ADVANCE DIRECTIVE ALLOWS BLOOD TRANSFUSION?

1.0 CLAIM

My opponent has made some rather absurd claims as of late regarding what is and is not allowed by the DPA/Advance Directive documents. In this post, I will deal with these claims (since my opponent has vehemently insisted that I do so). His two claims are as follows:

1. All of anything is everything.

2. Because some DPA/Advance Directive documents contain an option phrased as “I accept all minor fractions,” then Jehovah’s Witnesses can and do use all minor fractions at the same time, thus violating the command to abstain from blood.

2.0 IMPORTANT WORDS TO KNOW

Before I get into refuting the actual claim, I thought that it would be a good idea to lay out some significant terms out on the table. These terms have a direct bearing on this discussion.

2.1 Loophole

Loophole. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

Main Entry: loophole

Function: noun

2: a means of escape; especially: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract or obligation may be evaded.

2.2 Quibble

Quibble. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quibble

Main Entry: quibble

Pronunciation: \]kwi-bel\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): quibbled; quibbling

Date: 1656

intrasitive verb

1: to evade the point of an argument by caviling about words.

______________________________________________

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

quib·ble (kwhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifbhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifl)

intr.v. quib·bled, quib·bling, quib·bles

1. To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.

2. To find fault or criticize for petty reasons; cavil.

n.

1. A petty distinction or an irrelevant objection.

2. Archaic A pun.

quibhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifbler n.

Synonyms: quibble, carp1, cavil, niggle, nitpick, pettifog

These verbs mean to raise petty or frivolous objections or complaints: quibbling about minor details; a critic who constantly carped; caviling about the price of coffee; an editor who niggled about commas; tried to stop nitpicking all the time; pettifogging about trivialities

___________________________________________

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

quibble [kwɪbəl]

vb (intr)

1. to make trivial objections; prevaricate

2. Archaic to play on words; pun

n

1. a trivial objection or equivocation, esp one used to avoid an issue

2. Archaic a pun

[probably from obsolete quib, perhaps from Latin quibus (from quī who, which), as used in legal documents, with reference to their obscure phraseology]

quibbler  n

quibbling  adj & n

quibblingly  adv

____________________________________________

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

Noun

1. quibble - an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections

cavil, quiddity

equivocation, evasion - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth

Verb

1. quibble - evade the truth of a point or question by raising irrelevant objections

evade, hedge, sidestep, skirt, parry, fudge, circumvent, dodge, elude, duck, put off - avoid or try to avoid fulfilling, answering, or performing (duties, questions, or issues); "He dodged the issue"; "she skirted the problem"; "They tend to evade their responsibilities"; "he evaded the questions skillfully"

2. quibble - argue over petty things; "Let's not quibble over pennies"

bicker, brabble, pettifog, squabble, niggle

argue, contend, debate, fence - have an argument about something

3.0 COMMENTARY ON TERMS

Wikipedia gives a nice example of a loophole on their page:

“In 2005, Wal-Mart planned a store in Calvert County, Maryland. While a law in the county restricted the size of a retail store to 75,000 square feet, Wal-Mart considered a plan that would dodge this restriction by building two separate smaller stores. Though Wal-Mart later withdrew this controversial plan, the plan highlighted a legal loophole.”

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/16/AR2005051601271.html

I liked the Walmart example quite a bit, especially in relation to our opposer’s obsession with the wording on the DPAs. As the referenced Washington Post article stated, “Wal-Mart realizes it's in their own political and financial interest not to play games with ordinances by trying to wordsmith their way around size caps." Even if Walmart could have technically gotten away from it according to the letter of the law, they would have likely been chastised by the ones who wrote the law in the first place for violating its spirit and intent. In a similar vein, Jehovah’s Witnesses also realize that it is wrong to try to “wordsmith” their way around the basic intent of the Advance Directives/DPAs. The intent of all Advance Directives/DPAs is to prevent the taking in of blood or its primary components. No loophole, even if “wordsmithed” into reality by ambiguity in the language, should contravene that basic intent.

Indeed, this is precisely the reason why I have asked my opponent repeatedly (three or four times now?) to put forth a case of ANY Witness in, ANY place where the ‘loophole’ language exists, actually using such a loophole and taking in 100% equivalence of blood in minor fractions, AND doing it openly AND with no negative repercussions from their congregation. If my opponent cannot manage to provide even one such case [1], then it follows that the Witnesses understand the phrasing in the same manner I do, and would consequently NOT use every conceivable fraction of blood at once (even if such a thing were possible).

Footnote:

Just because Tears of Oberon secretly goes and shoots someone in the head, does not mean that Watchtower approves of his actions or that Watchtower allows for shooting people in the head. If one wanted to attempt to determine what Watchtower’s actual feelings about shooting people in the head are, then he would need to do the shooting openly, and see how his congregation reacts. Similarly, if one wishes to attempt to prove that “using every minor fraction at once” is in harmony with the intent and spirit of the advance directive, then he would need to provide a case of a Witness taking such an action openly and with no negative repercussions from their congregation. To date, my opponent has FAILED miserably to show me any such case, even though he has repeatedly claimed that such a scenario “can and DOES happen.”

4.0 EVEN ALLOWABLE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

I do concede, that if the phrase “I accept all minor fractions” was the only statement on the entire DPA, and if there was no context, and if there was no Bible, then it would be possible to take every minor fraction at once without violating the intent of the phrase. However, it is NOT an isolated, out-of-context phrase.

The purpose of all Watchtower’s DPA documents is stated clearly and unequivocally in second item (following the line for the printed name)

Advance Directive for Health Care

Oklahoma Statutes title 63, §§ 31.01.1 to 3101.16

2. I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I direct that NO TRANSFUSIONS of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma be given to me under any circumstance, even if health care providers believe that such are necessary to preserve my life.

The purpose and intent of the DPA is to aid Witnesses who wish to not have blood or its four primary components transfused into their bodies. That is in caps and in bold on the actual document, and is not me emphasizing. The rest of the document only augments that purpose, but does not qualify it, i.e., it adds to the major purpose by filling in holes and answering additional questions, but does not take anything away from or (as my opponent suggests) invalidate what is already explicitly stated.

That is why, when my opponent states, “such and such phraseology semantically allows for Witnesses to take 100% equivalence of blood,” I call him a delusional loop-holer and a quibbler. It doesn’t matter what my opponent thinks that an isolated sub-phrase within the document semantically allows for, because that isolated sub-phrase still cannot violate the second item on the document, nor can it violate the purpose and intent of the document!

Explicit Statement: “I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and I direct that NO TRANSFUSIONS of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma be given to me under any circumstance”—Advance Directive for Health Care, Item 2.

We may therefore make the following arguments:

[taking all fractions at once] = taking whole blood

[taking whole blood] = violating both the purpose and intent of the document

Therefore, [taking all fractions at once] = violating both the purpose and intent of the document

[taking all fractions at once] = taking whole blood

[taking whole blood] = violating the express language of the second item of the document

Therefore, [taking all fractions at once] = violating the express language of the second item of the document.

It is really that simple. That is also why I stated (in the full abstention debate) that my opponent’s claims with regards this issue merited no further response.