If YOU had to make the decision, would you respect a JW relatives wish to refuse a blood transfusion?

by nicolaou 152 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • nicolaou

    A few years after I quit the meetings my Mum needed her Medical Directive signed and witnessed and she asked if I'd do it. I was surprised to say the least!

    I think she was just angling to include me and maybe find some lever to get me involved again. I told her that even though I didn't agree with the policy I'd respect her wishes because I knew how important it was to her. I wasn't calling her bluff, I meant it.

    She thought it over for a few days but went with my Elder brother in law instead, I wasn't as upset as you might think.

    Fast forward a dozen or so years and now I'm not sure I could back that policy at all. If my signature was required to authorise a blood transfusion for my 71 year old JW Mother I'd sign.

    She'd live to resent me, to shun me, but she'd live. What else could I do?


    If YOU had to make the decision, would you respect a JW relatives wish to refuse a blood transfusion?

    Image result for no

  • park ave boy
  • cappytan

    Negative, Ghost Rider.

  • LoveUniHateExams

    If YOU had to make the decision, would you respect a JW relatives wish to refuse a blood transfusion?

    If I was still in, I might (to my shame).

    Now - hell no.

  • maksutov
    Good question. I would absolutely not witness a blood card, but if my wife needed blood, her blood card was unavailable, and she was unable to speak, I'm not sure what I would do. Is it really my decision? Hmmm.
  • TimDrake1914

    I'm dissapointed that, so far, the majority would actually violate another person's choice as to their own medical wishes. How is that any different than someone else violating our own choice to take a blood transfusion on the basis that they do not share our belief? We may not like it, but it is still the other person's choice to choose their own medical treatment, even if it means them possibly dying from it. Free will includes the ability to choose how we live or die, and to take that away from some one is the same as taking away their right to be disconnected from a life-prolonging machine if they so choose.

    But going back to the original scenario, if one is uncomfortable signing someone's no blood document, then they shouldn't. Simple as that. If one were to have signed and then later changed their mind about carrying out the other person's wishes, that one should inform the other person involved so that they can sign a new version of the form in order to take you out of the equation. It's about mutual respect.

  • cofty
    it is still the other person's choice - TimDrake1914

    No it isn't.

    I do not believe that any JW is capable of making an informed decision about blood as their access to information is restricted by the cult. I could convince any JW that the bible does not forbid transfusions - or at least raise enough doubt to give them pause about sacrificing their life - if they were allowed to have an honest conversation about it.

    Therefore I would not hesitate to overrule their foolish choice.

  • cyberjesus
    Would you want them to repect yours?
  • cofty

    No comparison.

    Accepting life-saving treatment is the moral thing to do. Refusing it based on threats of social isolation and eternal loss is unethical.

Share this