New Research at AJWRB
Steve 2: The data will stand on its own merits. The use of the Jonestown photo was debated by myself and Richard Kelly. Ultimately we decided that it was a useful example of the terrible consequences of undue influence and coercive control that was well known, unlike the carnage being caused by Watchtower's blood policy. Additionally, it was felt that it was also useful in demonstrating the scale of loss of life. I do appreciate your concern. If this was a piece published specifically for the academic community, we would not have used it.
"Why is it so many people are needing all this surgery, accidents with standing?" Zeb
I know a lot of Jws who needed blood to survive but didn't need surgery. One was a newborn with RH factor, another newborn with another blood disorder, a 5 year old with leukemia. Thankfully all these innocent children were temporarily made "wards of the state", given blood transfusions and thrived afterward.
I knew a 16 year old who had leukemia, was allowed to legally refuse blood and died. Heartbreaking. Her parents were very proud of the "Witness" she gave to all the medical staff and the judge. I'm sure they simply saw her as a victim.
I know of others who needed kidney dialysis who died because, at the time, the dialysis machines needed blood to prime the pump.
There are lots of reasons people need blood beside surgery. another being hemophilia, also some cancers.
Hope this helps.
The publicized comparison with the Jonestown massacre gets in the way of a calm assessment of the data. It becomes easier for pro-JW elements to dismiss.
In my view, the data stands or falls on its own merits and doesn't need to be tarted up with reference to an earlier, unrelated tragedy.
My concern is not with pro-JW folks it's with those who want out or don't really know how dangerous a belief like the blood ban is. I believe that the reference to Jonestown can be appropriate at times. Jonestown gave us a visual. These were highly religious, hard working folks who signed off on their responsibility to protect themselves and their children because of their religion.
The JW's have far more untimely deaths because of the blood ban...... except the world doesn't see it. They don't die together and lay out in a field..........They die in hospitals or in the privacy of their own homes. The public at large is simply told that they passed away because of an illness or trauma.
People don't know that they could have might have.......been saved in many cases had they accepted a life saving blood transfusion.
This is just another doctrine of theirs where the rank and file are just delusional. Most think that blood is never really needed and when it is and the person refuses again they think their giving a great witness. The people not of their cult only see this as just plain stupidity and just plain crazy.
In the end the only good things that comes from this deplorable doctrine is it keep many from joining the evil cult!
Ultimately it is the person's choice if they want to obey that policy or not.
Because of the broad protections we afford religious organizations, I would agree with you on the legal front, but also think the issue is a bit more complicated than you have stated
The JW parent organization presents the policy not just as a matter of doctrine, but as a medically superior position, even stooping so low as to misrepresent medical sources in an effort to prove that point. If you or I were to do this even on a small scale, we would be liable both civilly and criminally.
I was just reading the essay written by Kerry Louderback-Wood entitled Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation. This was written in 2014 and published by AJWRB on their website. She makes some interesting points as to how to some civil strategies to sue Watchtower over this. I am not sure how much of those would hold up in court. But then it raises the question, with all of these cases that are out there how has she not found one plaintiff to use as a test case for her theories.
The article was written by Kerry Louderback-Wood when she was a law student. She does not practice tort law. There is a better potential for litigation in Canada and Europe than the U.S.
Has anyone here been in a congregation where someone was disfellowshipped for receiving a transfusion and later reinstated? I would certainly go that route if it meant saving the life of myself or a loved one.
I'm constantly amazed that people are willing to be disfellowshipped to get out of a bad marriage, yet will sacrifice their life to avoid a transfusion and subsequent disfellowshipping. Does the Bible say that one is beyond redemption if they accept blood?
@ Listener - The truth hurts, doesn't it. Its funny how you read that, and heard "hate speech", yet I was just stating EXACTLY what happens, and has happened from this organization.
It sounds like "hate" to YOUR simple ears. You know why, because what the organization pushes IS HATEFUL. What the organization stands for, concerning having members DIE for a false interpretation, is EVIL.
So, even though I said NOTHING hateful, but instead just stated EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS ORGANIZATION, it is so horrible that you heard "hate" even when it wasn't there.
You see, when an organization claims that they stay away from blood because it REPRESENTS LIFE, but will then allow ACTUAL LIFE to DIE, for a SYMBOL, is twisted logic. Think about it.
Btw, I don't hate you for misreading the facts about what this organization does.
Spoletta: The answer to your question is yes. We had a brother who had Leukemia. Two elders from the Hospital Visitation Committee/Group popped in and found him in the middle of a blood transfusion. They referred back to the congregation which formed a judicial committee. I don't believe they even met with him. I remember one of the elders telling me that he didn't see any way someone who took blood could be repentant because there was no way to take it back. I think he was getting at the whole contamination thing which is probably at the heart of this nonsense. In any even, he was promptly disfellowshipped. I later sat on the judicial committee that reinstated him. These days you don't even get a judicial committee. The act of taking blood is considered like you disassociated yourself. Same way they treat someone who joins the armed services.