Did Jehovah's Witnesses go too far?

Question

When JWs sued for the right to require parental notification and approval for medical treatments, specific in the case of blood transfusions, the final decision affected all medical treatment of children. So, did they go too far?

If they had lost the case, than today's parents, who mostly lack a formal medical education, would not be burden with the daunting decisions regarding the medical treatments that their children receive.

One of the arguments made against JWs is that the doctors know better what is best as regards their children. Certainly, all doctors are far better informed on what is best for children and should not be required to burden parents with this.

If it wasn't for JWs, parents would not be stuck with having to make these decisions. Considering the views of the general public on blood transfusions in children, perhaps its time to overturn this decision so that parents are not so heavily burden by something they cannot be well informed enough to make.

This would especially be useful as regards the new HPV Vacine. Pre-School girls would be able to get it, since they certainly need it should they ever have sex, and their parents will not need to worry about the right or wrong of it.

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses are less interested in the general issue of parental "rights", and more interested in the right of the Creator to decide how his creations can properly be used.

When Jehovah's Witnesses seek nonblood medical management, they are seeking to honor the rights and wishes of the Almighty Creator regarding the use of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

The Jehovah Witnesses did not go too far the parent had those children.Many time Doctors wanted to force my mother but I am now 43 year old and I thank God she don't.
To put your life in a Doctor hand is a little crazy in my opinion.
I am not a Jehovah Witness.
Plus in fact they was right about blood transfusion before AIDS came around. And still some the blood isn't safe like a couple of cases.
But a B.C. Supreme Court order a blood transfusion for a 14-year-old cancer patient who doesn't want the procedure because she's a Jehovah's Witness.,the girl is hopeful her doctor will choose not to violate her wishes while she completes another three months of treatment.
The laws have alway been change in this country

Answer 3

I can remember JW's doing this as much as 35 years ago.

I think they have the right idea. Most public schools, for example, are compatible with Christianity and actually attempt to educate in a secular manner. Some schools abuse their control of children during the day and attempt indoctrination, and parents have a right to disclosure and a right to yank their kids before the special lessons take place.

Parents ultimately bear all the finiancial and legal risks of the actions of their children. We have every right to exercize "risk management", so to speak, by passing our values to our children in any way we see fit, short of abuse.

Answer 4

yeah it would help. I think the current report is 80% of people over 40 have HPV, and 60% of college students. When i heard about this, i ran to my doctors to see if i was the unluky one that didnt have it. Then he told me you can barely even tell if you have as it is dorment most of the time. What bs is that?

Answer 5

This is a matter that will (and I'm sure it has) end up in court and is a moral decision as well. It all boils down to who's going to have enough money/power in the end to swing the decsions of a few jurors/judges. I don't mean pay offs so much as who's going to have enough money to keep the legal battle going longer? There is your victor and then one to whom this question needs to be posed.

Answer 6

Yes they did.
People suffering from schizoid delusional mental disorders that evolve into mental disease should be treated and not be allowed to pursue frivolous law suits against the interest of children health.

Answer 7

"Burden" the parents? Are you serious?

Parents have a God given responsability to ensure their children are well cared for - even if they have to *gasp* EDUCATE THEMSELVES!

Answer 8

My word they did.

Go crazy Godzilla!