Hello all > Something tells me there was an article in the society's literaure equating forcing a transfusion to rape.> Please could somebody find it for me as I want to bring it to the attention of some former friends who said the blood issue is no big deal.> If their young daughter had to have blood then they would just let the authorities make her a ward of the court and give her blood.> But would they hand her over to be raped> Mind you there are truly fine precedents for that aren't there.> Thanks in advance> Thomas Covenant.> PS hope the paragraphs come out.>
Blood transfusion = rape article
In an article I remember reading that the dubs told a little kd to say to the doctors that if they gave him blood that would be equivalent to raping his body. Very dramatic and obviously a little kid couldn't have thought of this his parents and the elders must have put this together to make sure that the kid becomes another martyr of the WTS as they see it.
from the official borg website
Many people agree that a court is no place for personal medical issues. How would you feel if you chose antibiotic therapy but someone went to court to force a tonsillectomy on you? A doctor may want to provide what he thinks is the best care, but he has no duty to seek legal justification to trample on your basic rights. And since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex—rape.— Acts 15:28, 29 .
Yet, Informed Consent for Blood Transfusion (1989) reports that some courts are so distressed when a patient is willing to accept a certain risk because of his religious rights "that they make up some legal exceptions—legal fictions, if you will—to allow a transfusion to occur." They might try to excuse it by saying that a pregnancy is involved or that there are children to be supported. "Those are legal fictions," the book says. "Competent adults are entitled to refuse treatment."
Some who insist on transfusing blood ignore the fact that Witnesses do not decline all therapies. They reject just one therapy, which even experts say is fraught with danger. Usually a medical problem can be managed in a variety of ways. One has this risk, another that risk. Can a court or a doctor paternalistically know which risk is "in your best interests"? You are the one to judge that. Jehovah's Witnesses are firm that they do not want someone else to decide for them; it is their personal responsibility before God.
If a court forced an abhorrent treatment on you, how might this affect your conscience and the vital element of your will to live? Dr. Konrad Drebinger wrote: "It would certainly be a misguided form of medical ambition that would lead one to force a patient to accept a given therapy, overruling his conscience, so as to treat him physically but dealing his psyche a mortal blow."—Der Praktische Arzt, July 1978.
The Association of Anaesthetists has issued guidelines to its members which state that they must respect the wishes of Jehovah's Witness patients.
Dr Michael Ward, chairman of the Association of Anaesthetists working party, which drew up the guidelines, says: "Administering blood to a Jehovah's Witness without consent has been likened by the movement to rape.
"It would not result in expulsion from the community but would have a deep psychological effect on the patient."
This just makes me feel sick. The "blood issue" is simply insane & the lives lost because of it is beyond wrong. When I read through that blurb, I felt my zombie trance coming back, hearing the circular reasonings... I really, really hate that feeling.
I know my own blood type and that of my kids'. THAT info has replaced the blood card of death and the 'identity cards' in my wallet.
borg 'quoting' the pope
When a patient is a Jehovah's Witness, beyond the matter of choice, conscience comes into the picture. One cannot think only of the physician's conscience. What of the patient's? Jehovah's Witnesses view life as God's gift represented by blood. They believe the Bible's command that Christians must "abstain from blood" ( Acts 15:28, 29 ). 8 Hence, if a physician paternalistically violated such patients' deep and long-held religious convictions, the result could be tragic. Pope John Paul II has observed that forcing someone to violate his conscience "is the most painful blow inflicted to human dignity. In a certain sense, it is worse than inflicting physical death, or killing." 9
*** w91 6/15 pp. 16-17 pars. 16-17 Walk as Instructed by Jehovah ***
One young man had studied the Bible off and on for years but was not baptized. Despite his being just seven weeks from the age when he would gain the "right to refuse medical treatment for himself," a hospital treating him for cancer sought court backing to transfuse him against his wishes and those of his parents. The conscientious judge quizzed him about his beliefs on blood and asked basic questions, such as the names of the first five books of the Bible. The young man could not name them nor give convincing testimony that he understood why he refused blood. Sadly, the judge authorized transfusions, commenting: "(H)is refusal to consent to blood transfusions is not based upon a mature understanding of his own religious beliefs."
Matters may turn out differently for a minor well instructed in God’s ways and actively walking in His truth. A younger Christian had the same rare type of cancer. The girl and her parents understood and accepted modified chemotherapy from a specialist at a noted hospital. Still, the case was taken to court. The judge wrote: "D.P. testified she would resist having a blood transfusion in any way that she could. She considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape. She asked the Court to respect her choice and permit her to continue at [the hospital] without Court ordered blood transfusions." The Christian instruction she had received came to her aid at this difficult time.—See box.
*** w91 6/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
We can appreciate, then, why the young Christian mentioned on page 17 told a court that "she considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape." Would any Christian woman, young or old, passively submit to rape, even if there were a legal grant that the fornication by sexual assault be carried out?
The Watchtower's comments in this Q f R from the same issue of the magazine show that they do support the comparison of an unwanted transfusion to rape.
since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex—rape.—
Quite the leap here. Don't they still claim that fractions are a conscience matter? So by that logical parts of sex would be okay just don't have it all at once.
Certain fractions were allowed when I was a JW kid, and I was told flatly that if I had an allowed fraction forced upon me, I would be viewed as "damaged goods, just like a rape victim, you'll never live it down, no one will marry you". Came with instructions to pull out the needle and escape from the hospital. Nice.
IMO the whole "fractions are allowed" thing is complete nonsense--a case of publicly saying one thing but teaching another.
SUPPORT CHILD SACRIFICE
Join your local WatchTower Society Today!
THIS MESSAGE IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY YOUR LOCAL KINGDOM HALL. COME ON AND AND STICK AROUND. NOW FOCUS ON THE SWINGING PENDULUM.... YOU'RE GETTING SLEEPY NOW..... YOUR EYES LIDS ARE HEAVY...... THAT'S IT...... YOU'RE IN A TRANCE.
REPETE AFTER ME... GOD IS GOOD... YOUR NEIGHBOR IS SATAN....... GOD IS LOVE... ALL OTHERS EXCEPT JW'S ARE EVIL... THE GB HAS A DIRECT PHONE LINE TO GOD... NEVER QUESTION THE GB... I LOVE GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR PASSING OUT MAGS....
ON THE COUNT OF 3 YOU WILL AWAKEN... ONE, TWO, THREE.....PRESTO! YOU ARE NOW A JW! NOW, GO AND DECEIVE THE MASSES IN THE NAME OF THE WATCHTOWER!