Public defiance against blood transfusions. Will this guy be disfellowshipped?

by kneehighmiah 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • kneehighmiah

    We've been following this story. How can someone openly defy the governing body and yet avoid being disfellowshipped? Will the blood policy be changing soon?

  • konceptual99

    Firstly from how he is quoted it's not clear that he explicitly said he would allow his son to have a transfusion.

    Secondly, the Mirror is hardly noted for the varacity of it's reporting.

    Thirdly, you can be disfellowshipped for allowing your child to have a transfusion. Nor can you be disfellowshipped for saying you might do something (Although I am sure somewhere someone will have been!)

  • berrygerry

    Interesting post.

    No idea of the Mirror's credibility - but the story seems straightforward enough.

    As one cannot be DF'd for accepting blood, but may be DA'd if not repentant - this makes for an interesting JW theological challenge when allowing your child to accept blood.

  • nicolaou

    Good for you Brett! :)

  • Phizzy

    Of course, nothing much will happen until the B.T is actually given, when, and if it ever becomes necessary.

    I bet though that his local Elders are told to threaten him with DF-ing for being so public about his intentions, this may be reduced to Reproof, but he will be bullied in to keeping his mouth shut in future.

    I admire the man, and understand his deep love for his children, a love that transcends Religion and Dogma, which it always should. I think it shows real courage on Bretts part to say openly what he did, he is an intelligent man and knows the consequences.

    More public defiance of this murderous false doctrine will be a very good thing.

  • Zoos

    This story has international attention.

    If the blood transfusion happens, WT will tread carefully for the sake of PR.

    If they disfellowship for saving his son - public backlash.

    If they do not disfellowship - internal murmuring.

    This is not a good situation for the Watchtower.

  • nicolaou

    Well summarised Zoos

  • jwfacts

    I think the Watchtower sees this as great publicity and will keep clear of disassociating him. He has not authorised a tranfusion, so does not really need to be disassociated. By not reacting, this will give the public the wrong impression that JWs can choose their own actions and that the Watchtower is not a radical, hard core cult, which is what the Watchtower wants in this new era where they are presenting a dishonest public figure.

  • konceptual99

    I say again, it is not 100% clear to me that he is categorically referring to BT. He is not quoted as that. The Mirror, as a tabloid, have sensationalised what he is quoted as saying. Of course, I don't know his mind so he could full well be referring to BT or including BT in general "you do what you have to" type statements. The point is that it could well be a 2+2=5 misapplication by The Mirror.

    Don't forget as well that the family have undergone a public and unusual situation. He could equally have been referring to the actions they took and indicating that these were nothing to do with their religious beliefs. Again, the article is not clear on the context of the statement.


    You cannot be disfellowshipped for have a BT. You are viewed, if you are unrepentant, as have disassociated yourself by your actions. I have to say I am not 100% sure what the situation is for a parent who allows a child to have a BT but I know that there are cases of tacit approval for indicating that the authorities make the child a ward of court (or local equivilent) thus dissolving the parents of the responsibility.

    Of course, one can be disfellowshipped for "brazen conduct" and if one was to keep repeating opposition to the blood teaching then they would likely face a JC.

    I suspect in this case, the elders will keep well away from the subject until the fate of the child and publicity has died down. Someone will then have a quiet word to double check the circumstances and put any contentiousness down to "stress". As others have mentioned, the WTS is not keen to have it's policy over blood and children raked up in the national press.

    Someone discreetly lift up the carpet please...


    In my original post it says a parent can be DFed for allowing a child to have a BT. I meant "cannot".

    If a parent was to be DFed after such an incident it would almost certainly be along the lines of "brazen conduct" over a vary vocal and critical attitude about it.

    I am 99% sure a parent would not be viewed as DAed

  • 88JM

    The headine is being far too "distilled" from what is actually said - from the way this story is being posted on Facebook, you would think a blood transfusion was actually going to happen, but as far as I know, any treatment Ashya has is very unlikely to involve anything like a blood transfusion - it's purely a hypothetical thing.

Share this