Would the W.T. be open for massive lawsuits if they changed blood policy?

by hubert 40 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  professor

  unfortunately i dont think it would cause a mass exodus, no major changes before this has.

  That's actually not true. Failed dates and changes in policy (such as smoking) have caused people to leave in droves at times. The new cause is the Internet.
• 

  trevor

  With the increase in attention to human rights there is growing concern regarding the Watchtower Society?s ban on blood transfusions. Few Witnesses are aware of the 1998 case between the Watchtower Society and the Bulgarian government. To settle the case, they signed a legally binding document giving Witnesses freedom of choice regarding blood transfusions. In the statement that follows the applicant is the Watchtower Society:

  ?The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.? (Applicant No 28626/95)

  Are the Witnesses abiding by this Bulgarian undertaking or covertly undermining the promised freedom of choice? Will this ruling become worldwide or will the Witnesses in Bulgaria be treated differently to the others?

  They have not always ruled that blood transfusions are wrong. At one time, the Society ruled that vaccinations and organ transplants were wrong but later changed their mind.

  Recently the Society informed all elders that those members who accepted a blood transfusion were not to be automatically disfellowshipped. This change of policy was not made known to the ordinary members. This change may well have been the result of pressure to conform to the legal requirements of The Human Rights Act.

  Until recently the Society had insisted that the use of all blood parts such as red or white cells including hemoglobin, plasma and platelets were also banned. To accept any such treatments was the same as having a transfusion. This ruling was based on the Biblical admonition to ?abstain from blood.? Now they have decided that some of these blood parts can be used!

  I think they will just go on guessing and altering policy as they play with he lives of their members. The only way forward is for people to leave by choice.
• 

  Pwned

  the fact that they have weakened the policy shows that a grand majority dont care what the WT does, they follow blindly. if they were to just drop the whole thing the might help themselves in the long run and wouldnt lose thier loyal core, it looks a lot worse to be flip-flopping, IMHO
• 

  hubert

  Orobus 21 said ....The society is not scared of law suits if it drops the blood ban.

  Trevor said.... on the Watchtower Society and the Bulgarian government.... They signed a legally binding document giving Wtinesses freedom of choice regarding blood transfusions.

  My questions on these statements are,

  1. If the witnesses are not abiding by this document about repercussions in Bulgaria by the witnesses, can they be sued for breach of contract?

  2. Because of having two different policies, can this be used as a basis for law suits in other countries?

  Hubert
• 

  Scully

  They changed their policies on organ transplants in 1980 and I don't remember a rash of court cases.

  True, but people in general have become a lot more prone to initiate a lawsuit in the past 25 years.

  Perhaps they are proceeding so slowly and so gradually in modifying the wording of the issue in the magazines, and on the blood cards and DPAs that they are hoping that nobody will notice.
• 

  professor

  Perhaps they are proceeding so slowly and so gradually in modifying the wording of the issue in the magazines, and on the blood cards and DPAs that they are hoping that nobody will notice.

  I could see that happening. My mom is a very active JW and speaking with her recently, she didn't realize that the 1914 generation doctrine had changed. They just kinda snuck it by, I guess.
• 

  garybuss

  
  Witnesses have always been free to take all blood treatments. They just are shunned by other Witnesses if they do. It was the same with organ transplants. The only thing that changed in 1980 was the shunning practice. The only real change that the Witness people could make to the blood treatment guidelines now would be to change the shunning practice.
  
  That's all they have done with the blood fractions. They just quit shunning the people who really have always been free to take blood fraction treatments.
  
  This is not a blood treatment issue. It's a shunning practice issue.
  
  Those of us who submitted to the Watch Tower Corporation's threats of shunning and refused rational medical treatment were fools. Some of us are dead fools.
  
  I think those of us who submit to the Watch Tower Corporation's threats on any level are fools.
  
  
• 

  TheListener

  As a side note. I just wanted to say that I'm amazed that most of the people I talk to at the hall don't even remember the WTs stance against organ transplants. This includes pioneers, elders and servants. Very few actually remember the 1995 change in the generation understanding either.

  Let's face it, the society has a very high turnover rate and they use that to their advantage. Strong witnesses don't go around the hall discussing all of the doctrinal changes on a regular basis so the new ones don't really know what used to be taught. And if a new one runs across an old teaching or someone mentions it they are already programmed to think that it was old light and dismiss it.
• 

  rebel8

  there is no liability now for damage or even deaths that might result because a member acts upon what has been taught

  I hope someday the courts will recognize brainwashing, threats of shunning, and threats of imminent death at the hand of Jesus as liability on the part of the WTS. Certainly, adult JWs are not acting freely to make medical choices. They are being coerced. The difficulty is in proving that a JW is not acting freely. Individual JWs routinely claim they are acting freely, so it is almost impossible to prove they are not.

  Even worse, minors are being forced to comply with JW rules and their valid medical needs are neglected.
• 

  rebel8

  Recently the Society informed all elders that those members who accepted a blood transfusion were not to be automatically disfellowshipped. This change of policy was not made known to the ordinary members. This change may well have been the result of pressure to conform to the legal requirements of The Human Rights Act

  ...The Human Rights Act being a UK law, if I'm not mistaken. Was this communicated only to the Elders and not to the rank and file? A suspicious technique, to be sure.

  This brings up an important question for me: If this "rule" (covert or not) is applicable to UK JWs, and the JWs do not recognize political boundaries in doctrinal rules, then wouldn't this rule be true worldwide? Is it, or has it just been made known to the UK leaders?