The only reason I hesitate on this is because any lawsuit in the US on the blood doctrine as a religious teaching is likely to fail. And what happens when the society wins in court? They plaster it all over their website as confirmation that Jehovah is blessing them.
How to Sue the WT
@morpheus - I'm not an attorney, but its a fair bet that you would have to be able to demonstrate that said misrepresentation resulted in verifiable injury (or death) to either yourself or a first degree relative.
Just curious how they have misrepresented it? Seems to me they have stated many times that the end result might be death.
Read the article. She explains how in great detail.
its a fair bet that you would have to be able to demonstrate that said misrepresentation resulted in verifiable injury (or death) to either yourself or a first degree relative
At the same time proving that they knew this and didn't give you the information and that there was some reason or way they prevented you from checking that information and making an informed decision.
BTW: If you need to prove that they killed you, your case is flawed.
If you claimed that the Blood Policy was based on medical benefits than sure this paper may hold some weight, but that is not the facts. The Blood Policy is based on their interpretation of the scriptures. People can argue on that all they want but it is purely based on a religious belief. They can say that there are studies or historians that back them up but even if they didn't do that the policy finds it's genesis on their religious interpretation and not on outside factors.
In the Moonies' case in the dissenting opinion, the justice wrote that the fraud cannot just be a fact but that it has to have the proximity of the damage. The Nexus of the policy is gain based on a religious belief which no American Court can intervene and determine if that belief is correct or even rational.
It is likewise recognized that in order to render the fraud actionable, the misrepresentation or nondisclosure must be not only the cause in fact (causa sine qua non), but also the legal or immediate cause of the damages. Indeed, the majority quite agrees: "Justifiable reliance exists when the misrepresentation or nondisclosure was an immediate cause of the plaintiff's conduct which alters his legal relations, and when without such misrepresentation or nondisclosure he would not, in all probability, have entered into the contract or other transaction
Just curious how they have misrepresented it?
Have you ever watched any of the videos produced by JW's? (e.g. No Blood –Medicine Meets the Challenge) They are extremely misleading.
Or perhaps you remember the article, Blood Transfusions Overrated? in the 1993 Watchtower?
Don't misunderstand. I don't think the chances of successfully suing a religious organization are very good at all.
At the same time though, if either one of us were writing an article about something as innocuous as a diet and exercise regimen, we would have to disclaim it. We would have to say, "Always consult with your physician first." (Or something to that effect.)
As a religion, they get away with things that could easily incur liability for mere mortals like you and I.
Visits by the HLC to a sick or dying member to specifically warn them not to accept blood is proof that they have been subjected to coercion.
Coercion is a criminal offense. It is considered a crime of Duress
I this is the salient point.
The courts judged that the unification members were not in a fit state to make a decision.
In other words the indoctrination process made them not sound of mind.
Whilst we can all agree I think the Moonies are further along in the cult scale, the blood issue involves the very LIFE of witnesses. Witnesses In hospital are particulArly vulnerable, given their physical and mental state, to have further pressure exerted by the so-called HLC.
Irrelevant. It’s not about medical facts, it’s about the religion’s blood doctrine and free choice. I read the article and there are a lot of pages dedicated to how the WTS got the medical facts incorrect. Irrelevant.
The WTS is requiring its members to refuse blood transfusions on the basis of their scriptural interpretations, not medical science. Yes, they talk about all these things as a secondary point. But it’s not the primary reason for refusing transfusions.
Are you saying that if the WTS came out with a corrected brochure about blood, JWs would start to accept blood transfusions? No way. They would still say, “Looks like blood is a lot safer now. But the scripture is clear, and those scriptures are binding. So to be in our club you have to agree to this rule, even if you die.” And they actually *have* made that quite clear.
The article’s example about the Moonies is different because the Moonies didn’t tell the potential members until after they were members. The WTS hides nothing and is quite clear - you don’t take them, even if you die.
The article references the Catholic Church and child molestation. Again, apples and... elephants. Nobody willingly, making their own choice, volunteers to be molested.
Perhaps some judge somewhere would be willing to rule that JWs can’t make this choice, but I would argue this is a gigantic mistake. It undermines freedom of association, and gives way too much power to people willing to tell others what is “good” and “bad”.
If you can sue someone for expressing their truly held opinion especially when that person doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility, then you can sue anyone for saying just about anything. You could sue anti-vaccinators, including President Trump because you chose not to get your kid vaccinated and then they got sick. You chose to listen to someone while not listening to the advice of your child's doctor. Something with the Blood Issue, if your doctor decides that they recommend a blood transfusion you can choose whose advice you want to apply. And yes you might feel that Watchtower has so much control over someone but that doesn't mean that you can sue over it. Even as the paper indicated that saying that people who want to give you a transfusion is from Satan.
Even in the Unitarian case that is the major basis of the article the court wrote.
 Leal contends she was falsely imprisoned by the Church at Boonville, at Camp K, at Boulder, at Los Angeles, and at various locations in San Francisco. fn. 16 She admits she was theoretically free to depart at any time; she was not physically restrained, subjected to threats of physical force, or subjectively afraid of physical force. She insists, however, that her "imprisonment arose from the harm she came to believe would result if she left the community." That harm, specifically, was that her family "would be damned in Hell forever and they would forever feel sorry for having blown their one chance to unite with the Messiah and make it to Heaven."
The claim cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Although Leal correctly asserts that false imprisonment may be "effected by ... fraud or deceit" (Pen. Code, § 237), her theory implicates the Church's beliefs: it plainly seeks to make the Church liable for threatening divine retribution. As we stated earlier, such threats are protected religious speech (see Fowler v. [46 Cal.3d 1124] Rhode Island, supra, 345 U.S. at p. 70 [97 L.Ed. at p. 831]; Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology of Cal., Inc., supra, 535 F.Supp. at p. 1139) and cannot provide the basis for tort liability. Accordingly, we hold the Court of Appeal correctly affirmed the summary judgment for the Church as to Leal's action for false imprisonment.