Would the W.T. be open for massive lawsuits if they changed blood policy? (page 3)

hubert

Good question, Rebel 8. re: The human rights act.

I'd like to know that answer, too.

Does anyone here know the answer?

Hubert

Check_Your_Premises

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

I am not so sure. I think the jws like the idea that they might have to lay down their life for "Bible principles". It is all part of some sick pseudo-spritual psycho drama.

I read in Steven Hassan's book that peoples personality type gradually shifts to match that of the cults founder. The founder of the wt cult was a total drama queen.

Re change in "automatic disfellowshiping" for "misues of blood" - some few years back the elders were informed (in the UK) that the need to disfellowship anyone over the blood issue was not needed as the individual had clearly by their actions disassociated themselves.

The Human Rights Act is European Union Law - covering all the member states of the EU (former common market) it has succeeded only in achieving things it was never intended to address ( the original Act was aimed at major abuse of the rights of the individual by the State) its main aim being to achiebve such notable own goals as awarding a convicted paedophile compenstation because his court case took so long to reach court! The UK Conservative Party have pledged to review Britains involvement in the Human Rights Act (used also to allow Gypsies to override planning laws on a wholesale scale) - anything is seen as infringing the Human Rights of the Criminal with little thought for victims - the whole thing is a farce and would have no bearing on any JW and the blood issue as the defence would always be the free will of the individual concerned and lack of "compulsion" or enforcement - the Court of Human Rights sits in The Hague and comprises judges from each member state of the Treaty creating it - all in all its a good reason for the UK to leave the EU

Quote relates to religious freedom of groups under the HRA

13. - (1) If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm Copy of the Human Rights Act as applied in the UK - from Her Majestys Stationery Office website

trinity83

I sure hope it would cause an uproar. I would love to sue...my mom died from cancer two years ago at only 48 years old. A blood transfusion would've have really helped...maybe even saved her.

jeanniebeanz

I swear, that just makes me soo mad! Their flip flops on blood, transplants, immunizations and other medical issues have caused so much pain.

J

ezekiel3

I don't believe that potential lawsuits are an issue. The WTS could easily defend itself in that regard based on religious grounds.

What would ruin the WTS is the media fallout. JWs are known worldwide for refusing blood transfusions. If they suddenly changed their policy the mockery from the secular/medical world would be deafening.

The best way to avoid a media mob is to gradually diminish the focus on blood. Just what they are doing now.

tijkmo

i think they would be open to massive lawsuits if they changed any policy .........which is why they wont do it

coffee_black

My dad died in 1978 due to kidney failure...refused a transplant because of Watchtower teachings. (he had been on dialysis for several years) I can't even describe the feeling I had when I read the "questions from the readers" that changed the policy. Yet I stayed for another decade before seriously questioning. It was one of many factors in my leaving. A lawsuit never crossed my mind at the time... after I was out I casually discussed it with an Lawyer but by then it was too late anyway.

Coffee

hubert

Coffee, You said you casually discussed it with a lawyer.

Did he give any positive remarks, like if it would have been sooner, he could have had a case?

Hubert

coffee_black

Hubert, no. He said that freedom of religion is so ingrained in the US, that government doesn't want to get involved. He said I would have a hard time finding a lawyer to take the case..he wasn't going to do it. He said that my dad was an adult and he chose to follow a religious edict. That was his choice, regardless of any pressure put on him.

Coffee

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

Share this