Jehovah Witness RNs

SharonH, RN · Aug 15, 2007

There are certain posters who seem to be taking this thread in a negative direction. The fact is that as long as they are competently performing their jobs to the standard of care then there shouldn't be an issue. If a JW feels that their job is causing them to sacrifice their faith, then I'm sure that they will move on to something in another area of nursing. WHat they say to their congregation elders is their business and if they are violating privacy laws then they will end up paying the price for that. Plain and simple. Suggesting that they are dishonest, not pulling their weight, expect others to pick up the slack, want to be martyrs etc... is a bit much.

Thank you. When I first started reading this thread, I thought it was a very good and valuable discussion and I was very proud. Needless to say, a few people had to jump in with some false statements, followed by some judgmental observations based on their own personal feelings and we're off to the races. I am very disappointed.

HvnSntRN · Aug 15, 2007

nathan, you are absolutely incorrect in your interpretation of this. the watchtower society would never require jw's to violate rules of confidentiality and the law in order to report someone who engages in immoral conduct. never. you need to make sure you know what you are talking about before you post false information.

with all due respect, perhaps you need to review the following watchtower article (w87, 9/1 issue, pp. 12-15) before you post inaccurate information. just in case you don't have your bound volumes handy, i'm more than happy to post it here for your convenience:

"a time to speak"—when?
mary works as a medical assistant at a hospital. one requirement she has to abide by in her work is confidentiality. she must keep documents and information pertaining to her work from going to unauthorized persons. law codes in her state also regulate the disclosure of confidential information on patients.
one day mary faced a dilemma. in processing medical records, she came upon information indicating that a patient, a fellow christian [jw], had submitted to an abortion. did she have a scriptural responsibility to expose this information to elders in the congregation, even though it might lead to her losing her job, to her being sued, or to her employer’s having legal problems? or would proverbs 11:13 justify keeping the matter concealed? this reads: "the one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter."—compare proverbs 25:9, 10.
situations like this are faced by jehovah’s witnesses from time to time.
circumstances can vary greatly. hence, it would be impossible to set forth a standard procedure to be followed in every case, as if everyone should handle matters the way mary did. indeed, each christian, if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration bible principles as well as any legal implications and that will leave him or her with a clear conscience before jehovah. (1 timothy 1:5, 19) when sins are minor and due to human imperfection, the principle applies: "love covers a multitude of sins." (1 peter 4:8) but when there seems to be serious wrongdoing, should a loyal christian out of love of god and his fellow christian reveal what he knows so that the apparent sinner can receive help and the congregation’s purity be preserved?

as requested by co-admin siri, here is an external link to the entire article:

http://www.sweenytod.com/rno/modules.php?name=news&file=print&sid=1195

SharonH, RN · Aug 15, 2007

With all due respect, perhaps you need to review the following Watchtower article (w87, 9/1 issue, pp. 12-15) before you post inaccurate information. Just in case you don't have your bound volumes handy, I'm more than happy to post it here for your convenience:

I don't need to read a 20-year old article that was written prior to HIPAA and that references a hypothetical situation. But if you insist, then go back and reread it yourself. It clearly states that

It is "Mary's" personal decision. Do you understand the difference between a personal decision and a requirement that they report as Nathan claimed ?
Employers have the right to expect their JW employees to observe rules of confidentiality and thus JW employees need to

consider this when accepting any employment that puts them in this position.

By the way, my mother has been a nurse for 39 years and a JW for 38 years. I also know an elder who is a PA as well as another sister who is a practicing nurse. Additionally, I have worked with many nurses over the years who are JWs. There is no requirement period.

reesern63, RN · Aug 15, 2007

I wonder if there might also be a www.no-confidentiality.org that OP can consult when and if she decides to play snitch on one of the members of her church?
Any adult is free to believe whatever they want, UNTIL it impacts on the rights of another person. That's why we get upset when JWs let their minor children bleed to death as a demonstration of Momma's faith. That's why we get upset when a JW in a position of trust decides to go "church lady" and report confidential information to her elders.
Yes, let's "make it easy" for the JW health care professional by hanging a unit of blood for her. Do we also make it easy for her to violate confidentiality laws?
The JW health care professional's personal religious values demand that she take action when she becomes aware of the "sins" of another JW according to the following hierarchy:
1. confront the individual with the information and urge him to confess "wrongdoing" to congregation elders and other offended parties within a reasonable time frame, with the goal being his "spiritual restoration";
2. should the individual refuse to make a confession to the elders, the JW's belief system demands that she report her knowledge to the elders voluntarily. [see the Watchtower publication "Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry", p. 142 - 145].
The JW mantra in such situations is 'we must obey God as ruler rather than men." ANY man, or group of men, hospital board, or legislature.
If I knew a nurse was an "angel of death" with a supply of KCl and the willingness to use it, would I be called "prejudiced" for exposing her?

Your comments offend me as a nurse and as a JW. Never have I been told I needed to "snitch" on pts. who were fellow Witnesses; in fact, that would be unethical and an abuse of my privileged knowledge as a nurse.

You clearly have a problem with JW. That's your issue. But you really ought to have your facts straight before you start posting patently untrue statements. I don't know a single fellow Witness nurse who has ever felt pressured to "snitch." I don't even know where you get that. If anything, any nurse who went to congregation elders with confidential information would most likely be reminded that such information was privileged and inappropriate for discussion, no matter what the circumstances were. That article cited was written well before HIPAA. Some things have changed in the last twenty years.

Continue to feel free to bash away. I just wanted to add some factual information.

reesern63, RN · Aug 15, 2007

Expected and does are two different things. I don't care what they are expected to do, I care about what they do. I have never known a JW nurse who reported patients to the church. Anyone who breaks confidentiality should be reported to the BON, just like I posted. That isn't the same as asking not to be the one to give blood transfusions.
BTW, where does it say that nurses have to have unconditional positive regard for all their patients? I have had plenty of patients that I didn't hold in a positive regard. No one in their right mind could. What matters is how I behave. If you can't do that with your local JWs then you are right in not looking after them. Some of us can control our negative feelings about people and put them aside to care for those patients like we would any other. We are human. It isn't fair to expect us to never have negative feelings about our patients. All an employer can require of us is that we behave professionally with them like we do all our other patients.

Thank you for adding a note of sanity to the discussion. I am bowing out now. Many of the posts (with the exception of this one, Sharon's and Woody's) flat out terrify me, personally and professionally.

Nathan Knott · Aug 15, 2007

It's apparent that there are some here whose "in depth" knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses derives from saying "Good morning" occasionally. It is not unusual for critics of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to be looked at askance, as though the statements they make were utter fabrications. But notice that where we critics have provided quotes from the Watchtower's own literature to prove our points, the JWs and their naive defenders offer nothing of substance, no quotes in rebuttal, ( note that reesern63 said, "That article cited was written well before HIPAA. Some things have changed in the last twenty years." but provided no evidence to back up the false claim) just name calling and hoots of "intolerant!" You're all adults. If you want to consider facts before you draw your conclusions, facts are available.

It may be worth noting that a person "officially" becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses by being baptized as such (baptism in any other Christian church doesn't count anymore, although a century ago it did.) Once baptized, the Jehovah's Witness, whether male or female, 80 years old or 8 years old, is considered a MINISTER. Only men can teach the congregation directly, but all are obligated to preach. Their door-to-door work is their ministry. There isn't a casual laity among the witnesses. As one regional manager of the WTB&TS once put it, "'witness' is a verb. It requires action." That is not to say that one cannot find in congregations those the WTB&TS would describe as "spiritually weak." There are plenty of those. Each year, many thousands are "disfellowshipped" (excommunicated) for failing in one way or another to keep the rules. Some fall to the temptations of the flesh, and many others find themselves unwilling to fully accept Watchtowr doctrines. Both types are purged if they don't repent before the elders.

Those disfellowshipped ones are helped to recovery by being treated as though they were dead - in most cases a disfellowshipped person's still-believing family will have no contact at all with the offender, or restrict such contact to rare occasions of important family business. Those not in the immediate family - former friends - are taught not to be so easy-going on the offender.

The WTB&TS has spoken approvingly of the days of the Biblical nation of Israel, when wrongdoers could be stoned to death outside the city gates.

And you see these people so nicely dressed, so conservative and polite, and you think, "Aren't they nice? They would never yearn to stone an "apostate" to death, would they?" And you'd be wrong.

A few short months ago, Jehovah's Witnesses were engaged in a special activity - the distribution of a tract that proclaimed, "The end of false religion is near." And reesern63 is "terrified" by this discussion. Give me a break.

woody62, RN · Aug 15, 2007

Thank you for adding a note of sanity to the discussion. I am bowing out now. Many of the posts (with the exception of this one, Sharon's and Woody's) flat out terrify me, personally and professionally.

I am sixty two years old today and for the last fifty years I have been studying other religions, their beliefs and their requirements of their members. I have found that a large number of people think they know the 'rules' of a specific religion, when in fact, they really know very little. I follow the tenets of my faith. I expect no one else to believe as I believe. And I respect the religious beliefs of others, even those with some of the most unusual belief systems. I know a great deal about other beliefs but I don't know everything. And I find some of the questions raised on thread a tad bit offensive to J.W. Instead of asking, some have assumed. And some of these assumptions are highly questionable.

Woody:balloons:

woody62, RN · Aug 15, 2007

It's apparent that there are some here whose "in depth" knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses derives from saying "Good morning" occasionally. It is not unusual for critics of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to be looked at askance, as though the statements they make were utter fabrications. But notice that where we critics have provided quotes from the Watchtower's own literature to prove our points, the JWs and their naive defenders offer nothing of substance, no quotes in rebuttal, ( note that reesern63 said, "That article cited was written well before HIPAA. Some things have changed in the last twenty years." but provided no evidence to back up the false claim) just name calling and hoots of "intolerant!" You're all adults. If you want to consider facts before you draw your conclusions, facts are available.
It may be worth noting that a person "officially" becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses by being baptized as such (baptism in any other Christian church doesn't count anymore, although a century ago it did.) Once baptized, the Jehovah's Witness, whether male or female, 80 years old or 8 years old, is considered a MINISTER. Only men can teach the congregation directly, but all are obligated to preach. Their door-to-door work is their ministry. There isn't a casual laity among the witnesses. As one regional manager of the WTB&TS once put it, "'witness' is a verb. It requires action." That is not to say that one cannot find in congregations those the WTB&TS would describe as "spiritually weak." There are plenty of those. Each year, many thousands are "disfellowshipped" (excommunicated) for failing in one way or another to keep the rules. Some fall to the temptations of the flesh, and many others find themselves unwilling to fully accept Watchtowr doctrines. Both types are purged if they don't repent before the elders.
Those disfellowshipped ones are helped to recovery by being treated as though they were dead - in most cases a disfellowshipped person's still-believing family will have no contact at all with the offender, or restrict such contact to rare occasions of important family business. Those not in the immediate family - former friends - are taught not to be so easy-going on the offender.
The WTB&TS has spoken approvingly of the days of the Biblical nation of Israel, when wrongdoers could be stoned to death outside the city gates.
And you see these people so nicely dressed, so conservative and polite, and you think, "Aren't they nice? They would never yearn to stone an "apostate" to death, would they?" And you'd be wrong.
A few short months ago, Jehovah's Witnesses were engaged in a special activity - the distribution of a tract that proclaimed, "The end of false religion is near." And reesern63 is "terrified" by this discussion. Give me a break.

You want to know something. I am not a J.W, but I find your posting offensive and very slanted. You have very carefully chosen your words but the implications are quite clear. You do not approve of J.W. You do not respect their beliefs. Just what do you respect? Your own beliefs only.

Woody

SharonH, RN · Aug 15, 2007

It's apparent that there are some here whose "in depth" knowledge of Jehovah's Witnesses derives from saying "Good morning" occasionally. It is not unusual for critics of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to be looked at askance, as though the statements they make were utter fabrications. But notice that where we critics have provided quotes from the Watchtower's own literature to prove our points, the JWs and their naive defenders offer nothing of substance, no quotes in rebuttal, ( note that reesern63 said, "That article cited was written well before HIPAA. Some things have changed in the last twenty years." but provided no evidence to back up the false claim) just name calling and hoots of "intolerant!" You're all adults. If you want to consider facts before you draw your conclusions, facts are available.

Actually Nathan, I am more than a casual observer as I stated before and which you choose to purposefully ignore. While I was never officially baptized, the JW religion is the only one I have ever practiced and been exposed to. I was raised as a JW, I participated in bible study, attended weekly meetings as well as annual and semi-annual assemblies. And yes, I even witnessed from door-to-door.

While I ultimately chose not to be baptized, I did take away many values from my upbringing. One of them was not to judge those who may practice a religion that I do not necessarily know or understand and I certainly do NOT make false claims about their tenets based on a google search on the Internet.

You can post whatever you want. Things do change over the years and I am not required to prove it or post proof or defend against someone who obviously has some personal grudge. I know what I know because I have lived it and those I am closest to continue to live it. You will not make me doubt what I have known all my life, please! And you continue to make statements that go beyond false but they are patently inflammatory and offensive. Like reesern, I will not continue to discuss this matter with you as you are clearly beyond any reasonable exchange of ideas.

Athenas83 · Aug 15, 2007

I'm a Jehovah's Witness, and I would never ever tell anyone, including elders, anything about my patients. Gimme a break. I chose nursing as a career. I know what I'm getting into.

On the matter of blood transfusions, the decision to hang blood is a personal decision. One JW may be okay with it, and another may not. Personally, I'm there for my patients no matter what and won't deny having a part in their decisions on matters with the exception of abortion. So, I'm not gonna work in labor and delivery.

Nathan Knott · Aug 15, 2007

Sharon, I was raised a JW, I got baptized at 14, I served the WTB&TS as a pioneer, I was a ministerial servant in my congregation, and I gave public talks. Don't presume that you know what cards I'm holding. I have a library of WT publications that go back to the year zero*, and I know what they say. I didn't study the JWs from the comfort of my armchair, I lived it. I refused to salute the flag in school in the 1950s and endured the wrath of teachers and students. I claimed a ministerial draft deferment during the Viet Nam war, and I was granted it: me, alone, with no lawyer or elder by my side speaking for me.. I would have gone to prison as a felon draft resister had I not won my deferment; running scared to Canada was not an option for me. I have friends today who did go to prison as conscientious objectors. They didn't like it.

You admit that you were unable to "pull the trigger*" and actually BECOME one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and you offer defenses based not on accurate knowledge, but on what you think and feel. All I ask is for a simple quote to prove your assertion that "things have changed," and you run from it as if it were a mouse.

Yes, I choose my words carefully. That is a fundemental requirement of communication. That's what I was trained to do in the Theocratic Ministry School.

I am the Golem of Brooklyn.*

*figuratively speaking, of course.

FireStarterRN, BSN, RN · Aug 15, 2007

Some of the comments on this thread seem to be motivated by dislike of the Jehovah Witness religion. I find that a little upsetting. They are a peaceful group of people who seem very devout and sincere. They don't believe in war and are pacifists. Really I think it's time to give it a rest, people don't like to be singled out like this because of their beliefs.