raindog, what happens (both in typical practical and doctrinal/spiritual terms) to a JW who, for whatever reason (lets say a moment of personal weakness that could happen to anyone) knowingly accepts a blood transfusion?
Do you honestly not see the difference between a soldier being killed in the process of fighting for his country (regardless what one may think of the reasons for this war) and a person dying for basically no good reason? While both are tragic, I just feel that “If only he had taken that blood transfusion.” is a little more immediate than “If only he hadn’t joined the Army 16 months ago.” I do see your point, but I for one am not puzzled that people are upset about this very, very non-standard way of thinking, especially if it majorly impacts other people, as in the DUI example mentioned above.
Someone else’s weirdness is always more weird and unreasonable than our own weirdness.
The JW position is not as clear as it might once have been.
In exchange for concessions on military conscription the JWs in Bulgaria have agreed to permit blood transfusions, insofar as they have undertaken not to take action against members who receive them. How that works in practice is going to be hard to establish from outside a small sect in a foreign country.
I can’t find much clarity on this. The JWs seem reluctant to make their position clear and explicit. I offer the following as a cite, the result of the briefest of searches. It’s from an evangelical organisation but I really can’t tell how accurate or impartial it is. They may just be knocking the competition.
+1
Is your claim that this is the widespread belief of all Jehovah’s Witnesses in the US, or is this the belief of Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses For Reform on Blood (where your link goes to)? If the later, then okay. If the former, I’ve got to tell you that there are several Kingdom Halls in Chicago that could use your newletter, because their members haven’t gotten the memo.
WhyNot, you’re right.
Like most religions there are small groups pressing for reform/changes.
Just like the Catholic groups pressing the Vatican for changes on abortion, contraception, gay rights, etc this group doesn’t speak for the hierarchy, nor the common JW.
Next up, the KKK offers us a critique of President Obama’s presidency.
Thank you. And…darn. I was kind of hoping it was a widespread reform so I could ask some of my patient’s Brothers and Sisters to explain to her that it’s okay to take blood now. (Although she still couldn’t take RBC’s, it seems, which is what she really needs.) 
It’s not “no good reason” to them. To take blood would mean they could never meet Jehovah. Never go to heaven. Be separated from all their loved ones for all eternity. This isn’t some stuff in a book they find vaguely interesting to discuss on a message board, this is one of their most fundamental deeply held truths.
Compared to all eternity, a soldier’s death is a blip on the radar. If he didn’t take blood, he’ll get life everlasting in Paradise; his death right now is a minor inconvenience, a rest stop on his journey to Jehovah.
I had a much longer post that responds to Pitchmeister, but I saw yours first. I think yours says it better and more succinctly.
I suspect nothing, really. I suspect the person would receive counsel and encouragement. I’ve never known anyone in that situation.
I hope it says it accurately, as well. As I said, I’ve heard a lot of this over the past few months, but I’m not a JW myself.
…and I just got a phone call that she’s back in the hospital again. Crap.
Yes, actually - every time I’ve done anything at a hospital (surgery, blood draw, whatever) part of the paperwork includes a document saying I have the right to refuse treatment.
Now, if my loved ones found me after downing those pills, and rushed me to the hospital, the staff “might not notice” the document I was clutching in my hand, or might take the stance that I was not in my right mind when I drew up the document, or something - and get a judge to issue an order that I be treated (assuming I was unconscious - if I were conscious it would be harder).
There was one of those “true ER” shows on a while back where they re-enacted a tale where a teenage boy (15 or so) was badly injured and needed a transfusion or he would die. His mother, being JW, refused it even given the argument that “if he were 3 years older he could choose, you’re taking that choice away”. The hospital got a judge to issue a court order, they transfused the boy, and he lived.
His mother, far from being angry, basically said “it was God’s will for things to work out that way” and was grateful.
If you believe that the leaders of your religion have gone astray on doctrine, then why would you remain a part of that religion rather than converting to another or starting your own?
Can you clarify the question? I’m having trouble thinking of a way to answer it as presented without it being a complete hijack of the thread.
Not every point of doctrine is make-or-break. People can quite happily remain a member of the same church as friends and family while only agreeing with 95% of the doctrine (or 50% or 10%—depends on the person).
Please note that I in no way meant to criticize the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I was just curious if this particular belief was unique to them, and how it works for these folks in the real world, especially if they are unconscious as a result of an accident or illness.
Thank you - so is it not generally considered the case that such a person has irredeemably transgressed? If not, is that a matter of definition, or more a case of it not being appropriate to pass judgment?
Hope you don’t mind me asking these questions. Feel free to decline any of them.
What I don’t get is, how can you possibly reconcile the idea of a loving merciful god with a god that would punish your for eternity for accepting a medical treatment?
Either god is loving and merciful, in which case he/she would forgive you for accepting treatment in a life threatening situation, OR he’s a jealous spiteful petty rules lawyer that condemns people to eternal damnation for arbitrary infractions.
You can’t have it both ways, pick one.