Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Med Ethics. 2000 Oct;26(5):375-80.

Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy.

Author information

  • 1The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.

Abstract

In their responses to Dr Osamu Muramoto (hereafter Muramoto) Watchtower Society (hereafter WTS) spokesmen David Malyon and Donald Ridley (hereafter Malyon and Ridley), deny many of the criticisms levelled against the WTS by Muramoto. 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".

PMID:
11055042
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID:
PMC1733296
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk