Rich Shewmaker wrote:
[snips on quotes]
>
> From this, it appears that a court order to transfuse the blood is the best
> outcome for all. Certainly, the parents have not displeased God, because
> they refused the transfusion in the first place. The infant cannot have
> displeased God, because he is innocent of any ability to provide input to
> the decision.
I appreciate your hard work in coming up with a
solution that seems to resolve all the issues, but
clearly you really don't see things from the JW
point of view (and probably don't really care to,
I'm guessing -- the JW view is only worth dismissing
as looney, to you).
But, just for the sake of argument, allow me
to suggest how JWs might view the matter.
The Bible directive "abstain from blood" is at
Acts 15:20, which includes a total of 4 things,
"abstain from things polluted to idols and
from fornication and from what is strangled
and from blood." (NWT) To JWs, the last two are
really the same, because "strangled" meat (i.e.,
meat caught in a snare, and not drained of blood
before it died) is in the same vein (pun not
intended - but hey, it works) as the command to
abstain from blood.
You'd probably agree that, rationale aside, it
probably wouldn't be very nice to force either
a JW or a JW-child to actually eat blood, or eat
unbled meat. [I'm guessing that at least
orthodox Jews would feel the same way.] You
probably couldn't argue that saying, "since we
forced you to eat it, we take the blame, not you,"
would be a very comforting argument. Even if
the one forced to eat isn't to blame, they
wouldn't be happy about it, no matter what the
reason was.
I'll skip coming up with a scenario involving
"things polluted to idols" and focus on fornication.
Although we might argue that if two consenting
people willingly commit fornication it's nobody's
business, "fornication" forced upon one person by
another under any circumstances is not excusable,
and is rape.
Again, rationale for doing so aside, no one could
argue that the following is particularly comforting:
"Since neither you nor your child agreed to be raped,
you aren't to blame. The rapist takes the responsibility
for displeasing God."
As you can surmise from the above, it isn't sufficient
to say that because a person was forced to submit
to something, they shouldn't feel bad about it. In
reality, anything that is forced is a violation of
the person.
JWs understand full well that doctors (who are not
JWs) only feel they are doing their best, and are
doing what *they* feel 'saves a life'. In this
particular case, however, no rationale on the part
of the doctor or his staff eliminates the very real
feeling (to the JWs) that they and their children
have been forcibly violated. Even if they are
legally excused by a court order, and are morally
'excused' because their child was taken away from
them, they will forever feel violated. [Plus they
may worry about adverse consequences from bad-blood,
a risk and worry that the forced transfusion has also
forced upon them.]
> If anyone has displeased God, it is the medical professionals
> and the courts, people who clearly are comfortable with taking that risk.
Well, I must say, that's very big of the medical
professionals to take the risk of displeasing God
for the JWs.
What that really means is that the medical community
really doesn't give a hoot about the religious views
of the parents, and that it feels that it can take
the place of God for them (stand up to Him if there is
an issue of displeasure to be discussed), granting
JWs (or any with other religious reservations)
absolution. It's awfully big of the medical community
to say to JWs that it has the power to absolve JW
parents from their spiritual obligations, and that
they should not feel violated forever after.
> The child lives.
The child and the family also all forever live with the
feeling of violation.
JWs don't take the stand they do because they want
their children to die. If they wanted their children
to die, they wouldn't take them to doctors in the
first place.
-mark.
