If they changed their blood ban…would their be a floodgate of lawsuits?

by Londo111 46 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • wasblind
    wasblind

    " The WT is a religion, I don't see a liability " _____Band on the run

    .

    .

    I agree , there are many things done under the guise of a religion that could be

    counted as murder, tax evasion, and what could be viewed as an out right cheat

    If done not connected to religion

    .

    .

    " No one held a gun to thier head and made them refuse blood " ____Band on the run

    .

    .

    I disagree

    The WTS may not have held a literal gun to the head of thier members

    but they had the power to take away all that they hold dear if they accepted blood

    .

    .

    The WTS stated :

    " There the eating of blood is eguated with idolitry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in "____Reasoning from the Scriptures Book page 71

    .

    .

    This is one view that the WTS has not backed away from

    they only now suggest that a fraction of that sin is a conscience choice

    to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the sheep....... LOL

    .

    .

  • ShirleyW
    ShirleyW

    I agree with you Wasblind on the "no one held a gun to their head" issue, think of all the children who have died because of the beliefs of their crazy JDub parents, children and babies have no say if they wanted to die or not.

    Technically they have changed their attitude on blood since they now accept "blood fragments", which if not synthetic blood is taken from actually blood, that's why it's called a fragment, it was taken from the original. I hope they received a lot of lawsuits after they started the fragment issue

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    BAND: The WT is a religion. I don't see liability.

    At least in the USA, religions can get away with anything.

    I think a complete reversal of the blood doctrine would cause heavy fallout.

    Both WITHIN and OUTSIDE of the Organization.

    From within because it has affect SO many members and their loved ones. It's touted as a special way in which Jehovah has protected His people (from AIDS, etc). All the doctrine of it being "bad medicine" etc would have to be retracted.

    From outside because it is the one of the few issues that generates media attention regarding JWs. A complete reversal would make headlines in the news.

    Doc

  • wasblind
    wasblind

    " Technically they have changed thier attitude on blood scince they now accept " Blood fragrament "____Shirley W

    .

    .

    Hello there shirley , good to hear from you

    Since the WTS technically changed thier attitude on the way they view blood in relation to " Idolitry and fornication " ,

    Those Bozo's in Brooklyn should allow whole blood as an option

    .

    .

  • Simon
    Simon

    I don't believe the legal system is setup to handle the kind of coercion that the WTS uses to control people. It completely dictates their decisions while at the same time making choices perceived as it's members own free will.

    So what ban do they drop? You would be hard pressed to nail the WTS down to admitting they now had any ban on blood or blood products.

    It's been long abandoned ... they just never told their own members.

  • adamah
    adamah

    DOC said- I think a complete reversal of the blood doctrine would cause heavy fallout. Both WITHIN and OUTSIDE of the Organization. From within because it has affect SO many members and their loved ones. It's touted as a special way in which Jehovah has protected His people (from AIDS, etc). All the doctrine of it being "bad medicine" etc would have to be retracted.

    Well, the fact is that blood transfusions are NOT without complications, even today, and even aside from the obvious errors (eg cross-matching errors, giving someone the wrong blood type which can prove fatal), people face a low-risk of complications from transfusions.

    Granted, the advantages FAR outweigh the risks, esp if you're facing anemia/anoxia from massive blood loss, but many providers have really backed off the knee-jerk decision to transfuse, for many good reasons (cost being only one factor: a unit of blood costs about $1,000, IIRC). In other words, the JWs were not completely incorrect on the health risks, since many needless transfusions that resulted in complications were likely given in the past.

    Of course, the safety concerns were NOT why JWs refused: it was simply a matter of following God's orders. So any health benefits were post-hoc rationalization, AKA the frosting on the cake from what they described as obeying Divine orders.

    DOC said- From outside because it is the one of the few issues that generates media attention regarding JWs. A complete reversal would make headlines in the news.

    That's why we're likely going to see what we are seeing: a gradual evolution of the policy away from verboten to allowing 'fractions', and then it likely will eventually be declared as a 'conscience matter'.

    I feel sorry for the last JW to die from refusal just before 'new light' is announced (say, at the AGM in 2030? Anyone want to start a pool for a date?), but of course, their JW family will be comforted being told they died faithful to Jehovah, and the family will be reunited in the resurrection; they'll likely be happy with that.

    Adam

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    You would be hard pressed to nail the WTS down to admitting they now had any ban on blood or blood products.....Simon

    There was never a Ban on Blood......................At WBT$ JW Assemblies..

    ...We Encourage Eating Blood!...........................We sell Blood Slushies..

    .....................

    ................................................ photo mutley-ani1.gif ...OUTLAW

  • Designer Stubble
    Designer Stubble

    This did not happen when they ended their ban on vaccinations, nor did it happen when they ended the ban on organ transplats. Therefore, I think it will not be too bad.

  • bigmac
    bigmac

    yes--ok--so i'm a bit thick--but--

    if a jw does accept a blood transfusion--who is going to know--?

    and if the story does get out--and the elders come calling--whats to stop the person fessing up--but saying they agreed to accept a tranfusion because they didnt want to die !

    and if the decision is to d/f the person--they can surely get re-instated after a length of time anyway--?

    so--whats the big deal?

  • Separation of Powers
    Separation of Powers

    No need to change it now. It is SOOO convoluted that know one really knows what is allowed and what is not. You know, when the prohibition was given to Noah and centuries later to the apostles, there was a multi-paged disclaimer that accompanied it.

    SOP

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit