Article Text
Abstract
Jehovah's Witnesses are students of the Bible. They refuse transfusions out of obedience to the scriptural directive to abstain and keep from blood. Dr Muramoto disagrees with the Witnesses' religious beliefs in this regard. Despite this basic disagreement over the meaning of Biblical texts, Muramoto flouts the religious basis for the Witnesses' position. His proposed policy change about accepting transfusions in private not only conflicts with the Witnesses' fundamental beliefs but it promotes hypocrisy. In addition, Muramoto's arguments about pressure to conform and coerced disclosure of private information misrepresent the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses and ignore the element of individual conscience. In short, Muramoto resorts to distortion and uncorroborated assertions in his effort to portray a matter of religious faith as a matter of medical ethical debate.
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
- Jehovah's Witnesses and autonomy: honouring the refusal of blood transfusions
- Refusal of potentially life-saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses: should doctors explain that not all JWs think it's religiously required?
- Applying the four principles
- Juggling law, ethics, and intuition: practical answers to awkward questions
- Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses
- The ethics of policy writing: how should hospitals deal with moral disagreement about controversial medical practices?
- Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy
- Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses and adolescent Jehovah’s Witnesses: what are their rights?
- Why do we treat the children of Jehovah's Witnesses differently from their adult parents?