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

by minimus 119 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Valis

  eh I also thought of the example of my youngest sister...she is a teenager and she has Down's Syndrome. She also carries a "No Blood" card with her at all times...she will never be able to make or form her own opinion on the subject...no research...no bible comparison or effort to come to her own moral descision...well where does it go from there? It becomes a matter of legal ownership of her life, not a moral, ethical or personal descision she made, or could make for that matter. Who knows, after that she might make the cover of a Watchtower....

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  onacruse

  Valis, I can live with your kind of "selfishness" any day of the week...and feel free to kick my butt all you want However, if you let somebody give me medical treatment against my wishes...when I got out of hospital, I'd just have to kick your butt right back

  ((RF)): I didn't know about your Dad. I'm sorry you had to go through the pain of watching him waste away like that. I watched my younger brother waste away (cancer). He'd made an informed decision to decline "standard" therapy, and we all stood by him.

  A 57 year old man is responsible for his own decisions.

  Yep.

  PS: Val, I didn't know about your sister. She's lucky to have a concerned and intelligent brother like you to watch out for her.
• 

  Valis

  ona...I'm thinking now that a full catheter and colostomy bag are in your near future...per my requests to any physician treating you for any medical condition...

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer
• 

  onacruse

  Val, you empty for me, k? LOL

  And quit trying to divert the subject, you worthless bag of pig-brains.

  Craig
• 

  Gamaliel

  onacruse,

  Gamaliel:

  I currently don't know anything about future life, spirit, or resurrection, so I couldn't base a decision on that. Any decision I would make has to based on how sure I am that I'm actually saving their life

  I submit, therefore, that your own self-admitted ambivalence disqualifies you from making such decisions for others. To assume that the continued physical existence of the body is all that matters is unwarranted.

  I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I could see how a true believer might be ambivalent because they could leave it in God's hands and therefore might not worry about what decision they made either way.

  For myself, though, I can't figure out where the ambivalence would come from. Since I don't know about any future life, I can't be ambivalent. It's true that I would be more likely to make a decision based on saving the life in front of me, but isn't that just like Jesus' example of the sheep in the pit, or the Samaritan who needed medical attention on the side of the road, or orphans and widows in their tribulation, etc.?

  I do know that the belief systems will often create different assumptions, but I'm not sure what practical difference the belief system should make. But the reason I can't see a difference is because the believer has two options to options to consider about the person in front of him: either God will resurrect him or God won't. I have effectively the same two options: either there is a God who will resurrect him or there isn't a God who will resurrect him. The only difference is that the believer probably shouldn't let that knowledge influence him, and I am not able to let such knowledge influence me because I don't have any such knowledge.

  Also, it doesn't mean that I assume that the continued physical existence of the body is all that matters. I have to respect that it might matter and that it does matter to the person who doesn't want the blood. Still, if I can override their decision, I will. My decision would be based on my faith in the righteousness or morality of motivation I based the decision on.

  Gamaliel
• 

  wannaexit

  If it is my minor child the answer is YES

  If it is an adult the answer is NO
• 

  onacruse

  Gamaliel:

  I currently don't know anything about future life, spirit, or resurrection, so I couldn't base a decision on that.

  That you volunteered the comment makes me think one of 2 things:

  1) You haven't fully thought out the issue of life after death (you've obviously been thinking about it, or you wouldn't have brought it up)...therefore, you're ambivalent;

  2) You have fully thought out the issue of life after death, and still have no firm opinion; therefore you are still ambivalent.

  My point here is not to put you to a wall about the "life after death" issue, but to say: If you haven't fully resolved this issue for even yourself, then what moral and ethical right do you have to dictate decisions for others who feel they have figured out those questions?

  Craig
• 

  SixofNine

  Odd to see Gamaliels firm stance being reasoned to come from ambivilence.

  I feel sure you can see more options than the two you listed Onacruse.

  Gamaliel has exactly the same hard data as every other human with access to information on the topic of afterlife. Some people choose not to form opinions on subjects about which they don't have enough information to call their opinion informed. Saying "I don't know about" is subtly but importantly different from saying "I have no opinion". Indeed most people "don't know" about many, many things that they do have strong opinions on; it's not one of the better human traits, imo, ptp, lol.

  But the reason I can't see a difference is because the believer has two options to options to consider about the person in front of him: either God will resurrect him or God won't. I have effectively the same two options: either there is a God who will resurrect him or there isn't a God who will resurrect him. The only difference is that the believer probably shouldn't let that knowledge influence him, and I am not able to let such knowledge influence me because I don't have any such knowledge.

  I see no ambivilence in that statement at all. Especially when you take into account Gamaliels comments about supporting scriptures for taking appropriate, practical action to do good. Even more especially so when that "doing good" is actually saving a human life.
• 

  Gamaliel

  My point here is not to put you to a wall about the "life after death" issue, but to say: If you haven't fully resolved this issue for even yourself, then what moral and ethical right do you have to dictate decisions for others who feel they have figured out those questions?

  I volunteered the information because it may affect people's decisions in matters of life and death. I have fully resolved the matter for myself. I am absolutely sure that I don't know anything about future life, spirit and/or resurrection. So I will absolutely make a decision based on that knowledge. If and when I do know something about those matters, I will bring that knowledge into any decision I make, but like I said before, I can't yet see how it would change anything for me. My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs. Why should I care if my good deeds will be punished or if they will be rewarded?

  Someday, we'll have to pick up this subject again in another thread, I think we're hogging it.

  Gamaliel
• 

  onacruse

  Gamaliel, ok

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/51680/1.ashx

  Craig