2011 and NYS. We literally got a call from legal in Bethel that said to follow our own conscience and they don't see the need to get involved. The elder on the HLC was a close family member.
Watchtower softens position on Jehovah' Witnesses and blood transfusions? Canadian National Post Story.
by Balaamsass 57 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
wha happened?
If they dropped the blood policy and made it a conscience matter, then what did all these people die for?
Just like they swallowed the change with immunizations, organ transplants, blood components, and maybe it's a reach. but paying govt officlas in Mexico to not serve in the military, as opposed to getting killed for not having an ID card in a 1 party govt
-
Vidiot
Sounds to me like the WTS want to somehow drop the blood prohibition without actually dropping the blood prohibition...
-
Apognophos
This is ultimately a good sign. Although they seem to be stuck in the mud on other issues (not talking to DFed relatives), I think it goes without saying that this is the single most important issue with JW beliefs by far, not because adult JWs might lose their lives for a false teaching that they chose to believe, but because kids, who naturally trust their parents when they're told what's right and wrong, might lose their lives for this false teaching that they had no choice but to accept.
It would make the religion a lot less harmful if they just continue in this direction and stop fighting the hospitals and don't initiate proceedings against JWs who take blood -- or at least, for starters, if they stop asking them if they took blood. The sort of don't-ask, don't-tell approach that Anony Mous experienced, but for all Witnesses.
-
jgnat
It seems to me that the softening and compromise is coming from the bioethicists, who are respecting the religious belief and promising to do all they can to respect the prohibition of blood, save when absolutely needed to save a life.
It seems that more parents, reassured that their beliefs are respected, are quietly allowing this to happen.
It is face-saving for the Watchtower, as they didn't actually soften their stance.
Sort of like the "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the Military for many years, until they were ready to face the issue.
-
Apognophos
It seems to me that the softening and compromise is coming from the bioethicists
Actually, I disagree. Most doctors have tried to respect the JWs' no-blood stance in the past, haven't they? What seems to be changing is (at least in Canada and also with Anony Mous' experience right in the HQ's heartland) that parents are allowed to sign a document that allows the transfusion if the hospital deems it necessary. Now, I admit ignorance of how things used to work, and it could be that some doctors are now approaching JWs in a way that is more conciliatory and less antagonistic. But the Society is definitely softening its stance if it is saying that even the possibility of a transfusion can be signed for.
-
BluesBrother
The article said:
“What is beautiful about this [ the hospital form] is that it’s a symbolic way of embodying respect and dignity and when we do this, we don’t need to call Children’s Aid"
Yes, it seems to be a real compromise. It says, 'All right, if you need to give it, the law will back you so just do it if you must, I have made a token gesture'...Very pragmatic. But what happened to the hatred of "sinning against Jehovah" . If they believe it to be wrong then it is wrong. What happened to the comparison with "violating my body as if I had been raped" .
Are they saying that "serious" matters like blood, neutrality, even rape can be acquiesced to if the outcome is inevitable?
Don't get me wrong, it is a great thing that Canadian kids are getting the treatment they need. I am all for it. But it makes a mockery of their principles
-
Apognophos
It's true, you'd think that they'd be dead-set against any strange blood flowing through their or their childrens' veins. Surely that's an abhorrent thought, regardless of why it was put there! This shows that JWs are human after all, I guess. They want to be faithful to their beliefs, but they're still putting their childrens' welfare above those beliefs, hypocritical though it may be from the standpoint of an old-school, hardcore JW. Good for them! As a man who healed on the Sabbath, Jesus would approve. But it's sure a far cry from that 1994 Awake. Let's hope there are no backslides on the part of the Society.
-
wasblind
They want to be faithful to their beliefs, but they're still putting their childrens' welfare above those beliefs, hypocritical though it may be from the standpoint of an old-school, hardcore JW. Good for them!_________Apognophos
Yea, Good for the WTS and a pity for the children who didn't have to die
They ( The WTS ) " WANT " to be faithful to their beliefs ???? But if there needs to be an adjustment of new light they'll do so
Question: Can you imagine the horror of losin' a loved one, only to learn in the next Kingdom Ministry
they didn't have to die ???
Yes, as a man who healed on the Sabbath jesus probably would have approved
that's Why the WTS is guilty of murder
In the Aug Awake 2006, the WTS admit the use of fractions wasn't mentioned in the Bible
and yet Witlesses died for not bein' allowed to take them at one point
Oops, no problem. Somebody pass the GB a New Light, the old one has blown out !!!!!!!!
.
-
gladimout
It seems to me that the softening and compromise is coming from the bioethicists
Actually, I disagree. Most doctors have tried to respect the JWs' no-blood stance in the past, haven't they?
I tend to agree with Jgnat; bioethicists and social workers are a major driver of this trend. Medical paternalism was very strong until recently, but the medical community, to its credit, retreated from that stance. Now, doctors regularly consult with social workers and ethicists before making their decisions. While the trend is good, the effect of the trend on JW minors is not for the following reasons.
The American Pediatric Society officially adopted the common law Rule of Sevens which contains the presumption that a minor over the age of fourteen is competent to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Therefore, the trend is to allow a minor to dictate his or her medical treatment, including refusing blood. In sum, they declare the JW child a mature minor.
The hospital (doctors/legal department) act as judicial gatekeepers. If they decide the JW child is a mature minor, the cases never even make it to court for judicial review.
Likely, the WTBTS is not overtly fighting these preliminary agreements because the hospitals frequently meet JW's demands.