Was Eloise Dupuis a Victim of Undue Influence?

A TRAGIC DEATH RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT UNDUE INFLUENCE
A beautiful young woman is dead in the wake of her religion's "no blood" policy and questions are being asked around the world.

According to an October 28, 2016 Maclean's article, A Jehovah’s Witness and Her Deadly Devotion and under Quebec's Civil Code, "the three components of informed consent are full information, competence, and lack of coercion." 

In Part 1 of this series, Did Eloise Dupuis Truly Know the Risks of Refusing a Blood Transfusion?, I detailed why Dupuis, trusting and relying on only one information source, could not have fully understood the risks and was therefore in no position to make a life-or-death decision.

In this second article, we will look at the other aspect of informed consent, lack of coercion, and see how this criteria, as it pertains to informed consent, was also lacking in this case and how it played out tragically.

Part 2
Coercion   
Dupuis was most definitely a victim of coercion, and not just at the hospital. Imagine being raised knowing that if you took a blood transfusion, your good reputation in the congregation would be ruined, that a Special Needs talk would be given discussing your actions, that a public announcement would be made from the platform that you were no longer a JW and had been disfellowshipped. Imagine knowing that you would be an instant outcast and you would lose your JW friends and family, that you would be shunned indefinitely and completely cut off. In sum, you would be viewed as one dead by those who mattered the most to you. Now add in the humdinger of them all: you would also lose out on everlasting life. 

This is coercion with a capital C or as it has been rightly called, spiritual blackmail, a "do it or else" and a "do it or die" scenario.

Let's look at this in bulleted fashion to get a better idea of the pressure JWs are subjected to. If one was to take a transfusion, they are taught they would be:

• disloyal to God
• spiritually weak
• disobedient
• letting everyone down
• sinning gravely

They would lose:

• everlasting salvation 
• their standing in the congregation
• their friends
• their family

They would live in a no-man's land of:

• no love
• no companionship
• no practical support
• permanent isolation 
• psychological torment
• would remain in an unforgiven state for the rest of their lives unless they submitted to a rigorous process to get reinstated

So, long before she got to the hospital, Eloise’s decision had been shaped and made for her. Members are required  to accept the Society's interpretations about blood transfusions and are not to question. Something cannot be said to be completely optional or a real choice if that choice is decided by someone else and if punishment is meted out to any who would make a different choice. 

Will it be Door #1 or Door #2?
This would be like telling someone that Door #1 was the only correct view (from God) and Door #2 was the wrong view (not from God nor approved by him). Then telling them they were free to choose God's door or free to choose the wrong door but if they chose the wrong door they would be severely punished and would lose absolutely everything that mattered to them. But hey, it was their choice. By placing someone in an impossible situation like this, this would masquerade "not being allowed to freely choose" as "choice" and pressuring and maneuvering someone into making a predetermined choice if they wanted to maintain the status quo.

The punitive nature of shunning violates religious rights and freedoms. Eloise was NOT free to make a different choice without being punished and losing all that was important to her, so it cannot be said that she was completely free to make her own decisions. She wasn't free, she was in an ideological prison with no acceptable way out.

Recap: JWs will claim that refusing a blood transfusion is their choice, and in fact, one spokesman for the religion stated publicly that it was Dupuis' choice. But choices that are imposed and enforced through fear and punitive action cannot be said to be freely made, rather, they are made as a result of indoctrination, pressure, and undue influence. 

Take-away: Dupuis was subject to coercion, not a lack thereof, so it cannot be said this met the criteria for informed consent.

Media Links

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovah-s-witnesses-incapable-of-free-informed-refusal-of-blood-former-adherent-says-1.3829778

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/mother-s-religion-comes-under-examination-after-dying-following-childbirth-1.3116847

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/montreal/quebec-jehovahs-witness-death-young-mom-investigation-1.3806578

http://www.newser.com/story/232993/after-new-moms-death-jehovahs-witnesses-take-heat.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jehovahs-witness-quebec-eloise-dupuis-1.3813974

Note: in recent years public statements have been issued that JWs taking transfusions aren't shunned if they repent. The jury is out on whether this has been adopted as official and consistent policy or is simply a PR move. Statements given to the public are often on a "need to know" basis and may differ from insider policy and thus fail to give a complete picture.