No it is not the same Flipper. There is a huge difference in letting someone control you and having something forced upon you. It seems like the majority of people here refuse to except personal accountability when it comes to doing what the WTS dictated or following it's every whim. Adults and the key word here is adults are not physically forced to follow the society. They had just as much chance as anyone else (especially this day and age) to look in to the society and see it for what it is. Many though just saw an easy road and took it....then after one day just re-awaking they realized what an ass they had been to not do the real research in the beginning. I am not saying I don't pity some weak ones with in the org, but it's far far far from "mind control" as so many on this board love to sensationalize it to be.
Shropshire Star news editor examines issues behind death of JW Emma Gough
Flipper, the alternative is state control. Preferable?
I'm sure 99% of non jw women having a child would accept a blood transfusion. If bleeding to death during child birth. we are talking about healthy young women here, most likely one of the happiest days of their lives to give birth to a child. with dreams of family and rearing children. That's why ALL LITTLE GIRLS HAVE DOLLS. they are practicing being a GOOD MOMMY. It was the WTS THAT MADE EMMA CARRY A NO BLoOD card. Not her own conscience. It was the WTS CONSCIENCE that taught her 5 meeting a week all of her life. To reject normal will to live. this case and thousands of others is nothing more than MANSLAUGHTER COMMITTED BUT THE WATCHTOWER. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER WAY TO SEE THIS MURDER. JOHN
BURGER TIME - Control is control. It is the same thing. Whether she allows herself to be controlled, or simply lets the WTS control her ! Let's go on your premise or argument that Emma Gough was " weak" as you said- O.K. I'll go there with you. Let's say she was " controlled " by the " fear " of what the WTS told her would happen to her if she took a blood transfusion. It is still control - causing her to decide. Also fear.
Let's go on your theory she had " free will " to decide her course of action. Let's look at her 2 choices!
1. Emma Gough says to herself , " If I take a blood transfusion - then God judges me unworthy of life as do all my witness friends who will shun me for my decision. Then I die alone in shame in front of the organization in time - disfellowshipped, kicked out of my once " warm brotherhood " for what - saving my life ! "
2. Her only No.2 option- She says to herself, " I have to refuse this blood transfusion to be " approved" by the Watchtower society. Because they tell me this , they make me fearful of being disapproved by God ! And I'm scared because I might die if I don't take a transfusion. The Watchtower society " controls " me to believe I will die at Armageddon at God's hands and I'm manipulated to think that I'm condemned by God for taking a blood transfusion ; so I have to refuse it ! "
So- those are her 2 choices - both could end up in death and tragedy. Doesn't sound like she has mmany options available to her to me ! Because she is " controlled " by the Watchtower society that - to stay approved she has to go with their organizations options for her ! To say she has a choice - is downright ignorant !
Wow flipper could you Appeal to Consequences anymore? Firstly to say she will die alone if she chooses a BT is absurd. Did it cross your mind her husband might perhaps stand behind her? Let alone her two children? As has been discussed in other threads she could tell her doctor to administer the BT and then not reveal it to the family. There are ways around it, this is the old Patty Hearst defense, which is plausible but at least Patty Hearst claimed she was kidnapped, most JW's go on their own accord.
Lets check out situation 2. which is what she did and was her right. She could have easily explored what was really going on. Even do this in secret, then make an Adult decision to bunker down and leave. She didn't and only she can be blamed for allowing this. My job can threating to fire unless I perform a certain task, yet if I do the task I can't then claim my work forced me to do it. I could have walked away from the job. Same with the WTS, only difference is you can't sue a religion for unsafe conditions. In the end it is still their adult choice
Wow I guess in my 25 years I haven't learned that life is so black and white as you claim it to be. Sorry. There so much fallacy in your argument I am not sure why I am even replying.
I have been reading this thread with great interest in the 'informed choice' sector. As a student of midwifery (2nd year) we discuss in depth the 'informed consent' debate. The definition of informed consent as I now see it, is a decision made after non-biased information is provided on both benefits and risks of a course of action. In the medical field (especially here in New Zealand), it is the responsibility of the medical staff. If after you have given that information to the woman, she decided that she would refuse that course of treatment, her decision is then documented and the type of information given would also be included. As far as I can see WTS does not give you enough information(change in their stand for example),, for and against but is biased and drenched in fear tactics to ensure you make the right choice OR ELSE!!!!!!!!!!
one of 12
For what its worth, I agree with those that believe a person has the right to choose or refuse any medical treatment, however if you decide to bring new life into this world then you have a responsibility to look after yourself even more for those first formative years of a child's life. Without a doubt, a mother being there for her child is an undeniable need and the lack of a mother has serious repercussions.
Also, when one is under mind control it's equivalent to being drugged - Emma Gough was INCAPABLE of making a fully informed decision under these circumstances. I believe she is not to blame. The blame lies fully with the WTS.
Prior to my Caesarean a couple of years ago, I signed my life away in the event of complications needing a transfusion - I would've taken all fractions but was so fully indoctrinated to believe that having one would be such a serious sin that I just couldn't do it, that together with the all the drip feeding down the years that blood transfusions are like poison to your body. So, like many others on this board, it could've been me leaving my boys without a mother. Call me naive but that conditioning was so powerful I would've made the biggest mistake of my life. I know all my old friends who are still dubs would die tomorrow if they needed a transfusion, regardless of who they left behind.
However, I don't see, in the interests of protecting the right for an individual to decide medical treatment that there is any way around this one and so many more naive, indoctrinated ones will continue to die while the WTS continues unabated (not helped by all the faders, may I add).
All this debating is just p*ss**g in the wind unless someone makes a stand and does something to prevent this from happening again.
All this debating is just p*ss**g in the wind
Sam, this is JWD!
Without a doubt, a mother being there for her child is an undeniable need and the lack of a mother has serious repercussions.
I have two friends who were raised without mothers from birth (not JWs) and they are no more or less dysfunctional than the rest of us and might take issue with this statement, as would some gay male parents...
For those that are pro state intervention I wonder when you feel a child's right to a mother ceases to trump her freedom of choice. When weaned? When they start school? High school?
Scotsman - the right to your birth mother is inscribed in the genetic code of all animals. John Gray would most likely support this given his argumentation around the human condition. Animals fight vigourously to achieve this in most situations.
Burger Time is the thread expert on logical fallacy and may wish to comment on the statistical significance of your more or less (non)dysfunctional friends.
I think the point we are arguing for on this side of the wind-tossed pissing is that medical suicide should not be a valid option for anyone. If your religion wants you to commit suicide don't wait until you are vulnerable in a hospital bed - just have the balls to top yourself whilst perfectly healthy.
Paul <$300 up on the tables and gone to bed now>
Well written Nathan! Have you had a reply? Has anyone else emailed Mr Thomas? I emailed him yesterday, re this story, and received an email back from him this morning