Return

Subud Vision - Feedback

David Week - Subud without Theology

Informed Consent. From sjahari, June 10, 2008. Time 1:40

This is a perfectly acceptable explanation of one person’s experience and one person’s approach. It is the kind of explanation to be given to a personal friend.

However it should not be the explanation given by someone who has been entrusted by the Subud organization to act in the role of “helper”. i.e. someone who has been entrusted to give to new people an explanation of what Subud is all about.

It is also an explanation which in my view can be seriously questioned on ethical grounds.

David is stating that the latihan is exactly what it looks like. . . An exercise of the physical body and emotional feelings.
This is where David makes a fundamental elemental error.
Yes. The latihan looks like a moving meditation. It looks like an exercise or a spontaneous improvisational practice for the feelings and the body connection, but it is much more than that.

In my view the latihan is what Bapak told us it is: a connection to an elemental creative power that is beyond all things ordinary.

Now I accept that David doesn’t agree with this. That is fine. He might be right. However, he might be wrong too. If he is wrong, then the explanation he gives here is in fact unethical because it does not give the interested person an accurate portrayal of what he is getting into - ie a potentially serious and important step for his entire life.

To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge . . . This in my view is entirely unethical.
In medicine there is a concept called “Informed consent”. This seems to be similar in a way.

At the very least a new person MUST, on ethical grounds, be told what the founder of this practice told us. (even if the explainer, like David, does not himself believe it.) They MUST be told that the one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm.
SH.


From David W, July 19, 2008. Time 17:30

Hi Sjahari

You are a medical doctor, and understand the professional requirement for "informed consent". You also no doubt understand the professional ethical requirement for "duty of care". As an architect, I understand these as well.

You say: "In my view the latihan is what Bapak told us it is: a connection to an elemental creative power that is beyond all things ordinary."

Now, for informed consent, is it is critical that you, as the person providing the information, do your due diligence to ensure that the information you are passing on is true. Providing false, doubtful, or groundless information is not informed consent.

So my first question is: what steps have you carried out to ensure that your view represents an unbiased and accurate view? Such duty of care MUST be publicly accountable. It is not sufficient if can't explain yourself to a judge or a jury of your peers. What is your account of the way in which you have (I presume) verified your statements about "stepping into spiritual realms", in a form that it could be itself inspected and verified by impartial third parties.

"To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge... This in my view is entirely unethical."

Fine. But this only makes sense if you have some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a "life altering spiritual experience". For instance, there are approximately one million people who have been opened in Subud. Of that large sample, we have some 10,000 (<1%) who might report that it is a "life altering spiritual experience", but those also tend to be subscribers to Pak Subuh's teachings, and therefore clearly biased. Of the 990,000 who have left, it seems most have done so because the latihan did not deliver any life altering experience.

"At the very least a new person MUST, on ethical grounds, be told what the founder of this practice told us. (even if the explainer, like David, does not himself believe it.)"

This is contrary to ethical practice in medicine and in architecture. It is wholly inadequate for a professional to merely repeat what he has told, without exercising his or her judgement as to the validity of the information.

If, for instance, you were to falsely represent the latihan as an exercise that would positively or otherwise altered a person's life, and it didn't, and you were sued for such misrepresentation, it would not be a defense to say "well, I was just repeating what someone told me." Furthermore, one cannot evade the responsibility for forming a considered opinion by quoting someone else, e.g. saying "The founder says that... " The professional is in a position of trust. If a person in the care of the professional it told something, they are likely, trustingly, to assume that the professional is saying it because it is true. Therefore, the onus is always on the professional to ascertain the truth of a statement before making it.

"They MUST be told that the one of the core fundamental beliefs of most Subud members is that this is a life altering step to take in the spiritual realm."

There are two problems with this statement. In the first place, referring to "most Subud members" is not a basis for fact. We well know that most Subud members hold a number of religious beliefs in this regard, beliefs received at the feet of their teacher.

Most followers of the Maharishi Yogi believe that he could teach them to fly, but telling a person that learning TM can lead the ability to fly is NOT "informed consent" nor consistent with professional duty of care. You cannot just repeat what you are told. You cannot misrepresent on faith statements as "information". You cannot present untestable personal opinion as "information".

So what is the status of the claim that being opened in Subud constitutes a "life altering step to take in the spiritual realm." Prima facie:

• This is a statement of religious faith; making faith statements to people is not providing information

• There is no evidence that latihan practitioners have stepped into a spiritual realm. Testimonies of personal "experience" of these faith statements are not adequate evidence, because if we accept them, then we have to accept as true the statements of Benny Hinn, David Koresh, their acolytes and followers, and any other number of religious "witnesses" whose "experiences" attest to the tenets of their faith.

• There is no evidence that Subud members have had their life transformed. The only baseline one might to use for such an estimation is to compare the Subud population with a control population matched for age, class, nationality, etc. That has not been done. But even an informal inspection of Subud members shows them to be very average middle class people, with lives that are largely unexceptional, except for some who are in reduced circumstances are have had erratic career paths due to "testing".

Elsewhere on this site, you have stated that consider Mhd Subuh "The Father of Mankind". Such a statement would seem to disqualify you from making balanced, independent and impartial judgements as to the validity of his statements. You are thus not in a position to be involved in "informed consent". The only people who should be involved in getting "informed consent" are those who have no vested interest or religious faith in the truth or otherwise of statements issued by Mhd Subuh, or other statements made about the latihan, and are thus able to assess them objectively.

Finally, there is matter of the truthfulness of the Subud organisation. Subud claims to the public in numerous places that it is not a religion, and that it does not offer any teaching, that there is no teacher (other than God himself, directly), and that the latihan experience is available to people of all religions, and that joining Subud does not entail a contradiction to or departure from any system of religious belief. Having made this promise, it is improper for any official, agent or servant of the Subud organisation to use their position as a pulpit from which to offer faith statements, statements adduced out of reverence for a prophet, or anything that in any way might because of its nature or its source to be religious, rather than factual information. Doing so opens Subud to the charge of misrepresentation.

So: I quite agree joining Subud should involve "informed consent." That requires impartial and unbiased information. That requires impartial and unbiased advisors who do not have religious reverence for Mhd Subuh, nor religious beliefs about the latihan or Subud.

Best

David


From sjahari, July 19, 2008. Time 18:29

David,
First. I want to challenge your statement that I consider Bapak to be “The Father of Mankind”. As you have done many times in the past, you have taken something totally out of context and attributed to me a belief system which I do not hold. I recognize this as one of your techniques of debate. It may be an effective one. But not an honest one, nor a respectful one.

Regarding the idea of “informed consent”. As I mentioned in my response to you I stated that it was “something like” this. In the general category. Obviously it is not the same thing at all, but I still contend there are some similarities.

You state: “Now, for informed consent, is it is critical that you, as the person providing the information, do your due diligence to ensure that the information you are passing on is true.

I disagree with you that before mentioning a side effect or outcome to a patient, I have to be personally convinced that it has been validated or true.

If I am going to describe the side effects of a procedure or a drug I try to include not only those things that I personally consider to have enough research and evidence to support them, but also those things that other practitioners consider to be potential problems.

As an example. I dont personally believe that there is enough evidence to support the recommendation that a person who has a heart murmur has to take an antibiotic before a dental procedure in order to prevent bacterial endocarditis. However, there are many prominent cardiologists who do. I would tell my patient what my position on it is, based on my interpretation of the literature, but I also want to mention that there are prominent cardiologists who feel otherwise. Then if the patient does develop bacterial endocarditis he will remember I told him about the possibility of it happening.

In this example the analogy to the “prominent cardiologist” is Bapak.

So if I were in your position and was describing the latihan as simply a kind of physical or emotional exercise, I would feel it was an ethical requirement for me to ALSO say

“HOWEVER. There are others, including the founder and originator of this practice, and many others who follow it, who feel it is actually a deep, life altering spiritual practice. Many people go through great inner upheaval, and something referred to as “purification” I dont personally believe any of this myself. I think it is simply like an exercise or dance class and does not have anything to do with the soul or a God or anything like that. Nevertheless s you have the right to be informed that this is a wide spread belief amongst the practitioners of the latihan. And that many people experience it this way.”

In my view this is an ethical requirement. In your view it is not. Fine. As an individual member you have the right to describe the latihan in any way you like.

However if you are functioning in a role as a helper, and representing Subud in that role, then I believe you have to be held to a certain ethical standard and are not free to give an opinion which is entirely and solely your own without reference to the founder or to others who follow this practice.

Point 2:
You also state in response to this quote from me:
"To tell someone they are getting into a kind of improvised movement practice AND THEN after they experience it they find that they have been connected to a life altering spiritual experience without their knowledge... This in my view is entirely unethical."
You respond with
"Fine. But this only makes sense if you have some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a "life altering spiritual experience".

You havent understood the scenario. The scenario is this one:

Your friend comes back to you after he is being opened saying.

“Listen fella. I got opened after talking to you, and I have experienced this to be a life altering spiritual experience. I am now in the midst of all kinds of purification and other stuff. My life is in an upheaval. My marriage is on the rocks. I am leaving my job. I am going through all this heavy stuff. I now read that the founder of this Subud thing explained many times that this is a life altering spiritual experience. I have been told by many other subud members that they have also experienced something like this. Just about everyone I have talked to tells me that I should have been told about this before I was opened. I just wanted an exercise class!! I had no interest in a life altering experience. I have been altered. Why did you not tell me about this!!!!!!!!”

In this scenario you would presumably respond by saying
“Please give me some independently verifiable grounds for saying that the latihan is a life altering spiritual experience. There is no proof that you anyone else has had their life transformed.”

You are essentially denying that person’s own experience (which is also quite a questionable ethical practice in my opinion. )
Sjahari


From sjahari, July 19, 2008. Time 20:34

To continue from the above posting

POINT 3
You also state
“If, for instance, you were to falsely represent the latihan as an exercise that would positively or otherwise altered a person's life, and it didn't, and you were sued for such misrepresentation, etc etc. “

If I were explaining the latihan I would definitely NOT make a claim that it would positively alter the person’s life. I would make no claims for it at all.

I would instead explain what my own experience was, what others experience was, and what the founder’s experience was. I would say that for me personally it was a life altering spiritual experience, and that the founder also described it that way. I would also state that others did not have that experience, and that in fact many people (perhaps most people) had left the exercise not feeling or experiencing anything at all.

I therefore would could not be accused of making a false claim, or a misrepresentation. ; However, I could also not be accused of a lapse in ethics by purposefully failing to mention an extremely important core aspect of the latihan. (as you could be)


Discussion with other contributors on this page

Add Feedback to this page / Communicate with us

Use the form below to


Very sorry but feedback forms now permanently closed on the Subud Vision site

Return