(I'm going back a little ways on the thread, to catch up on at least a couple responses I owe to y'all )
They accede to your wishes, you live. You accede to their wishes, they die. How big is the difference, how far apart the analogy?
How about: they accede to my (hypothetical) wish to accept a blood transfusion, and I die anyway? Or, I accede to their wishes, and they live anyway? Granted, the medical prognosis might seem all but certain. However, I'm not talking about medical opinion here, but about the moral and ethical ramifications and justifications.
I suspect you have a lower threshold for what constitutes "due consideration" than I do
Not a lower threshold, just a different definition of what that threshold is.
Saying "I don't know about" is subtly but importantly different from saying "I have no opinion".
Good point, and I was in error to characterize Gamaliel as ambivalent. What I was trying to say was that, imho, a person who says "I am absolutely sure that I don't know anything about future life, etc" is morally disqualified from implementing decisions for someone else that may well involve that very issue. On the other hand, if one could honestly say "I am absolutely sure that there is no after life," then it could be moral, though not necessarily ethical, to take action accordingly.
EDUCATE EDUCATE EDUCATE
Absolutely, and perhaps what I say below will make it clear how much I agree with you.
HS: I think it bears repeating that I've not had nearly as much experience with this, or encountered the same kind of JWs, as you and others have. Now if I personally knew that a particular JW was opposed to blood transfusions only because "someone else" (WTS) told them so, then I'd also know that in essence that person acceded to the principle of letting "someone else" make decisions for them, and I, or a doctor, might well be just as ethically qualified, or better qualified, to also act and be that "someone else." Or, if I knew that a particular JW was opposed to transfusions only because of the fear of DFing, then I could ethically consider that person to be acting under duress, and act accordingly. And, in both those cases, I would act, if called upon.
you kept giving hints that there was much more to your arguments than what was showing on the surface
No intent on my part to dissemble, or conceal. And I would very freely have told you my decision, had you asked. But yes, indeed, there is a lot more going on with my arguments, as my response below to Alan will explain.
I would be gravely concerned however, that the type of fears that JWs put in people's minds about blood can still effect even exJWs for years afterward.
A very valid point, and one in which I fully concede with all of you here, with special attention to my own self! After all, I only spent my entire life (minus the last 3 years) in that mindset, and would be a fool to deny that it still has influence on my thinking.
So, last but not least, to address Alan's point:
if you could convince me in advance that your reasoning was not based on bogus Watchtower teachings, and was truly the product of rational considerations arrived at on your own, and without a hint of coercion (covert or overt), then I would respect your wishes.
My reasons are as far from WTS doctrine as they can get. Without going into detail and totally spamming this thread into oblivion : My convictions are based on existential, epistemological, moral, ethical and social philosphies, both in their rationalist and empiricist forms, as best as I've been able to coalesce my thoughts from Kant, Hume, Wittgenstein, Hegel, William James, Locke, Descartes, Hoffer, Bacon, Hobbes, Cioran, Fromm, Nietzsche, Sartre, Thoreau, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Diderot, d'Alembert, (not necessarily in that order, except for Kant.)
PS: And yes, Katie is a very patient woman...she tolerates me spouting off about stuff like this almost every day. LOL