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

by kneehighmiah 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • lisaBObeesa

    I agree with jwfacts. This is perfect "we're not a crazy cult" propaganda for the wt.

    Further, I am pretty sure some bigwigs from the Org came and talked to him and told him he can say that. I bet they WANTED him to say this. This kid's story isn't even about blood transfusion, right?

    And I'm sure the dad will not be DA/DF. (Off topic: DA is exactly the same as DF. We should not treat them as if they are different when they are not, imo. That is just playing into the Org's word games that it uses to cover up its crimes in the minds of its people and the public.)

    The wt is changing. Ask a JW on the street today and, unlike 20 years ago, they will already say blood transfusions are a conscience matter. Those that hear this story will just figure this guy's conscience is ok with it. And that attitude will spread. One day, JWs will have blood transfusions without a second thought and the whole deadly mess will be far in the past, like their previous ban on organ transplants or any of their other numerous discarded beliefs.

    We know the blood thing has to go eventually. This is just another step to putting it into the past.

  • Phizzy

    But, how hypocritical is that. If you publicly state your opposition to a JW Doctrine on any other subject you will be DF'd before you can blink.

  • konceptual99

    (Off topic: DA is exactly the same as DF. We should not treat them as if they are different when they are not, imo. That is just playing into the Org's word games that it uses to cover up its crimes in the minds of its people and the public.)

    I agree that the effect is the same and the whole DA thing is word games. I only raise the difference in this case from the perspective of reality of what could *possibly* happen in the case of a parent sanctioning a BT for a child.

    I also agree that nothing will happen to this chap should it turn out that he really is talking about BT.

    I don't agree that Witnesses think having a BT is a conscience matter. Refusing blood is still core to Witness mentality. If they were asked to comment publically then they might revert to WT double speak but that is not what they really think. Same as double speak on shunning DF'ed ones.

  • westiebilly11

    I suspect the whole blood issue will be dropped/reversed and the gb will state that it is entirely upto individual interpretation and is no longer a d/f matter..that way a whole can of worms etc re fractions etc etc can be swept under the new light carpet...

  • Vidiot

    Kneehighmiah - "Will the blood policy be changing soon?"

    There seemed to be the trend in that direction lately, but recent directives from WTHQ strongly suggest that they've double-downed on the policy (IMO, because they absolutely hate looking like they're capitulating to their critics).

  • nicolaou

    PR and the 'Public Face' of the Watchtower (should we get used to saying JW.ORG?) are important factors but the next time one of Jehovah's Witnesses dies for the sake of WT doctrine public opinion is reset to zero - especially if it is a young person.

    However they try to weasel out of their past failures on the blood issue, however good a presentation they put on, their own doctrines will come back to bite them. Tragically, it means someone suffering to the point of death but it will keep happening until those heinous policies are reversed.

  • Vidiot

    nicolau - "...the Watchtower (should we get used to saying JW.ORG?)..."

    I sometimes label it like this:


  • rebel8

    This family has been a public relations nightmare for wts more than once now. Talking to the media, protesting in a bikini, YouTube, tangles with authorities, and now a tabloid. They're a major liability.

    Even if they are privately reproved, we all know there will probably also be a special needs talk about bringing reproach upon Jehoopla by saying things to the media or on the Internet, and how people who do so should be marked and shunned, thus achieving the same affect as DA/DF.

    I hope they do what's right for their kid, beyond just blood. It sounds like they do not understand evidence-based medicine and think they know more than the evidence. This child is already suffering--such a shame he has to suffer more with all this unnecessary stress. I wish for them that they just take the recommended treatment, supported by evidence, and fade into the background.

  • steve2

    conceptual99 stated:

    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.

    The Mirror article stated:

    Ashya King’s dad has vowed to let the five-year-old brain cancer victim have a blood transfusion if needed – despite it being against his religion.

    Brett and wife Naghmeh are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses who have brought up their seven ­children in the faith, which says it is a sin to accept a blood transfusion.

    But Brett, 51, is determined to see desperately ill Ashya get better and is willing to do whatever it takes – even if it means defying his own strongly-held beliefs.

    He said: “I’m a Jehovah’s Witness, but I’m a father first – and I’d do anything for my son.

    “If a child needs treatment they should give them the treatment. It’s not for the parents to say. We just want the best for Ashya.”

    It is incredible to suggest that Mr King has not explicitly said he will allow his son to have a transfusion. The Mirror leaves no doubt as to the father's views of prioritizing treatment over religious beliefs. If he has been misquoted, his subsequent silence is pretty deafening! No, he hasn't been misquoted.

    Of course, as soon as Mr King started a social media campaign there has been an element of "loose canon" about him - from a JW perspective that is. The organization is needing to tread very, very carefully because it would not want to come across as "forcing" the issue. But you can be sure of one thing: Mr and Mrs King have not gone to these extraordinary lengths to save their child as a mark of obedience to their religion. No, as obviously very caring and loving parents, they put their son's wellbeing first. Good on them! Watch the organization dance lightly and awkwardly around this blood curdling curly one!

  • transportu

    Children are made a ward of court and given blood transfusions if doctors beleive it is in their best interests. The mirror account actually assumes and suggests the parents would do this, rather than give Brett Kings exact statement that he would accept a blood transfusion for his son. Sensational journalism.

    Acts 15:28,29 does say:

    It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

    For all who follow the bible it is clear.

Share this