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.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Malyon D. Transfusion-free treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses: respecting the autonomous patient's motives. J Med Ethics. 1998 Dec;24(6):376–381. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.6.376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Muramoto O. Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Part 1. Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views? J Med Ethics. 1998 Aug;24(4):223–230. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.4.223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ridley D. T. Honoring Jehovah's Witnesses' advance directives in emergencies: a response to Drs. Migden and Braen. Acad Emerg Med. 1998 Aug;5(8):824–835. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02511.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]