be morally correct is by definition self-determined.

    Of course.

    : Playing Superman (yeah, like you'd fit into the suit LOL )

    Don't make fun or I'll put one on and post a picture!

    : ...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.

    But that's just the point. The fact that I thought that I could fly would be positive proof that I was out of my mind. If I chose to jump for reasons other than thinking that I could fly, that would be different. But the fact is that I cannot fly. If I believe I can, I am by definition nuts. I might have been deceived into believing I could fly by some snake oil salesman, but I would still be nuts. The same goes for anyone who rejects the facts in favor of JW teaching about blood transfusions. Of course, there are precious few JWs who know the facts, since almost all of them are thoroughly deceived by Watchtower misrepresentations. And just as you would almost certainly try to save the life of a braindead Superman about to jump off the roof, so would I try to save the life of a braindead JW trying to obey the ridiculous commands of a self-proclaimed "prophet class" living in New York.

    : 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.

    Of course. But we're talking about what we personally see as moral obligations. In most states, one is under no legal obligation to report child abuse. That doesn't make it ethical not to report.

    : Obviously, I would have an extreme sense of moral duty to do everything within my power to prevent you from jumping,

    I'm happy to hear that. When I don my Superman costume, I'll make sure not to do it in Oregon.

    : but as a consenting adult you are free to terminate your existence whenever and however you want.

    Agreed, within the bounds I've set forth in these posts.

    See what you started with that phone call last night?

    AlanF

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    First of all, minimus, thank you for starting this thread. This issue touches me deeply, cutting right to the quick of exJW thinking and how, for myself, an issue like this is just packed full of the potential for "exJW-but-still-actually-JW" thinking.

    HS:

    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,

    fwiw, I see at least the following possibilities from your statement:

    1) It's not correct doctrine, in which case we have a moral imperative to inform them of the correct doctrine (and on what authoritative basis do we do that?);

    2) It is correct doctrine, in which case we must abide by their decisions made according to that doctrine;

    3) It's their "own" view of the doctrine (and so how do we justifiably discount their view?);

    4) "correct or otherwise." So then, we must (ethically) allow people to make incorrect decisions based on incorrect doctrine with inadequate information?

    To put a stick in the ground, I go for #4.

    HS, I'm not trying to "dissect" your phraseology, as if simply for the purpose of debate. Please trust me on this; I'm simply being as honest as I can be.

    With respects all around,

    Craig

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    an issue like this is just packed full of the potential for "exJW-but-still-actually-JW" thinking.

    Didn't we put that one to bed already, lol?

    (and on what authoritative basis do we do that?);

    Logic, of course. But again, this is a life or death time sensitive decision affecting the life of a loved one. I'd say save the logic.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    Hey Six:

    Didn't we put that one to bed already, lol?

    No, I really don't think we have. I'm working back to Alan's post, and quite frankly, imho, there's a whole lot of JW-mentality still at play here (mine, Alan's, HS's and Gamaliel's, to be specific...No accusations intended, just my own observation). After all, if we have truly walked away from the "I'm right..you're wrong" perspective, then why should we feel compelled to walk back into that same arena and swing our intellectual swords at those that we deem to be "mis/un-informed?"

    We're talking here about enforcing our adult opinions on other adult opinions! Quite frankly, I just can't see how in the world an exJW can step up to that plate and do exactly the same thing to a JW that we insist we they should not do to us.

    Craig

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine
    We're talking here about enforcing our adult opinions on other adult opinions! Quite frankly, I just can't see how in the world an exJW can step up to that plate and do exactly the same thing to a JW that we insist we they should not do to us.

    I think that sentence sums up the problem. It isn't really that way at all. In my opinion, you've colored this within the lines that you've drawn the picture for this discussion.

    I think you got locked into your drawing a bit too quickly, and you aren't seeing the picture beyond that framework. But this is a messy ole world, with messy ole blood for paint, and I think you'll suffer (and your parents really might suffer, lol) if you keep your principles confined to such narrow constraints.

    Slightly off topic, I took my mom to an speach by a well known investment writer for the Dallas Morning News and Fortune magazine. He spoke about the problems facing social security, and said that in a way, it's a "be careful what you wish for" type problem. We wished for long healthy lives, and we got them. He made a few more points, and then jokingly said that if the government doesn't sort it out, our children may have to fix the problem with heavy pillows. We all laughed and laughed, my mom more so than most. Tacit approval, yes?

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Onacruse,

    You are diverting this thread into too many directions without actually answering the issues that you first raised :

    They haven't decided to refuse blood tranfusions simply because the WTS told them so.

    Do you still stand by this statement? In this thread, this is all that I have addressed and I wish to stick to this point, which as I have presviously noted, is *not* dependant on whether a doctrine is correct or not, but whether JW's have actually made informed decisions regarding the blood transfusion issue, or whether they just obey instructions from 'above'.

    For example, I would be interested in your comments on this hypothetical illustration that I developed:

    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?

    I believe that this answer to this question also bears heavily on the statement that you originally made and that I came into this thread to take issue with, and have again quoted above.

    HS

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Onacruise, perhaps you have boxed yourself in too early. A few incidents with my teenagers made me review my ethical stance. My son wished total privacy about his problems. I kept my word until I nearly imploded with the stress. I needed to tell somebody about it, because it was beyond my ability to handle it alone. I ended up spilling my guts to all manner of professionals. I kept the business cards. They were a quarter-inch thick before I was done talking.

    I changed my philosophy. If I feared my children were in harm's way, I would do anything to save them. Including breaking my normally iron-clad moral code.

    When my daughter was about sixteen, she sidled up to me and asked if I would ever read her private diary. "Why yes, I would," I replied, "If I had any reason to think you were in to drugs or anything else dangerous." She was furious. And the diary disappeared from her night-stand shortly after. (BTW, I never did look. She is a great kid.)

  • Soledad
    Soledad

    believe it or not this is a tough question to answer. I think of my mother, as she is the only JW immediate family member that I have. I know that she is vehemently opposed to taking blood, that she is more than capable of ripping an IV out of her veins if she had to and if it came to that. But what if she is in a situation where she is unconsious, or otherwise incapable of making such an important decision on her own? what should I do?

    I certainly dont want her to die for the WTS. But if I were to force the blood on her while she was unconscious and she finds out the thought alone of having violated her so-called "bible trained conscious" might kill her, at least emotionally. What kind of mother would I have then? One who would spend the remaining years of her life feeling like an unforgiveable sinner? One who probably would never be able to talk to me ever again for violating her expressed wishes? I couldn't do that to her. My mother already spends days and nights berating herself because my brother and I left "the truth" and therefore she must be a lousy mother and christian, not worthy of God's (read: WTS's) love. Forcing a blood transfusion on her would just kill her, I know it.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    HS:

    Onacruse,

    You are diverting this thread into too many directions without actually answering the issues that you first raised :

    Trust me, that's not my intent, and I apologize if I've inserted seemingly irrelevant issues. If I appear to be "jumping around," it's only because I'm continuing to formulate my convictions, in no small way based on feedback from friends like you. I'm learning as I go.

    They haven't decided to refuse blood tranfusions simply because the WTS told them so.

    Do you still stand by this statement?

    Yes, I do. 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). I'm not talking about 1000s of JWs here, and I've by no means gone through the gamut with each and every one of them, in a cross-examination of their beliefs. But, I'm also not even potentially in the position of having to make an ER decision in their behalf. However, for those who I do know beyond my own reasonable doubt have made a personal decision to refuse transfusions, I will unequivocally stand up for their decision.

    For example, I would be interested in your comments on this hypothetical illsutration that I developed:
    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?

    No doubt at all; if the WTS came out tomorrow with a revised doctrine, many JWs would jump right over and change their medical directives. And, some JWs would continue to adhere to "old" doctrine, and many elders would continue to try and enforce the "old" doctrine. But, if I may so froward, what difference does that make? Is what we may very well think that we've identified as mis-/dys-information suffice as the sole and primary criterion for inserting ourselves into the decisions of other adults?

    I think not. It's their choice.
    As far as the individual perception of what constitutes "Divine law;" I daresay that neither you nor I are in any position to make that determination.
    Therefore, again: it's their choice.
    Respectfully,
    Craig
  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Soledad makes a good point:

    believe it or not this is a tough question to answer. I think of my mother, as she is the only JW immediate family member that I have. I know that she is vehemently opposed to taking blood, that she is more than capable of ripping an IV out of her veins if she had to and if it came to that. But what if she is in a situation where she is unconsious, or otherwise incapable of making such an important decision on her own? what should I do?

    I certainly dont want her to die for the WTS. But if I were to force the blood on her while she was unconscious and she finds out the thought alone of having violated her so-called "bible trained conscious" might kill her, at least emotionally. What kind of mother would I have then? One who would spend the remaining years of her life feeling like an unforgiveable sinner? One who probably would never be able to talk to me ever again for violating her expressed wishes? I couldn't do that to her. My mother already spends days and nights berating herself because my brother and I left "the truth" and therefore she must be a lousy mother and christian, not worthy of God's (read: WTS's) love. Forcing a blood transfusion on her would just kill her, I know it.

    Even if my decision is quick and easy to save the life now, it wouldn't be quick and easy if my parent was like Soledad's parent. My mother is very healthy right now. I have a great family situation for an apostate. If I somehow could save her life with blood, she'd get over it, practical person that she is, she'd have plenty of family support who would then, I'm sure, demonize me.

    I'd be left out in the cold, so to speak, no question about it, but my mother and my family would be happy she was alive.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit