home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The California Collection
/
TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr
/
his075
/
jw16.lzh
/
JW16.TXT
Wrap
Text File
|
1991-07-07
|
5KB
|
82 lines
CUL:Watchtower advises breaching confidentiality by David A. Reed
Watchtower Instructs Followers to Breach Professional Confidentiality.
"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...."
So begins a September 1,1987, Watchtower magazine article that goes
on to instruct Jehovah's Witnesses (J.W.'s) to "breach the requirements
of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law." In
spite of solemn oaths and laws to the contrary, the four-page article
instructs J.W.'s to "bring a matter to the attention of the elders" in
the Witness congregation, even if they learned of the matter in a
context of professional confidence.
"Mary" in the article is a hypothetical case, but the newly
enunciated policy is already making itself felt in concrete terms in
the lives of Watchtower followers around the world. And it has stirred
considerable controversy in the press over public concern that
confidentiality will be shattered in hospitals, law offices, tax
accounting firms, and other sensitive fields where Jehovah's Witnesses
are employed. The Los Angeles Times (Aug. 27, 1987) devoted 28
column-inches to the subject, including quotes from a telephone
interview with Watchtower headquarters spokesman William Van De Wall.
According to the Times, Van De Wall said that individuals "who seek out
an attorney or doctor would know if they were of the same religion. If
a Witness wanted to avoid telling him something, he would seek someone
else." This fails to take into consideration, though, the possibility
that a J.W. secretary, typist, or clerk working for a non-Witness
professional might also be in a position to leak confidential
information to sect leaders.
For example, one disgruntled Witness known to CHRISTIAN RESEARCH
JOURNAL, who had been secretly purchasing Christian literature from an
ex-J.W. ministry, now finds that checks he had written are being
offered as evidence against him as he is called to stand trial before
an internal Watchtower "judicial committee." Did a J.W. working at his
local bank turn the records over to the sect? Or had the Watchtower
sent a loyal follower to work at the bank where the ex-J.W. ministry's
funds are kept, to keep track of who might be contributing? The victim
of this breach of bank secrecy does not know who informed on him, but
he does know that continued contact with lifelong friends and
family-and even his marriage-could be terminated depending on the
outcome of the closed-door "trial" where the checks are presented as
evidence.
"The objective would not be to spy on another's freedom but to help
erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean," the
Watchtower article insists. These "erring ones," though, could include
not only Witnesses receiving medical treatment for venereal disease,
AIDS, or pregnancy out of wedlock, but also individuals subscribing to
forbidden publications (such as CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL), donating
blood, or receiving a transfusion-all of which actions would be viewed
as error threatening the "cleanness" of the J.W. congregation.
Other information on Witness patients/clients likely to be reported
by fellow Witnesses having access to records include:
* Donating sperm or an ovum to a fertility bank. * Artificial
insemination (which the Witnesses view as adultery). * Use of tobacco.
* Contributing to the campaign fund of a political candidate. *
Receiving income from a military or religious organization. * Giving
birthday or Christmas gifts. * Receiving a speeding ticket or other
fine. * Divorce proceedings on grounds other than adultery.
Since the official policy of breaking professional confidentiality
was promulgated only a few months ago, it si yet too soon to see
lawsuits from the victims of such invasion of privacy. But some
newspaper articles appearing on the subject see this as an inevitable
fallout, with employers reaping potential problems from violations by
their Jehovah's Witness employees. Long viewed by many as exemplary
workers, the Witnesses may gain a different reputation in the work
place as they begin to obey their organization's new instructions to
break oaths and laws protecting client/patient confidentiality.
- David A. Reed
"Christian Research Journal" Volume 10 Number 2 Fall 1987