Muramoto O
Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Oregon, USA.
J Med Ethics. 1998 Oct;24(5):295-301. doi: 10.1136/jme.24.5.295.
Most physicians dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses (JWs) who refuse blood-based treatment are uncertain as to any obligation to educate patients where it concerns the JW blood doctrine itself. They often feel they must unquestioningly comply when demands are framed as religiously based. Recent discussion by dissidents and reformers of morally questionable policies by the JW organisation raise ethical dilemmas about "passive" support of this doctrine by some concerned physicians. In this paper, Part 2, I propose that physicians discuss the misinformation and irrationality behind the blood doctrine with the JW patient by raising questions that provide new perspectives. A meeting should be held non-coercively and in strict confidence, and the patient's decision after the meeting should be fully honoured (non-interventional). A rational deliberation based on new information and a new perspective would enable a certain segment of JW patients to make truly informed, autonomous and rational decisions.
大多数治疗拒绝接受基于血液治疗的耶和华见证人的医生，对于在涉及耶和华见证人的血液教义本身时是否有义务对患者进行教育并不确定。当要求是以宗教为依据提出时，他们常常觉得必须毫无疑问地遵从。耶和华见证人组织中持不同意见者和改革者最近对道德上有问题的政策进行的讨论，引发了一些相关医生对该教义“被动”支持的伦理困境。在本文的第二部分，我提议医生通过提出能提供新视角的问题，与耶和华见证人患者讨论血液教义背后的错误信息和不合理之处。会议应以非强制性且严格保密的方式举行，会议后患者的决定应得到充分尊重（不干预）。基于新信息和新视角进行理性思考，将使一部分耶和华见证人患者能够做出真正明智、自主且理性的决定。
