(Adds found on pictiger are not associated with JWD) URLs for Watchtower scans can be found at the bottom. (From Kent's old archive). This was the title on an article in The Watchtower 1987 9/1, pages 12-15. This article should scare any employer that do have employees that are Jehovah's Witnesses. This because these employees may cost millions of dollars - because the Jehovah's Witnesses will break their oath of confidentiality! Here is the article as printed in the Watchtower. “A Time to Speak”—When? MARY works as a medical assistant at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.
One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer’s having legal problems? Or would Proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? This reads: “The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter.”—Compare Proverbs 25:9, 10.
Situations like this are faced by Jehovah’s Witnesses from time to time. Like Mary, they become acutely aware of what King Solomon observed: “For everything there is an appointed time, even a time for every affair under the heavens: . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1, 7) Was this the time for Mary to keep quiet, or was it the time to speak about what she had learned?
Circumstances can vary greatly. Hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way Mary did. Indeed, each Christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before Jehovah. (1 Timothy 1:5, 19) When sins are minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: “Love covers a multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8) But when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal Christian out of love of God and his fellow Christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation’s purity be preserved? Applying Bible Principles What are some basic Bible principles that apply? First, anyone committing serious wrongdoing should not try to conceal it. “He that is covering over his transgressions will not succeed, but he that is confessing and leaving them will be shown mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13) Nothing escapes the notice of Jehovah. Hidden transgressions must eventually be accounted for. (Proverbs 15:3; 1 Timothy 5:24, 25) At times Jehovah brings concealed wrongdoing to the attention of a member of the congregation that this might be given proper attention.—Joshua 7:1-26.
Another Bible guideline appears at Leviticus 5:1: “Now in case a soul sins in that he has heard public cursing and he is a witness or he has seen it or has come to know of it, if he does not report it, then he must answer for his error.” This “public cursing” was not profanity or blasphemy. Rather, it often occurred when someone who had been wronged demanded that any potential witnesses help him to get justice, while calling down curses—likely from Jehovah—on the one, perhaps not yet identified, who had wronged him. It was a form of putting others under oath. Any witnesses of the wrong would know who had suffered an injustice and would have a responsibility to come forward to establish guilt. Otherwise, they would have to ‘answer for their error’ before Jehovah. This command from the Highest Level of authority in the universe put the responsibility upon each Israelite to report to the judges any serious wrongdoing that he observed so that the matter might be handled. While Christians are not strictly under the Mosaic Law, its principles still apply in the Christian congregation. Hence, there may be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a Christian “must obey God as ruler rather than men.”—Acts 5:29.
While oaths or solemn promises should never be taken lightly, there may be times when promises required by men are in conflict with the requirement that we render exclusive devotion to our God. When someone commits a serious sin, he, in effect, comes under a ‘public curse’ from the One wronged, Jehovah God. (Deuteronomy 27:26; Proverbs 3:33) All who become part of the Christian congregation put themselves under “oath” to keep the congregation clean, both by what they do personally and by the way they help others to remain clean. Personal Responsibility These are some of the Bible principles Mary likely considered in making her personal decision. Wisdom dictated that she should not act quickly, without weighing matters very carefully. The Bible counsels: “Do not become a witness against your fellowman without grounds. Then you would have to be foolish with your lips.” (Proverbs 24:28) To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. (Deuteronomy 19:15) If Mary had seen only a brief mention of abortion, she might have decided conscientiously that the evidence of any guilt was so inconclusive that she should not proceed further. There could have been a mistake in billing, or in some other way the records may not have properly reflected the situation.
In this instance, however, Mary had some other significant information. For example, she knew that the sister had paid the bill, apparently acknowledging that she had received the service specified. Also, she knew personally that the sister was single, thus raising the possibility of fornication. Mary felt a desire lovingly to help one who may have erred and to protect the cleanness of Jehovah’s organization, remembering Proverbs 14:25: “A true witness is delivering souls, but a deceitful one launches forth mere lies.”
Mary was somewhat apprehensive about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she protect the privacy of the medical records. Surely the sister would not want to become resentful and try to retaliate by making trouble for her, she reasoned. So when Mary analyzed all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this was a time to “speak,” not to “keep quiet.”
Now Mary faced an additional question: To whom should she speak, and how could she do so discreetly? She could go directly to the elders, but she decided to go first privately to the sister. This was a loving approach. Mary reasoned that this one under some suspicion might welcome the opportunity to clarify matters or, if guilty, confirm the suspicion. If the sister had already spoken to the elders about the matter, likely she would say so, and Mary would not need to pursue matters further. Mary reasoned that if the sister had submitted to an abortion and had not confessed to this serious transgression of God’s law, she would encourage her to do this. Then the elders could help her in accord with James 5:13-20. Happily, this is how matters worked out. Mary found that the sister had submitted to an abortion under much pressure and because of being spiritually weak. Shame and fear had moved her to conceal her sin, but she was glad to get help from the elders toward spiritual recovery.
If Mary had reported first to the body of elders, they would have been faced with a similar decision. How would they handle confidential information coming into their possession? They would have had to make a decision based on what they felt Jehovah and his Word required of them as shepherds of the flock. If the report involved a baptized Christian who was actively associated with the congregation, they would have had to weigh the evidence as did Mary in determining if they should proceed further. If they decided that there was a strong possibility that a condition of “leaven” existed in the congregation, they might have chosen to assign a judicial committee to look into the matter. (Galatians 5:9, 10) If the one under suspicion had, in effect, resigned from being a member, not having attended any meetings for some time and not identifying herself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they might choose to let the matter rest until such time as she did begin to identify herself again as a Witness. Thinking Ahead Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ‘exhibit good fidelity to the full,’ including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar’s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah’s law is supreme.
Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself.
There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God’s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another’s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we should forgive “up to seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the “time to keep quiet.” But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the “time to speak.” [Footnotes] Mary is a hypothetical person facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in similar circumstances. In their Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch state that a person would be guilty of error or sin if he “knew of another’s crime, whether he had seen it, or had come to the certain knowledge of it in any other way, and was therefore qualified to appear in court as a witness for the conviction of the criminal, neglected to do so, and did not state what he had seen or learned, when he heard the solemn adjuration of the judge at the public investigation of the crime, by which all persons present, who knew anything of the matter, were urged to come forward as witnesses.” It is the right and loving course to encourage an erring Witness to speak with the elders, confident that they will handle the problem in a kind and understanding way. (Top of page 15, in red section). http://server4.pictiger.com/img/26658/picture-hosting/speak-a-10001.php http://server4.pictiger.com/img/26704/picture-hosting/speak-b-20001.php http://server4.pictiger.com/img/26745/picture-hosting/speak-c-30001.php http://server4.pictiger.com/img/26784/picture-hosting/speak-d-40001.php http://server4.pictiger.com/img/26815/picture-hosting/speak-e-50001.php Watchtower Observer Archives
"A Time to Speak"----When? (with scans).
by Atlantis 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Atlantis
-
Lady Lee
Wow I'm so glad you found this and posted it.
Thanks
-
Atlantis
You are quite welcome Lady Lee! Thank you so much for your hard work we really appreciate your efforts!
Cheers!
-
Lady Lee
I'm seeing my doctor on the 14th. I will be printing this out to give to her. I think all doctors need to have this info.
-
Atlantis
We hope you leave the Doctor's office with a good report concerning your health! We want you healthy and strong Lady Lee!
-
deeskis
as a health professional my comment is
-
FairMind
The contradiction in the WT's example is that it was OK for Mary to work at a place of business that practiced abortion.
-
DannyHaszard
A time to snitch,squeal and blabber mouth confidental personal info to the control freak watchtower cult flunky bosses
Hang em high!--Danny Haszard
-
liberatedwoman
WOW! I wonder if there will be "new light" on this now that in the US we have HIPAA regulations that are very explicit about the right to privacy - you know, that annoying paperwork you get every time you go to a new health care practitioner.
When I was director of a midwifery service all employees and students assigned to clinical rotations had to sign a confidentiality agreement, renewed annually. Breaching this was grounds for instant dismissal. The penalties to employers are substantial, and enforcement is by the Office of Civil Rights - and nobody wants an OCR investigation of their facility!!
And BTW - what was "Mary" doing working somewhere that provided terminations of pregnancy? I do hope she cleaned up her act and went to work doing something that will maintain her spiritual cleanliness (though perhaps provide her with less titillating information about the medical conditions of her fellow dubs)
-
West70
BUSINESS INSURANCE Magazine
January 5, 2004
By Michael Bradford
When an employee's religious beliefs clash with an employer's privacy rules, the temptation to tattle can sometimes be overwhelming.
As a result, employers are left with a hard-to-handle exposure: the possibility that a devout employee will break privacy regulations in the name of a greater good.
Dr. Gerald L. Bullock, who practiced medicine in Denison, Texas, in the 1980s, said he was stunned when a bookkeeper at his office released patient information to her church elders. As a Jehovah's Witness, the woman admitted that she was following what she perceived as her obligation to her church to report on a fellow church member's perceived sinful behavior, the doctor explained.
The patient had been treated by Dr. Bullock for a sexually transmitted disease. The Sunday after his employee released that information to church elders, the patient was expelled from the church, he said, and told not to communicate with friends and relatives in the church. "It had a major, major impact on her life," Dr. Bullock said.
The patient threatened to sue. Dr. Bullock's attorney advised the physician to immediately fire the bookkeeper and then "call this lady and do whatever she asks because you've got no defense," the doctor recalled.
After the firing and an apology, the lawsuit threat was withdrawn.
While such privacy breaches by Jehovah's Witnesses are not frequent, "it does happen," according to Gerald Bergman, a former member of the society who has written extensively on the church's practices. He teaches biology and chemistry at Northwest State Community College in Archbold, Ohio.
"Their responsibility is to the church, not to the employer," Mr. Bergman said of the approximately 1 million Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States. "The employer is secular, and, therefore, second."
Such privacy breaches, of course, could be committed by anyone who feels morally obligated to do so, noted George Head, director emeritus of the Insurance Institute of America in Malvern, Pa.
"You've got to be careful not to pick on just Jehovah's Witnesses," he said. And no matter why someone feels obligated to release private information, the consequences could be dramatic for the entity that was responsible for that data.
"The ramifications of this are horrendous," said Catherine H. Gates, senior training specialist with Montgomery Insurance Co. in Sandy Spring, Md.
Ms. Gates, who teaches ethics workshops for Montgomery's agents, said, "Think of the damage if an insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose their clients."
Even though it seems obvious that "the right thing to do is keep your mouth shut and the wrong thing to do is share the information with others," Ms. Gates said it's not hard to see the ethical dilemma for someone who would want to be loyal to a church as well as his or her employer.
For others, though, the dilemma is not so clear.
"It is definitely not appropriate to release (private information) no matter what the outside religious obligation is," said Sanford M. Bragman, Dallas-based vp, risk management at Tenet Healthcare Corp.
The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, the body that directs church affairs, says there is no policy forcing members to report sinful acts or divulge private information. That choice is up to members, according to Phillip Brumley, general counsel for the Brooklyn, N.Y.-based group.
"They should study the scriptures, and what they do is up to them," said Mr. Brumley. If there is a conflict, he said, a member should "think that through and decide what to do."
A 1987 article in the church's Watchtower magazine, which the church says is its most recent on the subject, advises members to consider the ramifications before taking any oath that would put them in conflict with biblical requirements. Doctors' offices, hospitals and law firms are businesses where privacy problems could arise, the article states. "We cannot ignore Caesar's law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah's law is supreme," it reads.
The article further states that if a "Christian feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah."
It is an employee's promise, though, that appears to be an employer's only protection against the release of private information on moral grounds.
"Even if you have everybody sign something, it isn't going to stop the behavior" if a zealous employee feels obligated to release information, Ms. Gates noted. "The only thing it can do is keep the employer from being held liable," she said.
Dr. Bullock said he now hires only workers who make such promises, and, when interviewing, wants to know whether there is "anything about you that would cause you to tell on a patient," he noted. If so, the applicant isn't hired.
Nancy Hacking, director of safety and risk management at Concord Hospital in Concord, N.H., said hospital employees each year sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they will not release confidential information. Workers who violate the agreement, she said, "are subject to termination."
Apart from educating employees on what information is private, the hospital also runs "audit trails" on its electronic systems to keep tabs on who accesses such information, Ms. Hacking said.
At Tenet, ongoing training, much of it online, keeps employees aware of what information should be kept private, according to Mr. Bragman. The training covers regulations contained in the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act that govern privacy, he said.
Adam G. Linett, associate general counsel with the Jehovah's Witnesses, said employers shouldn't fear HIPAA penalties for unauthorized disclosures because sanctions in the act are aimed at employees.
And, Mr. Linett said, he "can't think of a single case where this has happened and resulted in a lawsuit."
'Think of the damage if an Insurance company had a lawsuit against them for the release of private information. Whether it was successful or not, they are going to lose clients.' -- Catherine H. Gates, Montgomery Insurance Co.