JW spokesman: We refuse blood, but it's a personal choice

by MrMonroe 42 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • MrMonroe

    Dublin news story contains a blatant lie from the mouth of a JW spokesman:


    A COURT ORDER granted today to allow The Coombe Hospital give a baby a blood transfusion against the wishes of her parents underscores the need for more discussions to take place between hospital staff and patients, says a Dublin branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Harry Homan, from the South Dublin Hospital Liaison Committee said that the issue highlighted the relationship between hospital staff and Jehovah’s Witness patients.

    He said, however, that there is already healthy discussions happening across the country.

    “The parents in this case are very happy with the hospital and the care being give to their baby,” Homan told TheJournal.ie.

    “There is an excellent relationship between the parents and staff and the child is receiving the best of care.”

    He added that a blood transfusion will only be given to the premature baby as a last resort.

    “At the moment, she is doing well,” said Homan.

    RTÉ reports that the transfusion will be given to the baby if her condition deteriorates and it is necessary to save her life.

    “Hospitals are acutely aware of the dangers associated with blood transfusions,” claimed Homan, adding that it is in “everyone’s best interests to seek alternatives.”

    He said the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses is perfectly clear on the matter of blood transfusions.

    “We do refuse transfusions,” he said. “But it is a personal choice and this is the stand the parents have taken in this case.”

    According to RTÉ, the maternity hospital applied for permission to treat the baby, who weighed just 1kg at birth, despite objections from the parents.

    She is at risk of infection and a host of other complications which could mean a transfusion is required.

  • sizemik

    “We do refuse transfusions,” he said. “But it is a personal choice ..."

    LOL . . . so which is it? . . . New light must have a dimmer swith LOL.

    Only a JW could speak out of both sides of his mouth . . . at the same time.

    But they better be careful . . . I can see a possible lawsuit on the horizon if that keeps being said publically.

    I'm sure the hospital staff simply adore the HLC. LOL

    Gotta feel pleased for the baby and parents tho.

  • cedars

    Someone should write a letter to the Governing Body (without quoting the article) and ask "Are blood transfusions a personal choice?"

    When we get the letter back stating that it definitely isn't, we can publish the letter alongside the article to show how blatant a lie it was.

  • blondie

    What the WTS leaves out is that they are choosing to be kicked out of their religion and to have no one talk to them again, whether it be jw family, jw friends, or any other jw who knows their status and that if they do not "repent" they will die forever at Armageddon along with any of their minor children.

  • N.drew

    Too late cedars for writing to The Society as now they have said "no more questions. Go look it up".

  • Gayle

    cedars,,I don't think you will get a letter back. Remember the recent article them discouraging asking them so many questions. They will notify the elders in your locality to call on you to answer your question.

    I wrote a letter about a year ago. Never got a letter back from Headquarters. A local elder came to my door. I wasn't home or didn't answer the door that day. The local elder wrote a letter, not answering the question at all and gave a generic sermon. Their responses are extremely evasive or a circle about with nothing actually answered. Pure waste of your time and energy.

  • sizemik
    When we get the letter back stating that it definitely isn't.

    They probably wouldn't say that anyway. After half a page of trotting out their favorite scriptures you'll get another half page blabbing on about blood fractions. All tied together with some weasely words that say sweet FA.

    The WTS would love to get rid of their blood policy IMO. It's causing them too much trouble and more and more JW's are disagreeing with it. It's becoming a barrier to indoctrination for them as well. It doesn't serve their purposes anymore as people are a bit more clued up. The doctrine is past it's use-by date IMO.

    The sooner they can make it a conscience matter and let it fade the better for them. It's a risky road legally for them though. So they'll avoid making statements in print.

    Their first step is the "if you're repentant you can stay in" escape hatch . . . which is just more weaseling BS.

    That's my grumpy cynical opinion.

  • cedars

    sizemik - I agree with your logic, and you would think they would have dropped the doctrine by now, but they obviously haven't. When they make their minds up on something, they don't tend to waste much time implementing it. I obviously wish they would drop it, but the more I learn about them, the more I think they just enjoy being awkward, and getting 7.5 million loyal followers to be as different as possible from the world around them. Any relinquishing of the blood doctine would probably be seen as a backtrack and a compromise. They're tied themselves to the mast with it, and I don't think they feel they could give it up now, even if they wanted to.

    N.drew and Gayle - I'm aware of the recent "don't write to us" QFR, I wrote a thread on it myself. Thanks for reminding me though! You probably wouldn't need a letter to show in black and white that the rep was lying through his teeth. There's enough material in the Society's publications that expresses their stand pretty clearly. You could also get someone with an Elders manual to print the page that explains what to do if someone accepts blood.

  • sizemik
    They're tied themselves to the mast with it, and I don't think they feel they could give it up now, even if they wanted to.

    I tend to agree cedars . . . up to a point.

    I think they came to the conclusion it was undesirable (for the reasons I mentioned) quite some time ago. The only reason they can't possibly drop it cold is the disaffection and more importantly . . . lawsuits . . . especially from the families of those who payed the ultimate price.

    They began fading from the doctrine with the blood fractions new light IMO. Now that DF'ing for the incidence of whole blood transfusions can be ducked by being "repentant" . . . it's already gravitating toward a conscience decision. They have to do it very gradually over a reasonable period of time . . . simply to avoid the possible lawsuits IMO, and to limit disaffection. Any controversial "new light" seems to be diseminated through letters to Co's and verbally to BOE's more and more these days . . . they avoid putting too much in writing. Ten or fifteen years from now it'll probably hardly be talked about . . . like 1975. Most who were effected by it will be dead.

    The blood fractions doctrine is a joke when you look at it closely . . . it makes no sense either way, and is just plain silly. Unless of course, it's part of an exit strategy . . . then it's actually quite clever.

    I did say my opinion was cynical however.

  • cedars

    sizemik - I don't think your opinion is cynical at all, I think you present a compelling case that the Society IS in the midst of a protracted exit strategy over this doctrine. Like you say, if they drop it overnight they will be up to their necks in lawsuits. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective, thanks!

Share this