"Only if you get a court order." wink, wink

by rebel8 43 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • OneEyedJoe

    If that were so, I doubt it is recent teachings. As already mentioned, the WTBTS is wriggling out of the no blood stance ever-so-slowly, and may be soon a 'conscience matter'.

    I hope this happens soon. I think it would serve as a great catalyst to help my wife (and likely others) to wake up. If they make all blood transfusion a conscience matter, I'll ask my wife: "Now that it's OK to accept blood, how do you feel about the fact that you could have been made blood guilty by participating in the preaching work?" When she doesn't understand, I'll present the scenario of studying with someone who gets baptised and later dies because they refuse blood. Wouldn't you be, at least partially, responsible for their unneccesary death?

    One of the things I'm most thankful for is that I was never actually "successful" in my ministry and none of my studies ever progressed.

  • Vidiot

    OneEyedJoe - "I was never actually 'successful' in my ministry..."


    We got off lucky, you and me; a significant number of XJWs who'd been faithful and zealous while they were still in (i.e. helped recruit new members) have a lot of regrets about that.

  • Vidiot

    rebel8 - "...the parents are encouraging the physicians to get a court order by making that statement."


    Deep down, they actually want their child to receive one if they need it, and by "challenging" the doctors to get a court order, they can tell their elders that they "opposed" the decision, but that the hospital proceeded anyway.

    Textbook passive/agressive tactic, and a pretty effective end-run around WT rules.

  • forest heathen
    forest heathen

    "Recently had a discussion with a surgeon who said jw parents "usually" (her word, not mine) privately say they will take blood if the provider gets a court order.

    Yet another person, with no connection to dubs and no motive to make this up, saying this same thing. Interesting."

    I believe you.

    My brother and his wife are both anesthesiologists. They've told me that "behind closed doors" JWs will agree to take blood. Medical records are private and no one elses business.

  • problemaddict

    When this came up with my wife, our doctor at a teaching hospital connected to a college, said "be very sure, because if you sign this we are not going to even have blood in the room. Too many times someone signs it, and then when it comes down to it and they need the blood, we are left scrambling to have the tools neccesary to provide care."

    I told my wife to just let me make the decision.

    JWfacts touched on something that has been told to me recently. Basically, at this point in time, blood issues in the hospital are VERY bad press for the branch. In addition, I have been flat told "we don't disfellowship for that anymore", by a circuit overseer. Of course the caveat is if it is well known or the person flaunts it.....but basically you can do it, and its like don't ask don't tell.

  • DesirousOfChange

    In our area, the large trauma center hospitals that care for children have a "hotline" to a judge that will issue an immediate court order for transfusion. Here the JW Liason Committee has been known to advise parents of minors not to worry if their child faces surgery that could require administration of a blood transfusion, informing them of this standard policy that is in place at these hospitals.

    "Just let the doctors contact the judge and it's no longer your decision. Jehovah will hold them accountable. Not you."

    The days of snatching the kid out of the hospital to avoid a blood transfusion is long gone. Taking ANY action necessary to avoid breaking God's Law looks good on paper, but not so good in practice.

    They are definiately trying to get away from this doctrine, but need to avoid any collateral damage from loss of life in the past.


  • Vidiot

    problemaddict - "Basically, at this point in time, blood issues in the hospital are VERY bad press for the branch."

    Has been for a long time, now.

    In fact, Barb Anderson indicated that they were trying to shelve it as far back as the early-to-mid 90s, but that was one of many reform efforts that Jaracz was able to quash when he used the aftermath of 9-11 to cement his power over WT policy.

    Kind of ironic, since suicide bombers have (unintentionally) done such an effective job discrediting the act of martyrdom for the sake of ideology.

    problemaddict - " I have been flat told 'we don't disfellowship for that anymore', by a circuit overseer...its like don't ask don't tell."

    Ten bucks says that development occurred after Jaracz kicked the bucket.

    Trying to phase it out without looking like they're phasing it out is still kind of shady, though...

    ...they should have the moral courage to man up; come right out and say "we interpreted this wrong and we're sorry", and accept whatever consequences result from that.

  • OnTheWayOut

    This is a clear case of wanting to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. Kids dying brings both. Abolishing blood rules suddenly brings both. So the topic is appropriately titled with I the "wink wink." "Our hands were tied. The courts took over and made the (right ) decision despite our objections. "

  • Apognophos

    This is heartening news. Unfortunately it only applies to children, right? Adults JWs are going to still refuse whole blood for themselves.

  • Vidiot

    OnTheWayOut - "This is a clear case of wanting to avoid lawsuits and bad publicity. Kids dying brings both. Abolishing blood rules suddenly brings both."

    Reap what you sow.

    I have to say, though; I doubt very much Smalley, et. al. ever dreamed the prohibition would cause such a decades-long headache for the Society.

Share this