Why some Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy.
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".
Elder
L
L
The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.
D001803:Blood Transfusion; D002648:Child; D002835:Christianity; D003657:Decision Making; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005610:Freedom; D006801:Humans; D033221:Jehovah's Witnesses; D016134:Organizational Policy; D010358:Patient Participation; D012068:Religion and Medicine; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012952:Societies; D016312:Treatment Refusal