BIOETHICS OF THE REFUSAL OF BLOOD BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES:
PART 1. SHOULD BIOETHICAL DELIBERATION CONSIDER DISSIDENTS' VIEWS? |
Abstract
Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs) refusal
of blood transfusions has recently gained support in the medical
community because of the growing popularity of "no-blood" treatment.
Many physicians, particularly so-called "sympathetic doctors", are
establishing a close relationship with this religious organization. On
the other hand, it is little known that this blood doctrine is being
strongly criticized by reform-minded current and former JWs who have
expressed conscientious dissent from the organization. Their arguments
reveal religious practices that conflict with many physicians' moral
standards. They also suggest that a certain segment of "regular" or
orthodox JWs may have different attitudes towards the blood doctrine.
The author considers these viewpoints and argues that there are ethical
flaws in the blood doctrine, and that the medical community should
reconsider its supportive position. The usual physician assumption that
JWs are acting autonomously and uniformly in refusing blood is
seriously questioned.
(Journal of Medical Ethics
1998;24:223 230)
Keywords: Religion; Jehovah's
Witnesses; blood transfusion; medical ethics; physician-patient
relations; informed consent
1.
Introduction
Jehovah's Witnesses' (hereafter
JWs) refusal of medical and surgical treatment using blood products is
widely known in the medical community. They are supported by physicians
who accept the challenge of "bloodless" treatment,' at least for adult
cases. For example, the article, Surgical red blood cell transfusion
practice policies, in The American Journal of Surgery-' recommends as
"policy 1" to "accept the limitation that allogenic blood cannot be
used". This policy recommends involving the local JW hospital liaison
committee, appointed by the church organization (Watch Tower Bible and
Tract Society, hereafter WTS), for assistance in making decisions. Most
medical literature describes JWs' refusal of blood products as
definitive, absolute and consistent. Many courts have ruled that a JW's
directive not to receive blood products should be complied with even at
the cost of the patient's life. On the other hand, medical and judicial
decisions rarely take into account how this blood doctrine developed or
is enforced in the JW community.
Certain little-known JW practices
regarding blood are morally questionable and may require the medical
community to re-evaluate its support of the doctrine. The JW religion
recently has come under strong criticism by reformers and former
members, including a former top official (governing body member) who
wrote two books that detail WTS history, religious practices and
internal conflicts,[3][4] and revealed for the first time the secret inner
workings of this religion. The effects of the decisions and policies on
the rank and file members of the religion are set out in the writings
of other former members)[5][7] Another important development comes from easy
Internet access which has enabled current and former JWs to "come out
of the closet" and voice their opinions without fear of retribution? [8][10]
Jehovah's Witnesses have been strongly discouraged from discussing
critical religious issues with outsiders, particularly with former
members, and can be "disfellowshiped" (excommunicated) for doing so.
However, the medical community is generally unaware of these issues.
Thus, the following serious
questions arise. Should we physicians continue accommodating the JW
patient's request for non-blood treatment based on the "official"
position of the WTS alone, disregarding the views of reformers and
dissidents, and the resulting ethical questions? How can we avoid
compromising our own sense of ethics when we know of unethical
practices that may compromise the autonomy of individual JW patients?
In part 1, I will review the perspectives provided by dissidents, and
discuss the potential impact on medical professionals.
2. History and doctrinal system
It is beyond the scope of this
paper to present a detailed account of the history and doctrine of JWs.
An excellent monograph is available) The religion informally began in
Pennsylvania in the 1870s under the leadership of Charles Taze Russell.
He borrowed many of his ideas from Second Adventists and other
apocalyptic sects that speculated on "the end of the world" in Bible
prophecy. In 1884 Russell founded the WTS, which became the legal
corporation used by the International Bible Students, who changed their
name to "Jehovah's Witnesses" in 1931. Russell taught that Jesus had
invisibly returned from heaven to rule over the earth in 1874 by
setting up God's kingdom, and that in 1914 Jesus would come to judge
the earth and destroy this world's political, social, economic and
religious institutions. When nothing supernatural happened in 1914 and
Russell died disappointed in 1916, the religion almost fell apart.
However, the second president, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, re-grouped
the religion with his charisma and re-shaped the doctrinal system many
times, including the prediction of the arrival of Armageddon in 1918,
1920 and 1925, and moving the invisible return of Jesus from 1874 to
1914. Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves the only true Christians,
with all other Christian denominations being so-called "apostate
Christendom".
The doctrines crucial to
understanding the JW mindset, as it relates to their adherence to the
blood policy can be summarized as: 1) Armageddon is near, in which all
mankind will be destroyed except faithful JWs who will live forever on
earth; 2) The WTS governing body is believed to be the "faithful and
discreet slave" referred to in Jesus' parable at Matthew 24:45,
divinely appointed by Jesus Christ to lead the JWs; 3) The Bible cannot
be understood without interpretation by the "faithful and discreet
slave"; 4) JWs who openly criticize the leadership and the organization
are regarded as apostates, disloyal to Jesus and God; 5) Salvation is
contingent on how well they perform as loyal JWs.
3. Criticism and dissent
Recent criticism by dissidents and
internal reformers reveals several important JW practices that are
critical to re-evaluating our moral support of their blood policy. Here
I will review four practices that are repeatedly criticized:
intimidation and punishment to enforce strict conformity to WTS policy;
stifled freedom of speech, thought and decision; breach of
confidentiality by inside informers, and inconsistencies and
contradictions that are undisclosed to the JW rank and file. This
material is based on WTS's own publications and the testimony of
current and former JWs.
ENFORCEMENT OF CONFORMITY
Jehovah's Witnesses are directed
to shun any friends or relatives who formally leave (disassociate) or
who are forced to leave (are disfellowshiped from) the organization.
Former JWs who voice disagreement with the leaders are labelled
"apostate" and treated the same way as those who are excommunicated for
"sexually immoral" conduct or other grave sins. The JWs' official
magazine The Watchtower wrote about the shunning of "apostates" as
follows.
"... if a relative, such as a
parent, son or daughter, is disfellowshiped or has disassociated
himself, blood and family ties remain. Does that mean, then, that in
the family circle everything remains the same when one member is
disfellowshiped? Definitely not. A disfellowshiped person has been
spiritually cut off from the congregation; the former spiritual ties
have been completely severed. This is true even with respect to his
relatives, including those within his immediate family circle. Thus,
family members--while acknowledging family ties--will no longer have
any spiritual fellowship with him .... "[11]
"True Christians share Jehovah's
feelings towards such apostates; they are not curious about apostate
ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" towards those who have
made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute
vengeance ...".[12]
Included amongst so-called
"apostates" are substantial numbers of conscientious dissenters and
those who unrepentantly received blood products. Current JWs are
strictly charged to sever personal ties with them. Violators are
themselves subject to disfellowshiping. Outsiders may not realize the
trauma of leaving the organization, but for JWs it means total
isolation from friends and family members who remain in the
organization. Unless they repentantly seek reinstatement, there will be
no chance of resurrection, and eternal annihilation is their only
future. The psychological trauma is devastating. There is no honourable
way for JWs to leave their organization.
LACK OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
THOUGHT
A most serious problem is that
free speech, or more precisely, free thought and decision-making, are
prohibited for JWs. These are crucial to self-determination of medical
care, yet are seldom mentioned in medical literature. Former governing
body member Raymond Franz states: "Watchtower training causes Jehovah's
Witnesses to view 'independent thinking' as sinful, an indication of
disloyalty to God and his appointed 'channel.'" [13] The Watchtower warns
JWs against "independent thinking" in harsh language:
"Avoid independent thinking. From
the very outset of his rebellion Satan called into question God's way
of doing things. He promoted independent thinking. 'You can decide for
yourself what is good and bad,' Satan told Eve. 'You don't have to
listen to God. He is not really telling you the truth.'... How is such
independent thinking manifested? A common way is by questioning the
counsel that is provided by God's visible organization .... Yet certain
ones have professed to know better. They have rebelled against such
counsel and have done what is right in their own eyes. With what
result? Very often they have become involved in sexual immorality and
have suffered severe spiritual harm."[14]
"Apostates often appeal to the
ego, claiming that we have been deprived of our freedoms, including the
freedom to interpret the Bible for ourselves .... In reality, these
would-be defilers offer nothing more than a return to the nauseating
teachings of "Babylon the Great." [Which means all the other religions
- note added by this author.[ True, such smooth talkers may look
outwardly clean in a physical and moral way. But inside they are
spiritually unclean, having given in to prideful, independent
thinking."[15]
Such loaded language discourages
discussing or even thinking about critical issues. In combination with
the threat of excommunication -which means destruction at Armageddon
and eternal annihilation, and the immediate loss of family and friends
- it effectively coerces JWs to conform blindly to WTS policy.
FEAR OF BREACH OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Jehovah's Witnesses face coercion
by a potential threat produced by informers among fellow JWs. They are
taught to report to congregation elders significant infractions of
organizational rules by their fellows. The following article from The
Watchtower illustrates the attitude. The article, titled "A time to
speak-When", discusses whether a hypothetical Mary, who works at a
hospital, should report confidential medical information on fellow JWs
to congregation elders:
"Mary works as a medical assistant
at a hospital. One requirement she has to abide by in her work is
confidentiality. She must keep documents and information pertaining to
her work from going to unauthorized persons. Law codes in her state
also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.
One day Mary faced a dilemma. In processing medical records, she came
upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow Christian, had
submitted to an abortion. Did she have a Scriptural responsibility to
expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it
might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her
employer's having legal problems?"[16]
After discussing "Bible
principles" that apply to this hypothetical situation, the article
tells how Mary acted:
"Mary was somewhat apprehensive
about the legal aspects but felt that in this situation Bible
principles should carry more weight than the requirement that she
protect the privacy of the medical records .... So when Mary analyzed
all the facts available to her, she decided conscientiously that this
was a time to 'speak', not to 'keep quiet'."
The article argues that "there may
be times when a Christian is obligated to bring a matter to the
attention of the elders", because the law of God outweighs the demands
of "lesser authorities". The article concludes:
"There may be occasions when a
faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based
on his knowledge of God's Word, to strain or even breach the
requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of
divine law."
Obviously this teaching applies to
JWs who have incidental access to confidential medical information
about blood transfusions that may have been secretly given to fellow
JWs. While the article gives a hypothetical example, the following
footnote shows that JWs apply its counsel in real-life situations:
"Mary is a hypothetical person
facing a situation that some Christians have faced. The way she handles
the situation represents how some have applied Bible principles in
similar circumstances."
This article and other testimonies
indicate that there is coercion due to fear of breach of
confidentiality by inside informers. Where JWs are employed as medical
workers, JW patients have no assurance of doctor-patient
confidentiality since, according to WTS teaching, "the law of God"
implies that the end justifies the means.
4. History of
the blood doctrine
Physicians know little of the
history of the blood policy and its enforcement, which raises questions
in light of medical ethics. I believe the lack of this knowledge in the
medical community contributes to the generally supportive attitude,
even though many physicians do not agree with the practice.
CHANGING MEDICAL DOCTRINES
The WTS has a long history of
changing doctrines regarding medical issues. This includes a campaign
against aluminium cookware and attacks on the American Medical
Association and medical professionals as can be noted from the
following:
"We do well to bear in mind that
among the drugs, serums, vaccines, surgical operations, etc, of the
medical profession, there is nothing of value save an occasional
surgical procedure. Their so-called 'science' grew out of Egyptian
black magic and has not lost its demonological character.., we shall be
in a sad plight when we place the welfare of the race in their hands." [17]
Few remember that the WTS once
denounced vaccinations and organ transplants in severe terms and with
flaming rhetoric. They based their prohibitions on the same scriptural
interpretations as the current blood prohibition; those practices were
"against Jehovah's everlasting covenant with mankind (Genesis 9:4)".
They called vaccination "a crime, an outrage, and a delusion" and "the
most barbarous practice",[18] and prohibited organ transplants as
"cannibalism",[19] only quietly to reverse these positions as those
practices became standard medical care. Most JWs accepted this reversal
without questioning whatever tragedies were caused by the misguided
doctrines. Once denounced as strongly as blood transfusions,
vaccinations and organ transplants are now considered "matters of
conscience" by the WTS. Most JWs receive these treatments routinely,
and recent WTS publications describe positively the benefits of
vaccination[20] and successful heart transplants.[21]
While most people dislike
constantly changing religious doctrines, JWs are taught to welcome such
changes, based on Proverbs 4:18: "the path of the righteous is like the
first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of the
day." 32 They are taught that changing doctrines should be welcomed as
"new light" or "new understanding" from God and are proof that they are
on "the path of the righteous".
BIBLICAL BASIS OF BLOOD DOCTRINE
Prohibition of blood transfusions
was first promulgated in The Watchtower of July 1, 1945. There has been
no clear explanation why this medical treatment was suddenly prohibited
at that time, even though it had been used since World War I. One
cultural anthropologist has suggested that it was promulgated to
re-establish the sect's internal cohesiveness.[23] The doctrine is based
on three Biblical passages, which we will discuss from JWs' and
dissidents' viewpoints. Note that since Bible writers knew nothing of
blood transfusions, the WTS must equate transfusions with eating blood
in order to argue that transfusions are unscriptural. This is discussed
at length below.
The first passage is Genesis 9:4,
where God (Jehovah) established a covenant with Noah: "But you must not
eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it". The WTS says that the
prohibition against eating blood is a part of the "eternal covenant
with mankind". However, this is inconsistent with some of their other
interpretations. The WTS does not prohibit birth control which is a
clear breach of the first part of this covenant: "Be fruitful and
increase in number and fill the earth." (Genesis 9:1). The
inconsistency is that they obey one part of the covenant but ignore the
other part. Parenthetically, the majority of Christian Bible scholars
believe that the Noachian covenant was no longer binding on mankind
after the New Covenant of Jesus Christ was established.
The second passage is from
Leviticus 17:10-16 where God gave a law to Moses, saying: "None of you
may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood." (Leviticus
17:12) This indeed indicates that God prohibited the Jews from eating
blood. However, the WTS teaches that Christians are not under the
Mosaic Law, which includes the dietary laws such as the prohibition on
eating pigs and eels. They inconsistently argue that only one dietary
law is binding. This can be seen from Leviticus 3:17: "This is a
lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You
must not eat any fat or any blood." Clearly, the Law prohibited eating
fat and blood in the same terms; yet the WTS only prohibits the eating
of blood, and hence blood transfusions.
The third passage is from Acts 15
where James proposed to write a letter to Gentile Christians, urging
them to follow Jewish customs as follows:
"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit
and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following
requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from
blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." (Acts 15:28,29).
One problem with the WTS
application of this verse to blood transfusions is the lack of evidence
that this verse was meant as an everlasting command for all Christians
in an absolute sense. Most scholars view the context of Acts 15 this
way: the so-called Jerusalem Council was held because a dispute arose
about whether the Gentile Christians should be circumcised in
accordance with the Mosaic Law. The council decided that Christians
were not under the Mosaic Law, but in order to maintain a peaceful
relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians the council decided
to ask Gentiles to follow the touchiest Jewish traditions, including
avoiding eating blood. This interpretation is supported by Paul, who
taught that eating food sacrificed to idols is a matter of conscience
even though Acts 1 5 mentions it in the same terms as eating blood.(1
Corinthians 8:4-8)
Ironically, the founder of the
WTS, Charles Taze Russell, interpreted Acts 15 in line with many Bible
scholars, and considered abstaining from eating blood as "a basis of
common fellowship between" Jews and Gentiles and "necessary to the
peace of the church", not as an everlasting law for all Christians.[24]
If Russell's interpretation were adopted by the WTS today, the blood
prohibition would not exist. Most JWs do not know this.
BLOOD TRANSFUSION THE SAME AS
EATING BLOOD
The WTS argues that since the
Bible forbids eating blood, JWs should not take it into the body by any
route including transfusion. Since this conclusion is not stated in the
Bible, they resort to circuitous argumentation to equate blood-based
medical treatment with eating blood. In support of this, they quote
17th century anatomist Thomas Bartholin[25] and French physician
Jean Baptiste Denys[26] to show that blood transfusion was equated with
nourishing the body by mouth. The WTS fails to mention that modern
medicine had abandoned this concept many decades ago. Current blood
transfusions merely replace functions lost due to blood loss, such as
oxygen transport - a concept entirely different from that held by
certain 1 7th-century physicians. The WTS has used the following
analogy:
"A patient in the hospital may be
fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When
sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous
feeding. So the hospital's own terminology recognizes as feeding the
process of putting nutrition into one's system via the veins. Hence the
attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood
through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through
his veins."[27]
A more recent version of the
scenario is:
"In a hospital, when a patient
cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a
person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by
transfusion really be obeying the command to 'keep abstaining from . .
. blood'?(Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told
by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient
if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?"[28]
As any medical professional knows,
this argument is false. Orally ingested alcohol is absorbed as alcohol
and circulates as such in the blood, whereas orally eaten blood is
digested and does not enter the circulation as blood. Blood introduced
directly into the veins circulates and functions as blood, not as
nutrition. Hence blood transfusion is a form of cellular organ
transplantation. And as mentioned before, organ transplants are now
permitted by the WTS. These inconsistencies are apparent to physicians
and other rational people, but not to JWs because of the strict policy
against viewing critical arguments. They continue to view the WTS's
illogical analogy as "the Truth".
ARBITRARY RULES ON PROHIBITED
VERSUS PERMITTED BLOOD-BASED TREATMENTS
The WTS's initial prohibition of
the use of blood covered whole blood transfusions, but over the years
many rules and exceptions were developed. For example, the WTS once
published an article instructing JWs not to treat their pets with blood
transfusions and not to use fertilizer containing blood.[29]
Medical use of leeches also was prohibited. [30] Those practices were
also defined as "against God's Word".
More recently, since medical
treatments mostly involve blood components instead of whole blood,
"'the WTS has created a list of prohibited and permitted components.
The most notable publication among JWs and the medical community
regarding their rules of blood treatments appeared in 1981 in The
Journal of the American Medical Association.[31] The article summarized
the basic guidelines for treating JWs using blood products. It was
written by a JW physician, Dr Lowell Dixon, who was head of the medical
department at Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. This
concise article clearly communicated to the medical community the JW
position on treatments using blood components. The article has since
been referenced in much medical literature as a guideline for treatment
of JWs.
The current JW position includes
unconditional refusal of whole blood, packed red blood cells, white
blood cells, platelets and plasma. However, they may accept albumin,
immunoglobulin, and haemophiliac preparations. Those components are
considered a "conscience matter". Perhaps the most peculiar and
inconsistent aspect of the JW policy is that they may accept all of the
individual components of blood plasma, as long as they are not taken at
the same time. In addition, JWs do not even accept autologous
transfusion of their own predeposited blood, though intraoperative
salvage (or cell saver) is accepted as long as extracorporeal
circulation is uninterrupted via a tube. They may also accept treatment
by heart-lung and haemodialysis machines. More recently induced
haemodilution has been permitted.
The WTS offers no biblical
explanation for differentiating between prohibited treatments and
treatments which are considered a "matter of conscience". The
distinction is entirely based on decisions arbitrarily made by the
governing body. When a new blood-based treatment becomes available, the
governing body ultimately determines its acceptability before use.[32][33]Jehovah's
Witnesses are required to adhere strictly to these rules on the premise
of them being Bible-based "Truth".
The governing body teaches that
the "prohibited" blood components are "major", whereas acceptable
components are "minor" or "small fractions", stating that the major
components are limited to only those that pass through the placental
barrier during pregnancy, and that on this basis a JW may accept them
in good conscience. ,.[34] This might seem reasonable were it not for the
fact that medical science has shown that most "major components" can
also pass through the placental barrier."
One subtle irony that most JWs are
not aware of is that albumin (one of the permitted components)
constitutes 2.2 % of blood volume, whereas white blood cells, and
platelets (forbidden components) constitute 1%, and 0.17% respectively.
Jehovah's Witnesses patients and their doctor must somehow rationalize
why certain "small fractions" can be permitted when the WTS teaches
adamantly that "abstaining from blood means not taking it into our
bodies at all".'" The WTS also fails to explain why it is permissible
for vast quantities of blood to be donated, stored, and processed to
produce the "small fractions" JWs are permitted to accept. Yet it
teaches JWs that blood must not be used in any purposeful way,
prohibiting blood donation with the same punishment as receiving blood.[37]
EXAGGERATED NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN
AGAINST BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
Many WTS publications emphasize
the danger of blood transfusions and the advantages of alternatives to
blood transfusions. Their magazines contain tragic stories and negative
quotes from medical journals and news media about the danger of blood.
Needless to say, there are significant risks in blood transfusions, and
patients should be informed about them. However, the WTS presents a
distorted picture because it fails to report any benefits of
blood-based treatments. Just as with its campaign against organ
transplants and vaccinations, it uses exaggeration and emotionalism to
create paranoia against blood transfusions in JWs' minds, while it
fails to present an objective analysis of risk versus benefit. It
ignores increased risks and cost of some alternatives, nor does it
acknowledge that there are no alternatives in some situations. The
following paragraph from their official magazine illustrates the
persecution mentality the WTS perpetuates, wherein blood transfusions
become "orchestrated by Satan".
"The faith of Jehovah's Witnesses
is under attack from all sides-by the clergy of Christendom who hate
the Kingdom message we take from house to house, by apostates who
collaborate with Christendom's clergy, by medical authorities who want
to impose blood transfusions on us and our children .... All this
opposition is orchestrated by Satan, the ruler of darkness and
ignorance, the enemy of accurate knowledge."[38]
As a result of such rhetoric, many
JWs are led to believe that receiving blood transfusions is as
dangerous as playing Russian roulette.[30] They cannot see that if
blood transfusions did not have proven effectiveness in saving lives,
blood would not have been used to the extent it has by physicians whose
main concern is to save lives and heal disease.
5.
Discussion
In this critical review, I have
presented the history and religious practices behind JWs' refusal of
blood products. Most of the information was researched by reformers and
dissidents and is found in the WTS's own publications, yet none of
these perspectives are presented objectively to the JW rank and file.
Such viewpoints are considered "apostasy" and therefore JWs are warned
against them. The coercion in the JW community not to review and
examine critical information is both covert and overt.
How can a physician's attitude
towards JW patients take the above viewpoints into account? First, he
or she can note that coercive practices and misinformation raise a
question regarding the autonomy of JW patients. For patients to be
truly autonomous, they must be free from undue organizational
intimidation and fear of reprisal, and must be given sufficient
information, including alternative views. The information presented
here suggests a fundamental flaw in most physicians' assumption that
JWs are acting autonomously in refusing blood.
Physicians could also scrutinize
JW patients more as individuals and recognize that individual JW
patients may hold a wider variation in viewpoint than heretofore
realized. The current practice of categorical treatment of JW patients
should be reassessed, and the possibility of "unorthodox" belief should
be explored.
One may argue that JWs joined the
religion of their own free will, and that once inside the organization,
following the rules established by the leaders, regardless of the inner
conflict, is their free choice. It may be further argued that religious
freedom includes the freedom to believe in irrational ideas and join
coercive groups. Giving consideration to dissident views may be seen as
intervening in the internal affairs of the religion.
This argument, however, should be
tempered by knowledge of the psychological manipulation, including
information control and coercive practices, of certain religious
organizations. Many former and current JWs agree that the JW
organization has many such elements. I suggest that the autonomy of the
members of such groups be scrutinized in light of their unethical
practices.
Some may question the reliability
of information from dissidents and reformers, particularly those on the
Internet, where ethics is yet at a somewhat primitive stage. Although
caution must be exercised in relying on the Internet for collecting
controversial information, I argue that it provides an unprecedented
forum where not only dissidents, but also JWs themselves may voice
concerns on issues without reprisal from the WTS, due to the anonymity
the Internet affords. Since there is essentially no other avenue
available for JWs to "go public" anonymously, bioethicists should
consider 'using the Internet to explore "unofficial" but important
information regarding the patients who belong to such religious groups.
In the companion paper, part 2,[40] I
will suggest, based on the viewpoints presented here, a rational
approach to JW patients who refuse blood products.
Disclaimer
Views and opinions expressed
herein are personal and do not reflect those of Kaiser Permanente and
Pacific Permanente PC.
Editor's
note
A reply to this paper, by David
Malyon, chairman of the JW Hospital Liaison Committee, Luton, will
appear in the October issue of the journal.
References and notes
1 Robb N. Jehovah's Witnesses leading
education drive as hospitals adjust to no blood requests. Canadian
Medical Association Journal 1996;154:557-60.
2 Spence RK.
Surgical red blood cell transfusion practice policies. The American
Journal of Surgery, 1995;170(6a):3S15S.
3 Franz R. Crisis
of conscience. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1992.
4 Franz R. In
search of Christian freedom. Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991.
5 Penton MJ.
Apocalypse delayed. The story of Jehovah's Witnesses. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1985.
6 Botting H,
Botting G. The Orwellian world of Jehovah's Witnesses. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1984.
7 Reed DA. Blood
on the altar. Confessions of a Jehovah's Witness minister. Amherst:
Prometheus Books, 1996. See also book review: Mann M. Jehovah's
Witnesses. Journal of American Medical Association 1997; 277: 425.
8 Beacon light
for former Jehovah's Witnesses: http://WWW.xjw.com/
9 New light on blood. Official site of
the associated Jehovah's Witnesses for reform on blood: http://www,visiworld.com/starter/newlight/index.htm
10 All along the watchtower: http://home.sol.no/jansh/wteng/
jwindex.html
11 Anonymous. If a relative is
disfellowshiped . . . The Watchtower 1981 Sept 15:28.
12 Anonymous.
Search through me, O God. The Watchtower 1993 Oct 1:19.
13 See
reference 4:409.
14 Anonymous.
Exposing the devil's subtle designs The Watchtower. 1983 Jan 15: 2.
15 Anonymous.
Are you remaining clean in every respect? The Watchtower 1987 Nov 1:19
16 Anonymous. A
time to speak - when? The Watchtower 1987 Sept 1:12.
17 Shelton HM.
Eugenics and barbarism. The Golden Age. 1931 Aug 5: 727-8.
18 Richards HR.
Vaccination. The Golden Age 1929 May 1: 502.
19 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1967 Nov 15:702.
20 Anonymous.
Efforts to save the children. Awake! 1994 May 8:4.
21 Anonymous.
Bloodless heart transplant. Awake/ 1994 May 22:7.
22 Proverbs
4:18. The Bible. All the Bible quotes in this article are from the New
International Version.
23 Singelenberg
R. The blood transfusion taboo of Jehovah's Witnesses: origin,
development and function of a controversial doctrine. Social Science
and Medicine 1990; 31:515-23.
24 Russell CT.
Settling doctrinal differences. The Watchtower 1909 Apr 15:117.
25 Anonymous.
How can blood save your life? Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Society of Pennsylvania, 1990:6.
26 Anonymous.
Respect for the sanctity of blood. The Watchtower 1961 Sept 15:558.
27 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1951 Jul 1: 415.
28 Anonymous.
Reasoning from the scriptures. Brooklyn: Watch Tower Bible and Tract
Society of Pennsylvania, 1989:73.
29 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1964 Feb 15:127.
30 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1982 Jun 15:31.
31 Dixon JL,
Smalley MG. Jehovah's Witnesses. The surgical/ ethical challenge.
Journal of the American Medical Association 1981;246:2471-2.
32 Kerridge I,
Lowe M, Seldon M, Enno A, Deveridge S. Clinical and ethical issues in
the treatment of a Jehovah's Witness with acute myeloblastic leukemia.
Archives of Internal Medicine 1998;157:1753-7.
33 Muramoto O.
Medical ethics in the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses. Archives of
Internal Medicine 1998; 158:1155 6.
34 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1990 Jun 1:31.
35 Simpson JL,
Elias S. Isolating fetal cells in maternal circulation for prenatal
diagnosis. Prenatal Diagnosis 1994;14:1229-42.
36 Anonymous.
Godly respect for life and blood. The Watchtower 1969 Jun 1:327.
37 Anonymous.
Questions from readers. The Watchtower 1961 Jan 15:64.
38 Anonymous.
Why we need accurate knowledge. The Watchtower 1989 Dec 1:12.
39 Anonymous.
Gift of life or kiss of death? Awake! 1990 Oct 22:9.
40 Muramoto O.
Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: part 2. A
novel approach based on rational non-interventional paternalism.
Journal of Medical Ethics 1998; 24: (in press).
~~~~~~~~
By Osamu Muramoto,
Kaiser Permanente, Portland, Oregon, USA
Osamu Muramoto, MD,
PhD, is a member of the ethics committee at Kaiser Permanente Northwest
Division, and a neurologist at Northwest Permanente PC, Portland,
Oregon, USA. Address correspondence to him at: Kaiser East Interstate
Medical Office, 3414 N Kaiser Center Drive, Portland, Oregon 97227,
USA. e-mail muramotosag@kpnw.org
|