Article Text
Abstract
In their responses to Dr Osamu Muramoto (hereafter Muramoto) Watchtower Society (hereafter WTS) spokesmen David Malyon and Donald Ridley (hereafter Malyon and Ridley),1–3 deny many of the criticisms levelled against the WTS by Muramoto.4–6 In this paper I argue as a Jehovah's Witness (hereafter JW) and on behalf of the members of AJWRB that there is no biblical basis for the WTS's partial ban on blood and that this dissenting theological view should be made clear to all JW patients who reject blood on religious grounds. Such patients should be guaranteed confidentiality should they accept whole blood or components that are banned by the WTS. I argue against Malyon's and Ridley's claim that WTS policy allows freedom of conscience to individual JWs and that it is non-coercive and non-punitive in dealing with conscientious dissent and I challenge the notion that there is monolithic support of the WTS blood policy among those who identify themselves as JWs and carry the WTS “advance directive”.
- Blood transfusion
- Jehovah's Witnesses
- Watchtower
- autonomy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Medical confidentiality and the protection of Jehovah's Witnesses' autonomous refusal of blood
- Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses
- Jehovah's Witnesses and autonomy: honouring the refusal of blood transfusions
- Aortic valve replacement in a Jehovah’s Witness: a case of multi-disciplinary clinical management for bloodless surgery
- Jehovah’s Witnesses in the emergency department: what are their rights?
- Preparing a Jehovah’s Witness for major elective surgery
- Transfusion contracts for Jehovah’s Witnesses receiving organ transplants: ethical necessity or coercive pact?
- Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their rights?
- A new law on advance directives in Germany
- Red blood cell transfusions in acute paediatrics