I believe the BMJ debate on the blood issue is nearing an
end. What will probably be my last post was added to the
electronic responses this morning. I'm actually a bit
surprised that they published it because I went after
Furuli in a not so subtle way. Apparently Sam was correct -
the Brits like some humor in their debates. Here's the post:I must tip my hat to Rolf Furuli for he has done a great service for all dissident Jehovah's Witnesses(JWs) who conscientiously reject the Watchtower Society (WTS) blood policy. By coming into a public forum and failing to address the core issues raised by dissident JWs, Furuli has demonstrated at least three things: 1. Neither Furuli nor the WTS can answer the simple questions we have raised.
2. It is fitting and proper for Jehovah's Witnesses to discuss this policy outside of the organization.
3. Physicians who ask JWs simple questions about the policy will find they are stumped and may reevaluate their position.Furuli has helped create a historical record that will serve the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood (AJWRB) very well since the record clearly shows that even very experienced JW elders who are HLC (Hospital Liaison Committee) members (like Furuli) cannot answer simple questions about a policy they expect other JWs to die for if necessary.What great irony is to be found when Furuli chides Muramoto by saying: "…he (Muramoto) believes in the unverified claims of a small group of dissenters (who will not even disclose their identity), claims which for the most part are rejected as exaggerated or false by experienced witnesses as myself."Yes, claims which Furuli refuses to address despite being asked to do so on at least four occasions. Where has Furuli shown that claims made by AJWRB are false? Where is the logical basis for calling our claims "exaggerated?" Once again we're treated to another round of Furuli's logical fallacies. I dare say that Furuli's lack of response to the issues will answer any remaining questions in the minds of physicians regarding the lack of autonomy of their JW patients. With Furuli and the WTS, it's their way or the highway. Why should Furuli bother with something incidental like respect for the conscience of the individual or medical confidentiality? Pesky JWs who ask too many questions before they let their child bleed to death can just leave as far as Furuli is concerned. Actually, he would really prefer that they just identify themselves so that he can disfellowship them for not agreeing with him about what blood (haima) is this week. Lest we forget, he may once again change his mind next week and six million JWs will have to fall in line with the latest definition or face shunning and destruction by God.Thank you Rolf Furuli - I nominate you for AJWRB "reformer of the year" for perfectly demonstrating how totally bizarre and undefensible the WTS blood policies have come to be. Link to BMJ article and electronic responses:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7277/37
end. What will probably be my last post was added to the
electronic responses this morning. I'm actually a bit
surprised that they published it because I went after
Furuli in a not so subtle way. Apparently Sam was correct -
the Brits like some humor in their debates. Here's the post:I must tip my hat to Rolf Furuli for he has done a great service for all dissident Jehovah's Witnesses(JWs) who conscientiously reject the Watchtower Society (WTS) blood policy. By coming into a public forum and failing to address the core issues raised by dissident JWs, Furuli has demonstrated at least three things: 1. Neither Furuli nor the WTS can answer the simple questions we have raised.
2. It is fitting and proper for Jehovah's Witnesses to discuss this policy outside of the organization.
3. Physicians who ask JWs simple questions about the policy will find they are stumped and may reevaluate their position.Furuli has helped create a historical record that will serve the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood (AJWRB) very well since the record clearly shows that even very experienced JW elders who are HLC (Hospital Liaison Committee) members (like Furuli) cannot answer simple questions about a policy they expect other JWs to die for if necessary.What great irony is to be found when Furuli chides Muramoto by saying: "…he (Muramoto) believes in the unverified claims of a small group of dissenters (who will not even disclose their identity), claims which for the most part are rejected as exaggerated or false by experienced witnesses as myself."Yes, claims which Furuli refuses to address despite being asked to do so on at least four occasions. Where has Furuli shown that claims made by AJWRB are false? Where is the logical basis for calling our claims "exaggerated?" Once again we're treated to another round of Furuli's logical fallacies. I dare say that Furuli's lack of response to the issues will answer any remaining questions in the minds of physicians regarding the lack of autonomy of their JW patients. With Furuli and the WTS, it's their way or the highway. Why should Furuli bother with something incidental like respect for the conscience of the individual or medical confidentiality? Pesky JWs who ask too many questions before they let their child bleed to death can just leave as far as Furuli is concerned. Actually, he would really prefer that they just identify themselves so that he can disfellowship them for not agreeing with him about what blood (haima) is this week. Lest we forget, he may once again change his mind next week and six million JWs will have to fall in line with the latest definition or face shunning and destruction by God.Thank you Rolf Furuli - I nominate you for AJWRB "reformer of the year" for perfectly demonstrating how totally bizarre and undefensible the WTS blood policies have come to be. Link to BMJ article and electronic responses:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7277/37