Why Eloise Dupuis Was Not Perfectly Informed About the Risks of Refusing a Blood Transfusion

PERFECTLY INFORMED OR MISLED?
Last month, Quebec Health Minister Gaetan Barrette said that Eloise Dupuis was "perfectly informed" about the risks of refusing a blood transfusion. The 27-year-old Jehovah's Witness died after refusing treatment deemed critically important and necessary to save her life. And the question has to be asked, are lawmakers failing to protect the populace?

Dupuis was anything but "perfectly informed." And the issue is not that she signed a medical directive, the issue is not that she refused a blood transfusion. Almost all practicing Jehovah's Witnesses do this. The issue is that a person cannot be fully informed when the information they have been given is from one party, is partial information, may be misleading, and may be deemed medically inaccurate. In no way, shape, or form can information of this kind equip someone to be perfectly informed in order to make a sound decision. Under those circumstances "perfectly informed" is a misnomer and the polar opposite.

Outsider Versus Insider Understanding
This case demonstrates why those on the outside, and specifically those who might be able to influence and set policy and thus protect people, do not grasp 1) how misinformed Jehovah's Witnesses are, 2) how their choices are made for them, and  3) how those choices are enforced through guilt-mongering, fear-mongering, group pressure and threat of punitive action.

These unnecessary deaths will continue until lawmakers grasp that indoctrination and thought control aren't credible platforms for "informed consent," that coercion and group pressure do not allow for independent decision-making, and that punishment is not a vehicle for free choice but one that steers predetermined choice.

Barrette further stated, "It's their right to believe in what they want to believe in." Would that that were true; would that Dupuis had the right to believe in what she wanted to believe in. Once again, this demonstrates a failure to grasp that Jehovah's Witnesses are not granted the right to believe what they will, that their beliefs are decided for them by a leadership that claims to be the "sole channel God is using to provide spiritual guidance and truth to members," that to go against any teaching from the leadership is touted as akin to going against God, that to believe differently is said to be disloyalty to God, and that all is enforced through guilt, fear and punishment. The very last thing Eloise was in possession of was the right to believe in anything of her own volition or the right to make her own decisions or act independently without paying a huge price.

The Jehovah's Witnesses organization claims to champion religious freedom, then punishes any who would exercise it, so it cannot be said that the leadership respects members' "right to believe in what they want to believe in," i.e, members' religious rights and freedoms.

"Who am I to enter into this debate within their community? They have to resolve this issue themselves," Barrette said. Once again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding as to how things work inside the Jehovah's Witness organization. There is no debate. Members are not allowed to debate anything, and if they do, they are severely punished and cast out as apostates. (See link below to see what happened to Lawrence Hughes when he tried to go against policy.)

Common-Sense Laws Needed to Protect People
Lawmakers MUST step up and set up a "best practices" operating framework that all charities must adhere to, to continue in operation and maintain their tax-free status. No charity should be allowed to wield "life and death" power over members and to threaten shunning and loss of family to force compliance to their doctrines. It's high time lawmakers stepped up to the plate and penalized groups that harm members.

It is one thing for leaders to believe in refusing blood transfusions and making that a medical decision for themselves but it is a different matter entirely when they impose their personal beliefs on millions of members, teach that these beliefs come from the ultimate authority, God, and punish any who fail to comply.

For example, someone might sincerely believe that God had told them that jumping off a high cliff would grant them entrance into  paradise or a ticket to heaven, but if they were to insist that others not only believed this but had to jump off the cliff to demonstrate their obedience and loyalty "to God," could it be said that the first party was keeping this as a personal belief or imposing that belief on others? Could it be said that they weren't endangering others? Could it be said that they weren't complicit in causing unnecessary deaths? Could it be said that they weren't, in fact, a public menace?

Isn't it curious that a rabid dog would be put down if it killed a human, and yet, thousands have been led to their deaths by this organization and no laws have been enacted to protect members from harm.

Under Quebec's Civil Code, a competent adult aged 18 or older can refuse treatment as long as their refusal is considered "free" and "informed." As has been touched on in this article series "free and informed" were most definitely not on the table in this case, nor in others. Eloise Dupuis was not free to make her own choices regarding her treatment and she was not fully informed.

Under the Code:

• "Free" means it must be proven that the patient was not coerced into accepting or refusing treatment. See Was Eloise Dupuis a Victim of Undue Influence?, which shows how coercion is used to pressure members into refusing treatment.

• "Informed" means the adult patient understands the various treatment options and their possible risks and results. See Did Eloise Dupuis Truly Know the Risks of Refusing a Blood Transfusion, which highlights why the criteria for "informed" was not met in this case.

Former Member Punished for Making a Different Choice
Lawrence Hughes, mentioned in the news article below and once an insider, nails it. Hughes went against policy and tried to make his own decisions about his daughter's medical treatment. And all hell broke loose. His case demonstrates how Hughes' religious rights and freedoms were trampled on, how, when he acted to save his daughter's life, he was punished, shunned, and cast out, how he is still being punished and is prevented from having a relationship with his other children and his grandchildren. Jehovah's Witnesses Incapable of Free, Informed Refusal of Blood, Former Adherent Says.

An Organization That Does Not Fully Inform
Listen as Governing Body member, Geoffrey Jackson, denies under oath that leaders claim to be the sole channel God is using. He even goes so far as to state that it would be presumptuous to claim that "we are the only spokesperson God is using," and yet that is exactly what they do--see Quotes Regarding the Watchtower Organization and Salvation--and they teach their followers that questioning is akin to questioning God, that refusing to obey their directives is, in fact, disobeying God. They repeatedly indoctrinate members that they must remain loyal to leaders' teachings, which is touted as akin to remaining loyal to God.

It should be apparent that a leader that fails to fully disclose the truth under oath, has demonstrated what appears to be duplicity. This is not surprising because this organization has a proven track record of failing to disclose full information to the public and, in fact, deems this "theocratic warfare."

Resources

"More kids are dying right now in obedience to the Jehovah's Witness ban on blood transfusions than perished in the fire at Waco, Texas," says former Witness elder David A. Reed.



Misquoting Sources

Governing Body Says, "We Are the Faithful and Discreet Slave!"