If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus 119 Replies latest jw friends

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    NOT having read the entire thread and just my opinion

    The only JW that I might be asked about this is my mother (God bless her cuz she really needs it)

    If the JWs are right and a person might get a personality trnasplant along with the blood I just might authorize it. Like she can't really get worse and chances are she might wind up with a better personality than the one she has now. She might even thank me. My mother seems to choose which beliefs to follow so I doubt she would be angry with me and well if she is then life is "as usual"

  • Mulan

    no...............it's their conscience, not mine.

  • onacruse

    (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.

    Will Power:


    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

  • Will Power
    Will Power
    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.

    Their whole religion acts under duress, if you ask me.

    Now, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the "sole (soul) channel" of info from god, the FDS, only relay their god's rules as they've interpreted them under their god's watchful eye, and it is not necessary for the "friends" of the ones in the new covenant to understand but to obey. They need only submit to this authority as outlined in the gospels or risk being seen as rebellious which could cause divisions. And there is NO room for that.

    So how would you tell the difference? R & F are drilled & trained to not let anyone know that they hold the Print Masters in a godlike position. That a decision like this is of their own choosing.

    I agree with Alan. and I think it is our duty to EDUCATE!


  • onacruse


    Their whole religion acts under duress, if you ask me.

    I wouldn't totally disagree, but I'd also say that, essentially, every other religious, political and social system on this planet imposed "duress" on its subjects, on issues that frequently involve life-and-death; it's only a matter of degree. To me the most fundamental, and most important, issue here is the right of self-determination, which plays into your last:

    I think it is our duty to EDUCATE!

    Education dignifies self-determination, but education does not define self-determination.

    As my closing comment to this thread: On the other thread I started, as a spin-off from this one, I offered to Gamaliel to post up the philosophical reasons that underly my opinions on these issues. In fact, all of you have helped me crystallize my thinking in very many ways, and just over the course of these last few days. I can't thank you enough for engaging me in debate.

    I hope to start another thread within the week, to begin laying out, for your perusal and comment, why I feel the way I do.

    Thanks again, to all.


  • Azalo

    replys are way too long to read as for me no i wouldnt because it is like a do not resuscitate order, you should respect a persons wishes and i wouldnt force one on my niece either because i would fear that her parents might not treat her the same after that and again wrong as they may be they are the parents and its their right to refuse.

  • Mr. Kim
    Mr. Kim

    In reference to the question: If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

    My answer: No. If a decision was already made by the jw relative regarding this situation, that is the decision everyone must honor. It is an INDIVIDUAL DECISION.

    Trying to get approval from the court system goes against everything that "FREEDOM" stands for. So, that road is bad all the way around.

    There are "OTHER" ways to prolong life and replace blood with a different "oxygen carrier". Science is still advancing.

    Blood is a multi-billion dollar industry. OLD SCIENCE IS PUSHED ON PEOPLE BECAUSE IT IS MORE PROFITABLE!

  • drwtsn32

    If a JW relative was in the hospital, unconscious, and needed blood, I would definitely approve it. Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions, but the blood issue is based on a stupid command by an idiotic organization that misinterprets a few scriptures from some ancient, man-written book. (IMO :-)

    I would not let a relative die for this. I couldn't live with myself. I would rather them be upset at me than throw away their life.

  • minimus

    Hey, Do me a favor will you? This is a very good thread. Please don't swear or use abusive language so that this thread gets locked, too.

  • Faraon

    Not unless that relative was one of my minor daughters.

Share this