___
The harsh social repercussion for Jehovah’s Witnesses who conscientiously accept blood transfusion is well documented.[1-2] This consequence is delivered via an organized communal shunning policy developed, implemented and enforced by the Watchtower organization. Recipients find themselves socially ostracized by close family and life-long friends. This has led to severe life disruptions including traumas of family breakup, clinical disorders such as depression and anxiety, and even suicides.
Members of the Witness community are well-known for their willingness to suffer rather than compromise a firmly held conviction. For instance, under Nazi Germany thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses were willing to suffer harsh imprisonment in concentration camps and even death rather than compromise their religious conviction of neutrality.
When it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion society sees two factions within the community: 1) those who wholly agree with the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine and 2) those who do not agree with it. The latter are not opponents of their faith; they simply disagree with a particular position currently held within the much larger framework of what the Watchtower organization teaches. Yet these Witnesses are imperiled if their religious community perceives they have compromised the Watchtower organization’s current official doctrine on the subject of blood.
This circumstances puts an individual member of the religion between the proverbial rock-and-hardplace.
Individuals within the Witness community have come to depend on multiple methods and means to escape this difficult position.
Methods and means
Advocating a change in teaching: Since the very beginning of Watchtower introducing a notion that it is wrong to accept blood transfusion the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses has advocated against it.[3] This advocacy continues to this very day. Though the Watchtower organization has made dramatic changes in this doctrinal position[4], it continues to forbid some blood products under pain of its organized communal shunning program. Hence this method and means has had limited effect but so far has failed to completely remove Watchtower’s position against medicinal use of donor blood to save life.
Keep everything confidential: If an individual is confident in complete confidentiality of their choice to accept blood transfusion they are able to act according to their conviction with an outcome of not refusing potentially life-saving medical therapy (blood transfusion) without needlessly exposing themselves to the religion’s program of organized communal ostracism. This method and means is well documented in medical literature with a result that clinicians are very much encouraged to hold private sessions with patients to determine their preferences.[5-7]
Consenting to court order: If an individual lacks confidence of total confidentiality of a choice to accept blood transfusion Witnesses have been known to accede to a court ordered blood transfusion under a premise that this shifts responsibility to the court, hence no organized repercussion from their religious community. Though adults have been known to use this tactic, today this is usually an option available only to parents whose child is sick and in medical need of some blood product forbidden under Watchtower doctrine.[8-10] This particular method and means used by Jehovah’s Witnesses deserves special attention.
Acceding to court order — Who taught it?
The method of acceding to court order may sound like a shrewd tactic, and by many it may sound cowardly. Ironically, it is the Watchtower organization’s own policies that have developed this as a tactic in relation to a core tenet of “the faith” of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In the WWII era the Watchtower organization birthed two new doctrinal positions. One required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood transfusion, and the other required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from military service and from non-military alternative civilian service.[11-12] Both these new positions were placed on equal ground as tenets of faith.[13]
But then something happened with one of these that did not happen with the other.
The Difference
Of one teaching: Witnesses who refused military service and alternative non-military civilian service were eventually prosecuted. Under order of the court many Witnesses then had the option of spending their time in jail or else performing the non-military civilian service originally offered them. Under Watchtower policy, Witnesses who chose under this court-ordered circumstance to willingly perform the civilian service were not considered to have compromised their faith.[14]
The harsh social repercussion for Jehovah’s Witnesses who conscientiously accept blood transfusion is well documented.[1-2] This consequence is delivered via an organized communal shunning policy developed, implemented and enforced by the Watchtower organization. Recipients find themselves socially ostracized by close family and life-long friends. This has led to severe life disruptions including traumas of family breakup, clinical disorders such as depression and anxiety, and even suicides.
Members of the Witness community are well-known for their willingness to suffer rather than compromise a firmly held conviction. For instance, under Nazi Germany thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses were willing to suffer harsh imprisonment in concentration camps and even death rather than compromise their religious conviction of neutrality.
When it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusion society sees two factions within the community: 1) those who wholly agree with the Watchtower organization’s blood doctrine and 2) those who do not agree with it. The latter are not opponents of their faith; they simply disagree with a particular position currently held within the much larger framework of what the Watchtower organization teaches. Yet these Witnesses are imperiled if their religious community perceives they have compromised the Watchtower organization’s current official doctrine on the subject of blood.
This circumstances puts an individual member of the religion between the proverbial rock-and-hardplace.
● Does the person place themselves in jeopardy of premature death by abiding by a teaching they do not believe in?
Or,
● Does the individual place themselves in jeopardy of severe ostracism by acting contrary to their personal conviction?
Individuals within the Witness community have come to depend on multiple methods and means to escape this difficult position.
Methods and means
Advocating a change in teaching: Since the very beginning of Watchtower introducing a notion that it is wrong to accept blood transfusion the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses has advocated against it.[3] This advocacy continues to this very day. Though the Watchtower organization has made dramatic changes in this doctrinal position[4], it continues to forbid some blood products under pain of its organized communal shunning program. Hence this method and means has had limited effect but so far has failed to completely remove Watchtower’s position against medicinal use of donor blood to save life.
Keep everything confidential: If an individual is confident in complete confidentiality of their choice to accept blood transfusion they are able to act according to their conviction with an outcome of not refusing potentially life-saving medical therapy (blood transfusion) without needlessly exposing themselves to the religion’s program of organized communal ostracism. This method and means is well documented in medical literature with a result that clinicians are very much encouraged to hold private sessions with patients to determine their preferences.[5-7]
Consenting to court order: If an individual lacks confidence of total confidentiality of a choice to accept blood transfusion Witnesses have been known to accede to a court ordered blood transfusion under a premise that this shifts responsibility to the court, hence no organized repercussion from their religious community. Though adults have been known to use this tactic, today this is usually an option available only to parents whose child is sick and in medical need of some blood product forbidden under Watchtower doctrine.[8-10] This particular method and means used by Jehovah’s Witnesses deserves special attention.
Acceding to court order — Who taught it?
The method of acceding to court order may sound like a shrewd tactic, and by many it may sound cowardly. Ironically, it is the Watchtower organization’s own policies that have developed this as a tactic in relation to a core tenet of “the faith” of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
In the WWII era the Watchtower organization birthed two new doctrinal positions. One required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood transfusion, and the other required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from military service and from non-military alternative civilian service.[11-12] Both these new positions were placed on equal ground as tenets of faith.[13]
Witnesses drafted under the Selective Service and subject to induction had a choice:
● Accept military service or non-military alternative civilian service and be disfellowshipped, or else abstain from both and face criminal prosecution.
Witnesses faced with need for blood transfusion had a choice:
● Accept blood transfusion and be disfellowshipped, or else abstain from blood transfusion and face premature death.
But then something happened with one of these that did not happen with the other.
The Difference
Of one teaching: Witnesses who refused military service and alternative non-military civilian service were eventually prosecuted. Under order of the court many Witnesses then had the option of spending their time in jail or else performing the non-military civilian service originally offered them. Under Watchtower policy, Witnesses who chose under this court-ordered circumstance to willingly perform the civilian service were not considered to have compromised their faith.[14]
Of the other teaching: Witnesses who refused blood transfusion and that were later placed under court order to have a blood transfusion were not granted the same freedom under Watchtower policy of the time. These Witnesses were required to resist the court ordered blood transfusion or else be viewed as having compromised the faith.[15]
As it turned out, Watchtower had two doctrines allegedly of equal importance, yet in the presence of court order one policy required no resistance whereas the other did require resistance.
What was taught?
By means of its WWII era doctrine and subsequent policy regarding compulsory service to the nation, Watchtower taught the Witness community that a court order shifted responsibility to the court though the individual ended up doing the same thing they otherwise had to abstain from.
So when it comes to abstaining from blood transfusion, despite requirement for a Witnesses to resist in the presence of a court ordered transfusion, the Witness community had been trained to nevertheless use precisely that circumstance (i.e., a court order) to accept blood transfusion and argue that the responsibility lay with the court and not with them, which is precisely how it worked in relation to national conscription.
The result
Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses—especially those who are parents of sick children—will readily yield to a court ordered blood transfusion with a sense that from the perspective of their religious leaders their act cannot be construed as a compromise.[10]
In effect, a court order provides an affirmative defense for Witness parents within the religion's internal judicial system. The parents' child can have the blood transfusion and the parents are not treated as though having compromised the faith.
Marvin Shilmer
______________
References
1. Cruelty and Threat — Shunning and Watchtower
2. Intolerance Watchtower Style
3. Blood — What Happened at Watchtower in 1945?
4. Blood Transfusion — No, Then Yes
5. Cooper, PD, Will consent if confidentiality is maintained, British Medical Journal, 1994; 309:475 (13 August). “As long as strict confidentiality could be maintained, several Witnesses have said that they would accept blood or products rather than die of anaemia or a coagulopathy, in spite of having signed a special consent form for Jehovah's Witnesses which forbids the use of blood.”
6. West, James, MD, Informed refusal — the Jehovah's Witness patient, Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology: A Case-Based Textbook, Cambridge University Press, 2010 pp. 19-26. “It is not a given that a patient professing to be a JW will not accept any blood products. In one study, for example, up to 10% of pregnant JW patients indicated they would accept blood in an emergency.”
7. Gillon, R, Refusal of potentially life-saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses: should doctors explain that not all JWs think it's religiously required?, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2000:26:299-301.
8. United States v. George. 1965. 239 F. Supp. 752 (US District Court, Conn. 1965). “Mr. George appeared to the Court to be coherent, rational and rather strong. However, doctors in attendance agreed his outward appearance was deceiving and his internal condition was most serious. When the Court introduced himself, George's first remarks were that he would not agree to be transfused but would in no way resist a court order permitting it, because it would be the Court's will and not his own. His ‘conscience was clear’, and the responsibility for the act was ‘upon the Court's conscience.’ He stated he would rather die than agree to a transfusion. The Court advised George it had no power to force a transfusion upon him, and he was free to resist the transfusion, even by the rather simple physical maneuver of placing his hand over the area to be injected by the needle. George stated he would ‘in no way’ resist the doctors' actions once the Court's order was signed.”
9. Speaking directly to the case of “Mr. George” (ref. United States v. George) author Dena Davis writes: “This case presents a good example of the situation as doctors envision it when they encounter Witnesses: the patient wants to have blood products if they will mean the difference between life and death but is unwilling to come out and say so. Furthermore, the family and religious advisors at the bedside appear, from the physicians' and judge's perspective, to be pressuring the patient to adhere to religious orthodoxy. In this situation, imposing a court order on a passive patient is a strategy that appears to save both life and ‘face.’”—(Davis, Dena S., Does `no' mean `yes'? The continuing problem of Jehovah's Witnesses and refusal of blood products Second Opinion; Jan94, Vol. 19 Issue 3, p34.
10. Watchtower’s Blood Doctrine — Do Witness parents buy it?
11. The Watchtower, December 1, 1944, p. 362.
12. The Watchtower, November 1, 1939, pp. 323-333.
13. The Watchtower, September 1, 1986, p. 27. “In the matters of Christian neutrality, of abstaining from blood, of giving a thorough witness, and of exercising faith in Jesus’ precious sacrifice, let each one of us be determined to obey all of God’s counsel.”
14. Schroeder, Judah B, The Role of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the emergent Right of Conscientious Objection to Military Service in International Law, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, 2011/24,1: 169-206.
15. The Watchtower, September 1, 1973, pp. 543-544
___
0 comments:
Post a Comment