Our daughter was free to make her own choice.

by StephaneLaliberte 30 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  When Eloise Dupuis gave birth to her son in 2016, there were complications where a blood transfusion would have saved her live. However, she refused and died; to the horror of the medical staff and the entire province of Quebec.

  Two years later, there was a change in politics and the topic came back up in the media. The parents of Eloise Dupuis, obviously exhausted by the media coverage, wrote a comment to a well known news paper in Quebec. In their opinion, everyone should acknowledge that it was her fundamental right to make a choice in all freedom. Article here.

  I am saddened by the conflicting position of Eloise's parents. Yes, everyone should have their freedom of choice. However, Jehovah's Witnesses deny this right to their members by practising ostracism; that is, the loss of absolute contact with all friends and family member. Faced with such a threat, many give in to the excessive pressure of their religious group. Can we really talk about freedom of choice? I have a lot of sympathy for Eloise's parents; like her, they are victims of their religion which undermines the very freedom promised by our Canadian Charter. It is time we recognize organized ostracism for what it is: A hateful and abusive practice that should be criminalized.
  
• 

  Diogenesister

  In the UK a popular radio 4 soap that's been going since the 50s has a storyline that's got everyone talking about abuse and the relatively new legislation we have that has at its heart protection against the evil that is COERCIVE CONTROL.

  The reason is that not all abuse involves physical violence, verbal abuse or sexual violence....yet all serious abusers have been found to use an element of coercive control.

  It's plain to us that Watchtower's use of organizationally mandated shunning is a prime example of coercive control and I believe it's only a matter of time before governments wake up to that fact. When they do, I hope they prosecute this corporate body like an individual who behaves abusively, in the same way a corporation can now be prosecuted for criminal negligence.

  Eloise was a victim of coercive control.
• 

  Simon

  People have rights to make choices and one of those rights is who to associate with. Rightly or wrongly, people have the right to associate with someone or not as they chose except in certain limited circumstances (courts can enforce access, but usually it's when minor children are involved).

  Is ostracism good? Is it kind? No, of course not and we have the freedom to criticize it and point out how unloving it is. But people still have the right to do it.

  That is the definition of living in a free society - freedom, all the way down.

  Now, what would you suggest as the alternative or the solution? A ministry of friendship enforcement? What happens when the government tells you that you have to have creepy touchy uncle round for sunday dinner? Or the non-stop preachy cousins that want to convert your kids ... do you want the government to give them the right to invite themselves over? Because oh yeah, freedom to associate (or not) works both ways.

  Saying something isn't "right" is easy. Coming up with an answer is much more difficult. I'd hate to live in a world where who we did and didn't associate with is dictated to us.

  Imagining that such freedoms will always entail people making the 'correct' choices is naive - some people will hurt themselves and others, it's the price we pay for freedom.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Simon: We have argued about this in the past and thought at the time, I had leaned towards your reasoning, I cannot help but go back to mine.

  As I personally have ostracized toxic people out of my life, I sincerely do believe that we should uphold the right to shun. However, religions/sects, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, take it to another level. They organize and enforce it, in the deliberate desire to torment the victim.

  In Canada, organized shunning is considered "bullying" and, within the workplace, companies can be held responsible for tolerating such behaviour. Why should this not be extended to religions who enforce the shunning of young adults who leave their religion?

  It is one thing to preach about it and it is entirely another to severe against those who choose to ignore the counsel. Religions should clearly inform their members that such matter is left to their conscience and is their personal decision to make.
• 

  _Morpheus

  I sit and stare at the screen on my phone in disbelief sometimes.... let me quote you, stephane:

  When Eloise Dupuis gave birth to her son in 2016, there were complications where a blood transfusion would have saved her live. However, she refused and died; to the horror of the medical staff and the entire province of Quebec.

  Did you read your own post? It says the opposite of what you think it does. Let me quote you one more time, with emphasis placed in key areas:

  When Eloise Dupuis gave birth to her son in 2016, there were complications where a blood transfusion would have saved her live. However, she refused and died; to the horror of the medical staff and the entire province of Quebec.

  Clearly, by your own words and description, she had a choice.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  _Morpheus: Shunning is a form of abuse. Perhaps the following scenario would make it easier for you to make the correlation:

  A woman beaten up by her husband refuses to press charges. Did you read that statement? Let me write it once more: A woman beaten up by her husband refuses to press charges.

  Sure, she has a choice. Does that mean that the cops won't bring the man in jail? Of course not. At least, in Quebec (Canada), it is understood that regardless of what the abused believe should be done, the abuser should be brought to justice.

  If a religious Judicial Committee is brought up against anyone on the grounds of who he associates with in order to enforce the practice of shunning, I believe that the members of that Judicial Committee should be seen for what they are: Abusers liable to legal consequences.
• 

  Giordano

  Shunning is a form of coercion comparable to saying to a a burn victim that you don't have to avoid treatment for your burns and the victim says......... yes I have to hold to my beliefs that my burns should not be treated as my beliefs tell me this smoking body is a sacrifice to provide a pleasing smell to my god.

  Lets face it............. the beliefs of making sure your followers will reject a life saving procedure is not that different from Jonestown calling for suicides by presenting a rational explanation to drink a deadly poison.

  This goes beyond normalcy and ventures into the crazy.

  This is what defines a death cult.
• 

  _Morpheus

  How does your example of an abused wife prove your point and not mine?

  She does have a choice.

  It interesting that organizations and people who help abused women generally focus on one important aspect above all others:

  empowerment.

  Those organizations know they cannot make an abused woman leave a situation, that only through empowerment and letting her know she has options can she (the abused woman) really be free.

  there may be a comparision to be had if one looks hard enough... i leave it to you to consider.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  Just to make things clear, I do believe that Eloise made her choice. My point however is that she was not entirely free to make that choice due to tremendous pressure from her group had she gone the other way.

  It is not because the victim has the ability to free himself/herself that as a society, we should ignore the abusers who are making their lives miserable. Like we would not ignore an abusive husband, in a similar manner, we should not ignore abusive elders.
• 

  _Morpheus

  Just to make things clear, I do believe that Eloise made her choice.

  Nice to find some common ground :) i have a feeling it wont last long...

  My point however is that she was not entirely free to make that choice due to tremendous pressure from her group had she gone the other way.

  See, that didnt last long. now you have reversed course. Either she made a choice or not. She was entirely free. We know this because, as you said, she choose. That you disagree with the choice or would have choosen differently does not negate that she choose.

  People make poor medical and financial choices every day. They make these choices based on factors that may seem strange or downright stupid to us, but they made them anyway. It was their right to make them and to be stupid, if they wish. Thats freedom. Its a bitch.

  You are suggesting that individuals freedom should be stripped and people forced in your mold... in the name of freedom.

  It is not because the victim has the ability to free himself/herself that as a society, we should ignore the abusers who are making their lives miserable. Like we would not ignore an abusive husband, in a similar manner, we should not ignore abusive elders.

  And now you have exposed your real problem. You are laying the organizations blood policy at the feet of “abusive elders”. Elders no more make policy than ministerial servants or pioneers. I dont know your story and im not asking, but it sounds like you were done wrong by some local yahoos and now want to hold “elders” accountable for all wrongs ever done.

  Elders have no power to make people choose. The organization doesnt either. Empower people to make smart choices and stop excusing bad ones. Nobody benefits from being told they had no choice when they in fact had ALL the choices.