Secondly..
Fisherman said:
Regarding the document that you posted, since the authorities have the power to administer a BT with or without the document anyway, the parent is not...tacitly consenting to BT by signing it because the authorities do not need any consent or signature from the parent to administer blood to a minor they deem needs it.
Many governments or 'authorities' have (and have had many times in the past) the power and authority to do whatever they want to do to JW's, without consent. Many JW's have died due to opposing the authority and power of a government..
As a less dramatic recent example, Ashya King was made a ward of court, so his parents (and good for them, may I add, it all turned out well..) 'kidnapped' him and fled the country, running from the authorities to get their son the treatment they wanted. I am not suggesting for a minute that all parents should do this, it is merely an example of not consenting to authority.
My point?
Many faithful Jehovah's Witness will defy the law to get the treatment they want for their child, or even die (or let their children die in some cases) in order to stay loyal to Jehovah, in line with their deeply held religious convictions. They would rather die than agree to anything that would displease their God.
One example of this being that women were taught by the Watchtower that anything short of fighting and resisting being raped (even to the point of death) was a sin.
Some would view even signing a document indicating acceptance that the hospital can (from the point of view of a JW parent who believes that taking in blood, in any situation, is immoral and loathsome in God's eyes)
violate the body of their child and make them 'unclean' would be a compromise of their faith.
Would a JW woman sign a form that a non-JW rapist handed to her ( just for the sake of example, in relation to doctors being nonJW and the Watchtowers position that women should be willing to fight rapists to the death)
, stating that
'she accepts that he will violate her, she will not fight him every step of the way, and she acknowleges that she does not have the power to prevent him from forcibly violating her'?
If she did, that would not in itself be indicating tacit consent obviously, because he has the power to do whatever he wants to, and the outcome will be the same anyway.
But that hypothetical JW woman would have been disfellowshipped, if such a form were to have been presented at her judicial..
It all smells of double-standards to me, to avoid negative media coverage and to improve their dealings with, and reputation with, the medical community.
It's just 'less messy and ugly' this way, as the news article noted.
(I'm not going to explicitly connect the dots here between the words 'messy and ugly' and the Watchtowers fight-rapists-to-the-death teaching, or being told to defy authorities even if it costs your life, but you know what I mean...).
Besides all of that, why would any JW parent sign something that acknowledges that the authorities can take their child and force them to break God's command?
I'd tell them where to stick the form if someone asked me to sign something that acknowledged their power to 'violate' my child if they decide to.
Unless the parent privately DID NOT view having a blood transfusion as being against Jehovah's will..
(after all, when human blood is transfused, the blood is not eaten.)
Consider this point from the news article:
"All the ethicists stress, as well, that some Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the blood ban, but are anxious that their green light to transfusion be kept confidential.
“Some families are really more concerned about other Jehovah’s Witnesses finding out they consented to the blood transfusion,” said Ms. Seller."
www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions