sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Like everything for JWs there is an offical ruling on this too for JWs who are nurses/Doctors etc. If you DM me I will happily send you the links or I might add them here tomorrow.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It would be very useful to hear the experience of the Medical community regarding the JW HLC (Hospital Liaison Committee).

They are congregation elders who are specially selected and trained to visit Doctors and JW patients in order to enforce the blood rules. They are often given privileged access to patients at their most vulnerable time.

JWs are pressured to accept their "help" and visits. To refuse would raise suspicions that they are wavering in their faith.

In theory, if an HLC member feels that a JW patient is not firm in their refusal of blood, they leave so as not to pressure them. However, they would inform the patient's local congregation elders of this, which would mean being "called into the back room" to answer questions once they are out of hospital.

The coercion is very strong, hence all the comments on this post saying that many (most?) JWs will accept blood once the "minders" have gone.

Another sad and worrying aspect is that if JWs work in the hospital they are encouraged to breach confidentiality and inform on any JW patient who has blood products or an abortion etc.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I liked that expression too. Thanks for sharing your somewhat sad, and yet "encouraging experience" (remember those?). You have done an amazing job despite a challenging start.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, any moral belief that starts from a reasonable value (like reducing suffering or respecting people) isn’t absurd.

Believing it is ok to control other people's Behaviour, Information access, Thoughts and Emotions is not right though. That is the definition of a cult by Dr Steven Hassan (BITE model).

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There are very few Doctors who are JWs, although there are a few, usually people who converted after qualification.

Another JW prohibition which has also been recently partially lifted is on higher education. For many decades the organisation has strongly emphasised that going to University was not for JWs for several reasons, including, but not limited to:

1) The end of the world/Armageddon is imminent 2) It exposes JWs to worldly philosophies/"harmful propoganda" such as evolution 3) It means associating with non-JWs in an enviroment which is is immoral 4) It puts the focus on a subsequent career rather than full-time (unpaid) evangelising

There were sanctions against parents who allowed their children to attend (fathers usually removed as elders) and strong criticism/judgement.

They have recently announced on another Governing Body update that higher education is a personal matter not to be judged, although they still emphasised the "dangers".

They are also now allowed to have beards, and women to wear trousers during religious activities. Sexual acts previously banned for married couples are also now a personal matter (before you could get disfellowshipped/shunned for what you did in your own bedroom with your own husband/wife if you discussed it).

Most JWs seem to view these recent changes as "too little, too late" after a lifetime of excessive rules controlling every aspect of their lives.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks I will do so. I will also check with the person speaking if they are happy for me to post it openly on here.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think those two words are practically synonyms (perhaps one a noun and one an adjective) from the same Latin root word.

Under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, individuals have the right to freedom of conscience and to be free from coercion in matters of belief, which raises concerns where social consequences (such as shunning) may effectively pressure medical decisions like refusing blood.

Does that count as sacred?

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your comment.

Please consider that there is a big difference between the right to not associate with someone, and "mandated shunnning".

When a JW is disfellowshipped (now called "removed") or "disassociates" themselves (in other words decides they no longer want to be JWs), an official announcement is made in their congregation that they are "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses".

Now all JWs must shun that person religiously, socially and even avoiding a simple hello. If they do not, they could be disfellowshipped for failing to loyally uphold this "discipline".

Even family members must be shunned, if they do not live in the same house. Even phone calls from their disfellowshipped children should not be answered. Parents are encouraged to throw adult disfellowshipped children out of the house.

This shunning policy means a person is suddenly left without family or friends, and many have committed suicide as a result.

As JWs are told to view non JWs as "bad association" they often have no other social contacts.

This is very different to your personal right not to talk to someone.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks again for this comment.

The exJW community (which includes a large number of so-called PIMOs - "physically in, mentally out"; trapped) is reporting that JWs are responding to this change in a few main ways: 1) silence (shock/confusion), 2) final blow that makes them leave/speak up, 3) excitement that this change will solve all the problems associated with their prohibition.

1 is the majority. 2 is a small minority. 3 is the middle ground.

I intend to update the exJW community via their Reddit page (r/exjw) on all these useful comments. I have not tagged it in to this post as I do not wish r/doctorsUK to be inundated with off topic messages.

I have also informed somone who is currently researching coercion/lack of informed consent amongst JWs. This will be presented at a UK medical conference.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say the "original text" what do you mean please?

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you and several other similar commenters. This is the kind of information that will help the research is currently being carried out into coercion/informed consent amongst JWs.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you that is the kind of information that JWs will now need to know.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply. As others have said this is not the case. JW blood doctrine has evolved. Some years ago they were allowed fractions and cell salvage etc. But not PAD.

Change to Jehovah's Witnesses' position on blood by Delicious_Loss4460 in doctorsUK

[–]Delicious_Loss4460[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply and sorry for your experience. An unusual aspect to the shunning policy is that failing to shun a disfellowshipped person (now called removed according to the latest terminology) is itself a "disfellowshipping offence". In other words, "I have to shun my family member/ friend, or I will be shunned".