___
Watchtower lawyers argue that Witnesses are not coerced by the Watchtower organization to refuse blood transfusion. Furthermore, the same legal representatives of Watchtower argue that Witness patients make autonomous decisions regarding blood transfusion and that these should be respected.[1]
Watchtower lawyers argue that Witnesses are not coerced by the Watchtower organization to refuse blood transfusion. Furthermore, the same legal representatives of Watchtower argue that Witness patients make autonomous decisions regarding blood transfusion and that these should be respected.[1]
In one of its many letters to its local appointees—known as elders—Watchtower expresses concern about the wrong message being sent by presumably non-Witnesses who leave impression they are Witnesses and then, under pressure from doctors, accept transfusion of blood.[2]
If, as Watchtower attorneys argue, Witnesses are uncoerced by Watchtower initiatives then why is it concerned about what patients tell their doctors and whether those patients end up refusing or accepting a blood transfusion?
Regardless of whether a person is a Witness or non-Witness, patients who have a conviction to refuse blood will refuse blood transfusion and those who do not hold such a conviction will accept blood transfusion.
If true that Watchtower does not coerce Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusion, and if true that Witnesses who refuse blood transfusion do so strictly based on their own autonomous conviction, the Watchtower has no reason for concern about wrong messages being sent. This is because in each instance the same message is being sent. The message being that in each case the patient’s uncoerced and autonomous conviction is asserted by the patient. This would be true of every patient, whether they ended up accepting blood transfusion or not, or whether the patient is a Witness or not.
Only if Watchtower wants to coerce Witness patients to refuse blood would it have any reason to concern itself about wrong messages being communicated to medical providers. As shown in its letter above, Watchtower is concerned about wrong messages.
It turns out that Watchtower is interested in coercing Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions.[3]
Marvin Shilmer
______________
References:
1. Ridley, Honoring Jehovah's Witnesses' Advance Directives in Emergencies: A Response to Drs. Migden and Braen, Academic Emergency Medicine, August 1998, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 824-835. A link to the full content is available in the article Watchtower Lawyer’s Response.
2. Watchtower letter dated January 3, 1995.
3. For more on this subject matter, see the article Coercion to Refuse Blood.
0 comments:
Post a Comment