KS Blood-Handout s-55-e (PDF)!!!

by yknot 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  dozy

  Thanks YKnot.

  How do the WTBTS reconcile their statement in the legal submission to the Bulgarian authorities:

  "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

  with the passage in the elders letter that states that the action of a parent that allows a doctor to potentially transfuse blood as "not be viewed as a compromise by the congregation." This would clearly imply that any parent who did authorise a transfusion would be viewed as a compromise by the congregation (and would therefore be dealt with judicially , potentially being disfellowshipped.) Yet the WTBTS clearly state in law that no control or sanction is enforced.

  It would be helpful to get this document into the hands of medical authorities & lawyers. If it saves even one childs life , then that would be an achievement.
• 

  Doubting Bro

  Thanks so much ynot and your source!! Fantastic, this handout is available before the elders in my area even go to the KM school.

  I didn't pick up anything new but cerainly there is no softening of the position. To think I would have once let someone I love die because of what a stupid religion told me to do shakes me to the core.
• 

  sir82

  I find this paragraph pretty astounding:

  Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

  Really?!?

  Saying "Oh I don't care if l'il Suzy dies, I'll see her in the resurrection on a paradise earth very soon now" might make a judge think you're stone cold bonkers?

  Gosh, I never would have figured! Thanks so much Watchtower!

  Hmm...so stating a core central belief of JWs may make others think you are "unreasonable"....what does that say about (1) JW doctrine, and (2) the JWs resolve to stand up for what they believe in, when the pressure is on?

  For any non-believing parents / relatives / concerned friends who are involved in such a case, now you know exactly what question to ask the doctor / judge / child advocate / whoever in the presence of the believing parent(s)!

  "So tell us, Father-of-child, how much does the hope of the resurrection factor into this decision you are making in behalf of the child?"
• 

  TD

  I think this shows that the chance of any type of reform, any time soon is nil. they are getting worse, not better

  Those who had a mind to do it have passed on. The janitors along with their wives are now running the boardroom
• 

  respectful_observer

  "Some physicians or hospitals...will not give 100 percent assurance that they will not use blood...Nevertheless, when a cooperative doctor has performed similar procedures without blood in the past, he may assure parents that he will do everything he can to avoid using blood. Under this circumstance, parents may conclude that this is their best option. If they grant permission for treatment, parents should make it clear in writing that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion for their child...this would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."

  I find this paragraph facinating for three reasons:

  1. The WTS is putting in writing that a parent's "best option" may be to grant written permission for treatment to a doctor who "will do everything he can to avoid using blood."

  • The WTS lawyers carefully worded these statements. The legal construct used here is intentional. It's legal meaning is that parents are permitted to consent, in writing, to treatment that they acknowledge may include the use of blood.

  2. The parents are directed to also put in writing "that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion".

  • Again, the legal construct used by the WTS is intentional. It lays the foundation for the following statement, that "this [consenting to treatment that may include the use of blood after the doctor has done "everything he can"] would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."

  3. Thinking back the legal compromise made in Bulgaria: "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

  • This new KS Blood handount seems to be carefully aligning all of its blood policies to comply with any potential future legal/human rights challenges.

  This paragraph is, to me, the most significant portion of the entire KM Blood handout. The WTS is permitting parents to consent to treatment that may involve blood, yet it does so in way that the parents will not suffer any sanction by the congregation since it is "not viewed by the congregation as a comprimise. This paragraph protects the WTS's legal reputation to the authorities, yet allows it to protect its spiritual reputation to members.

  I'm sure many here will disagree, but I see this new handout as yet another way they are SLOWLY loosening their stance on the use of blood. (I think we all understand the legal/organizational implications of what would happen if they did it quickly, or even in a way that was perceptable to members.) Whether they're doing it out of a legal need, or whether they're doing it out of a recognition that their previous stance was not correct is up for debate. But anytime the WTS puts in writing that consent to treatment that may result in the use of blood will not result in any sanction, it's undeniable what direction the WTS is moving in.
• 

  undercover

  Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

  Holy Kool-Aid, Batman!

  Fuck yea, it'll convince the judge they're unreasonable. They're fucking cult nutcases.

  Seriously...it is a very enlightening statment. It's basically saying, "we're not a cult, but just so people don't think we're nuts, let's keep our belief in everlasting life via resurrection just between us, okay? No need to worry that silly ole judge with all that."

  Whatever happened to "We're Jehovah's Witnesses - We speak out in fearlessness"? How many "experiences" have we read/heard about nurses and/or family who were inspired by a patients steadfastness in their belief that this death was only temporary and the greater things were in store for them?

  I went to a JW funeral not too long ago where the elder speaker had the gall to say that the dead person laying in the casket was the lucky one!! Yea, she wasn't in pain. She didn't have to fight the world. She was only sleeping, waiting to wake up in a perfect world.

  What a bunch of fucking loonies...
• 

  3dogs1husband

  Twinkle Toes,Sir82 and Undercover bring up great points. Jehovahs People have to be "preped" to know how to give a fine wittness, and not bring up anything that doesnt sound "normal" in other words lie. JW refuse blood because of fear of disproval of Jehovah which would make them unworthy of resurection/living forever, and the fear of shunning in this life. Simple...yet sounds crazy and the WT KNOWS THIS!

  I dont think most JW's get how prepped they are for what they should say, not what they really believe. Hmmm does this sound like an Org. run by lawyers or what. Just try to get a straight answer on any topic.....all you get is the preprogramed acceptable response.
• 

  life is to short

  Thanks so much.
• 

  PSacramento

  I love the way the WT has made all the legal documents and met all the requirments to NOT be sued and has put ALL the LEGAL responsibility on the individual BUT has kept the theocractic ability to exercise the option for disfellowship.

  Nice legal work, worthy of Satan at his best deceiving.

  You can really tell how the WT puts their trust and faith on Jehovah in regards to the legal issues, er I mean, their trust and faith in LAWYERS that is.

  Barbaric to the max.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  respectful_observer, I'm not so sure this is a doctrinal conciliation as much as it is an acceptance of the fact that "we'll try not to" give a blood transfusion is the best they're going to get from many hospitals/doctors. You make a good point that the motive isn't really as significant as the result and I agree with it.

  Another important thing to think about is the age of the JWs this thing is aimed at. Your 50+ year old JWs, the ones who have old-school Borg doctrine in living memory aren't likely to have little kids that this letter/document applies to. This is aimed at the 20 and 30-something Dubs who don't even know what the details of the blood doctrine (or any other doctrine for that matter) is but who are JWs because all their friends and family are. These are ones who are likely to take "we'll try not to" give a transfusion as "good enough for me" in the first place because they're not hardcore JWs.

  This could well be an administrative move to ease the burden on elders and HLCs so that they don't have to form committees to prosecute JW parents as long as the doctor says, "I'll try."