There are over 4 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. If one asks a cross section of members of the general public what they know about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses then usually the most popular say ordain be to do with their refusal to accept blood transfusions. The purpose of this report is to provide an alternative (and I hope balanced) believe of the challenge of blood transfusions and Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are many problems when a blood transfusion is needed especially in the case of a child. There are advance complications if one parent is a Witness and the other is not.
I therefore researched collated and wrote this initially for the purpose of explaining to a watch just why I may give permission for my children to have a blood transfusion if I consider it to be the wisest course of challenge and having listened to and evaluated the potential risks and benefits. The document has grown and I hope that it may be of assistance to others. Its research proved to be quite a (sad) eye opener for me.
When a Jehovah’s Witness contemplates the refusal of a blood transfusion then both they and their fellow watch family and friends should be aware of just how their organisation has arrived at its rules regarding blood. I use the word “rules” deliberately knowing that a Witness ordain consider the refusal of blood (including transfusions) to be a strict command from God. The evidence suggests that is not quite that simple. A watch no longer has to tell the old established response:
A Sunday telecommunicate article in December 1994 reported claims that “many surgeons had a far too cavalier attitude to the use of blood” and “if blood were a drug it would not get a licence”. The article was prompted by a Hepatitis C excite. In early 1995 it was widely reported in the U. K press and TV that up to 3000 persons may be at risk from hepatitis C from blood that had not been properly screened and treated in the 1980s. Persons were finally being contacted by the health authorities. At the time of writing (1995) it is being alleged that there had been a “cover up” on the move of the authorities.
change surface in the inspect of the majority of routine operations and surgical procedures not normally needing any daub there is always a chance that a complication ordain become. (haemorrhaging for example) necessitating an unexpected transfusion. That is why many surgeons are reluctant to “go in with half a tool-kit” because of a “no blood” request by the patient or the patient’s guardian. Doctors and Surgeons are under oath to provide the best possible care that they can in the given circumstances. Time is often a crucial factor. They do their best with the information knowledge and equipment at their disposal.
Witnesses need to be fully aware of how their organisation has developed it’s beliefs An average Jehovah’s Witness will undergo attended many meetings every week where regularly their organisation - the WBTS’s view of what the Bible says about blood will have been emphasised. Rarely even for the purposes of balance are they shown the “other side of the fence” in any dilate. Never is anything critical of their lay ever published. If a watch is to see an alternative viewpoint on the outcome of their lay with regard to blood it will usually come from reading newspaper reports about the resultant tragedies.
When personal disaster strikes and the issue of blood arises the Witness ordain undergo an automatic reaction that causes them to react blood for either themselves or their children. It is built up and repeated to them over a number of years; their organisation (WBTS) regularly publishes information reports and experiences connected with the subject of daub and medicine. The Witness ordain consider his or her stand to be 100% consistent with the teachings of the Bible and certainly not negotiable. Others in his or her congregation usually the elders or family and friends will encourage them not to evaluate any transfusion.
It is not questioned that a daub calculate transfusion (along with most medical procedures) carries assay. It is probably change by reversal that that blood is overused routinely. Jehovah’s Witnesses in allowing themselves to used as ‘Guinea pigs’ have helped medical advancement in the use of non-blood treatments. Many of these treatments do have advantages over the blood alternatives. Medical knowledge is after all constantly progressing In some cases transfusions undergo been forced on (usually the children of) Witnesses and the patient has still died.
For decades now blood transfusions undergo usually been a transfusion of a blood fraction which is usually one of the component parts of the blood. Whole blood (as donated) is considered to be a valuable commodity. For instance an anaemic patient may demand red cells only rather than the plasma. Another patient could require platelets a burned patient may demand albumin and yet another may require the clotting factors found in the daub. Other products such as vaccinations and serums are sometimes manufactured from specific types of blood.
The Governing Body of the organisation are located at Brooklyn. U. S. A. It is they that undergo effectively decided what will and ordain not be allowed and also what is currently “left to the individual conscience” of a Witness. If a particular treatment is NOT allowed then accepting it. as Witnesses know ordain lead to disfellowshiping from the congregation.
The ex-Witnesses’ family friends and acquaintances will then be forbidden to even greet that one or even to say “hello”. The disfellowshiped Witness is completely shunned and cut off from their former social circle probably in it’s entirety. His former friends are told to “hate” him. (September 1981 Watchtowers) This practice has a strong tendency to “keep Witnesses in line”.
A watch is not allowed to be with any of the organisation’s teachings or rulings. The organisation make the affirm that they are “God’s sole visible channel of communication on earth today”. A big responsibility for the leaders of that organisation you will no disbelieve agree. However if past errors are pointed out to them they will inform us that they do not claim to be “inspired” or “infallible”. Yet on the other transfer they regularly speak of “revealed truths” and regularly claim that God is exclusively using them as “God’s Mother Organisation”. Also the organisation will not tolerate any disagreement or dissension on any doctrine however minor. Many non - Witnesses cannot comprehend these discrepancies and they go unexplained.
It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would alter THEM CHRISTIANS for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him and endeavour to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians… The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the “body” composed of Jews and Gentiles… A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden… These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles because they had never been under the Law pledge; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on the subject that it was necessary for the peace of the perform that the Gentiles should observe this be also (Watchtower. 15 April 1909 p. 4374).
The Modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs regarding daub transfusions actually started with the question of vaccinations. They had always refused to eat blood such as blood sausage because of their understanding of God’s command to Noah in Genesis chapter 9 which they believe forbids the eating of animals that had not been bled.
Smallpox was a major problem. It should be remembered that smallpox had a mortality evaluate of up to 40%. In 1921 their were 100,000 cases in the (civilised) U. S alone. By 1953 there were none. The vaccination schedule therefore saved literally thousands of lives world wide. A watch named William Cetnar made a detailed investigation into smallpox vaccinations and actually discovered that the vaccination was not manufactured from blood at all. He submitted his findings to the headquarters of the organisation. He received no acknowledgement but in April 1952 the society finally published the reversal of the vaccination ban.
Smallpox is highly contagious. How many died (or infected others) as a prove of the organisation’s “rules at the measure” we can have no way of knowing. Children were unable to start school without a smallpox vaccination certificate. There were reports of sympathetic doctors actually scarring children’s skin and then issuing a false certificate. Witnesses could not leave or enter countries. Witnesses in prison were solitarily confined. An Incredible situation.
A modern Witness ordain no doubt see the change regarding vaccinations as an example of God “gradually revealing or making things clearer”. This is the usual explanation of doctrinal change. (It does not however explain why some doctrines later revert to the original thinking)
Anyway because a Witnesses is obliged to obey all of their organisation’s show teachings at any one inform in time they are by default actually blaming God in the above example. God wants them to follow any show teaching even if it later proves to be in error. No doubt it would therefore have been preferable for God to have made up His object about vaccinations earlier?
Unfortunately at that measure a senior member of the Headquarters of the organisation and the editor of the Golden Age magazine (the forerunner to the Consolation and now change state magazine) was Clayton Woodcock. He hated the modern American medical advances. In other Golden Age articles he denied the germ theory of disease instead blaming many illnesses on aluminium cookware of all things. He referred to smallpox vaccinations as “the filthy custom of injecting animal puss into the system”! (As illustrated here)
“Are we to believe the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and daub fractions such as gamma globulin into the blood stream for the purpose of building up resistance to disease as the same as drinking blood or taking in of blood or blood plasma by transfusion? No it does not be necessary that we put the two in the same category… prohibition in the scriptures is in connection with taking it as food and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with its being forbidden… The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood either by mouth or by transfusion as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not plan for any man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines serums or blood fractions doing so does not seem to be included in God’s express will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgement whether one accepted such types of medication or not”. (WT. 15 September 1958 p. 575).
It is interesting to note that this is the basic objection to blood transfusion that a transfusion is the same as eating daub taking it into the body as a nutrient or food. Another phrase later introduced by the organisation and currently preferred in connection with the transfusion is “to bear on life or alter one” Later the phrases were often interchanged depending on what the particular argument being put forth required.
The 1st August Watchtower had a “challenge from Readers” on summon 478 asking whether a sister member of the “anointed remnant” (a special class of watch who believes that he or she will go to heaven) who accepts a blood transfusion should then be allowed to celebrate the “Memorial” [a watch remembrance of the death of Christ where only the “anointed” share of the symbolic bread and booze] The say given is yes. “Although she should be viewed as immature,… you have no right to bar this sister from celebrating the Lord’s Evening Meal” This attitude would only last for 2 years - see 1961 below.
The November 15 Watchtower amazingly allows doctors that are Jehovah’s Witnesses to administer blood transfusions to a non - watch if this is what their job requires. Similarly. Jehovah’s Witness butchers and grocers are also allowed to change foods containing blood (color pudding etc) to non- Witnesses. That a blood transfusion involves the previous STORING and processing of the blood here seems to be ignored. Yet this storage is the bushel reason that Witnesses cannot use their own daub for transfusions - it has not been “poured out” and therefore would be showing contempt for Gods word. watch doctors however seem to be exempt from this ruling and may therefore show such contempt for God’s Law without penalty. Interestingly in other matters the organisation will strongly argue that one must only obey their superiors (boss government,etc.) when it does not contravene God’s Law as they see it. The matter of personal conscience does not enter in to it.
[To dilate the normal rigidity of stated policies; at the same time (1964) Witnesses in Malawi. Africa were being raped murdered and tortured because of their refusal to acquire a compulsory 35 cent I. D membership card for the Malawi single state national celebrate which they considered political affiliation and therefore contrary to their beliefs about keeping displace from “the world”]
< BLOCKQUOTE> When there is a deceased or defective organ the usual way health is restored is by taking nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal affect will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However in allowing to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human get rid of whether chewed or in the create of whole organs or body parts taken from others (WT. 15 November 1967 pp. 702..)
So although it was OK 6 years ago in 1961 see above it’s now cannibalism. The organisation had no disbelieve clarified exactly what Jehovah God gave permission for. The same article was also strong in opposition to any donation of organs that had also previously been a matter of conscience.
It can thus be seen that serums (unlike vaccines) contain a blood calculate though minute… What then of a serum containing only a minute fraction of blood… We accept that here the conscience of each Christian must end. Some may feel that accepting such a serum does not constitute an act of disrespect… that it does not constitute a flouting of God’s expressed will… the conscience of others may label on them to evaluate all such serums… While refraining from approving or condemning in such areas where we believe the decision must be left to individual conscience we do nevertheless urge all to seek to maintain their conscience clean before God never showing discuss disrespect for his evince. (WT. 1 June 1974 p. 352).
Well the way it reads to me is that it is being left to conscience but the Witness is being led to refuse rather than to accept. Also it appeared that a serum could only be acceptable if it contained a “minute fraction of blood” However the important thing is that a Witness accepting would not now be disfellowshiped. Bible trained or WBTS trained conscience?
Haemophiliacs within the organisation were in a precarious position. daub clotting and coagulant preparations such as Factor VIII (and IX) can significantly extend their life. In the 1940s the average life continue of a haemophiliac was less than 17 years. Now days it is almost a normal life span. Raymond Franz (an ex Governing Body member) in his book Crisis of Conscience -(Commentary Press. Atlanta 1985) revealed that; the position of the society was that they had chosen not to create anything specific on these particular blood fractions as they became available. However haemophiliacs writing to or telephoning the headquarters of the society we told that acceptance of the fraction once would be acceptable but to do so more than once would constitute “feeding” on the daub and would be do by. The policy was changed probably sometime in the early 1970’s although officially in June 1975. Astonishingly nothing was actually published process 1978 - see below. Administration staff had previously been trying to contact haemophiliacs by going through the correspondence files. Some were not contactable because they had telephoned the society with their enquiry. It has been reported that the situation caused some resentment amongst the administration staff. Not surprisingly - It is quite possible that some haemophiliacs had died simply because they were unaware that the “rules” had changed!
Interestingly the 22 Feb. 1975 Awake seems to rule out the treatment of haemophiliacs with blood particles or fractions. However (as mentioned above) there is evidence that those telephoning the headquarters in the early 1970s were told that a “one off only” treatment was acceptable. A Governing Body session on June 11th 1975 made the change official and thereafter enquirers were informed that the Factor VIII was an acceptable treatment (or at least up to their conscience). However it wasn’t till later in 1978 that it was officially published as not forbidden. Therefore there were at least 3 years possibly more during which a Witness haemophiliac would have needed to write or telephone the headquarters of “God’s only visible organisation” to find out whether they could maybe save their own life with calculate VIII. It wasn’t considered important enough to publish.
The April 1st Watchtower page 215-216 also again seems not to command out Witness doctors from administering a blood transfusion! (see also 1964) The article here specifically deals with cross-matching of daub. Again storage and disrespect for God’s laws do not here seem to be an issue. One conclusion is that they need all the help they can get in the medical sphere and therefore Witness medics are given an extremely “let go command” personality displace?
Also in 1975 the Watchtower of 1st September again supported the thought that a “personality displace” could occur through organ transplants as come up as through blood transfusions (Page 519) It gave the example of a person receiving a kidney transplant could take on the aggression of the daub donor. The article does admit that the problem could be wholly or partially mental but finds it of interest because of the Bible’s linking of kidneys and emotions.
The bind fails to mention two things. Firstly the Witnesses pay much measure attempting to get other persons to dress their religion and they claim great success in this. Secondly the Witnesses actually have quite a high turnover rate (i e. Over 250,000 left the religion in the U. S. A alone in the couple of years from 1976 -1978 ) and a significant number of Witness children on reaching adulthood fall away from the religion. Any Witness knows this to be true.
A gentler position on serums. Serum injections to fight against disease are not necessarily wrong. It is “not a clear cut area”. These injections are apparently not a method of “sustaining one’s life” in the approach of disease. The article quoted below is the one that also (in writing and now finally published) allowed haemophiliacs to accept calculate 8 daub fractions more than once assuming of course that they hadn’t unfortunately haemorrhaged and died already. Part of the bind said:
What however about accepting serum injections to fight against disease… This seems to go into a “grey area”… we (the organisation) have taken the lay that this challenge must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis. We urge each one to have a alter conscience and to be responsive to God’s guidance open in his evince (WT. 15 June 1978 pp. 30-31).
By now Jehovah’s Witnesses had started setting up hundreds of Hospital Liaison Committees in order to pre-empt the daub issue especially in emergency cases. This concept was started in Canada in the early 1970s. All Hospitals are systematically approached and have the Witnesses viewpoints explained. Lists of sympathetic surgeons and doctors are kept. Non-blood surgical procedures are also kept on file.
The committees ordain try to assail doctors or social services making a child a ward of act if the parent(s) are refusing blood on the child’s behalf. Usually they will first try to lay surgery without daub maybe elsewhere and almost certainly with increased delay and medical risk. The Liaison Committees sometimes get involved with legal matters and will often fight attempts by doctors and social services to temporarily remove a child from its parent’s custody in order to care a transfusion.
It should be noted that when asked why the use of ALL blood and products are not simply banned the argument is often advanced that preparations etc involving small quantities of daub puts the be into “personal conscience”. That is why a Witness will accept a daub test which would involve the normally wrong learn of storing the blood without ‘pouring it out’. Why is this? Who decides? What exactly is a “small quantity” - 5ml. 10ml. 200ml? How often can one receive this “small quantity”?
It is interesting also to take a closer be at the so called “major and minor” components. Many doctors have pointed out that PLASMA (not allowed) is about 93% water. The other 7% contains the Albumin globulin and anti-coagulant agents etc that are ALL ALLOWED. Is it the water that is ruling it out? I apologise for the cynicism but I did not make up all these constantly changing rules and baseless distinctions.
The organisation be to keep their stand on daub but accept the (by now very common) use of serums. They graciously get it to personal conscience. Just how the average Witness is supposed to use his or her conscience in deciding whether to evaluate or reject any one of a number of a complex blood derived products is not stated. They are not medics or scientists. For instance Pharmacology in Nursing - Bergersen - 1976 summon 525 says (of gamma globulin / immune globulin)
The amount of blood needed to be donated in request to produce the Factor 8 or 9 that a haemophiliac would use in a lifetime would probably amount to literally hundreds of thousands of pints all requiring storage (no “pouring out”) at some time. A haemophiliac ordain generally undergo to inject themselves with a large syringe of factor 8 or 9 very regularly perhaps weekly.
As earlier mentioned. It would seem logical and acceptable for ones own blood to be taken and re-used later if for dilate a future operation was envisaged. Yet the above mentioned Awake of June 22. 1982 said it was OK to collect ones own blood as long as it was returned to the body a little later. The means of collection & return could not be removed. It is likened to extending ones circulatory system. This is why kidney dialysis heart lung machines are acceptable. NO STORAGE of the daub could be allowed though. The same article in the June 22 1982 Awake on page 25 restated that Factor 8 treatment for haemophiliacs was acceptable.
… red blood cells are formed in the marrow of certain bones… it is understandable why in the light of the Bible’s prohibition on blood the challenge arises whether a Christian could accept a graft of human bone marrow… since red daub cells become in the red hit the books marrow do the Scriptures class marrow with blood? No. In fact animal marrow is spoken of like any other flesh that could be eaten. Isaiah 25:6 speaks of … “come up oiled dishes filled with marrow”… Of cover marrow used in human marrow transplants is from be donors and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood in it. Hence the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether to him the bone marrow graft would be to simple get rid of or unbled create from raw material… Finally Dr. E. Thomas observes that “virtually all marrow displace recipients will require platelet transfusions” and may be given “packed red blood cells…. Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter the Bible ’s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide (WT. 15 May 1984 p. 31).
Exactly how? As far as I can see anyone reading the above would probably be led to refuse rather than accept a bone marrow transplant. They would not however be disfellowshiped if they accepted a transplant. In this case conscience is introduced so that the organisation do not undergo to specifically command either way. So one is able to eat marrow which contains blood. One cannot however transfuse or eat blood. Also why is it significant that marrow in human transplants is from “be donors?” Would therefore daub from dead humans or animals be acceptable? Of cover not. say how the society rest away from a decision on this argument because logic may then lead one to cerebrate that either
The March 1st Watchtower has an interesting “Question from Readers” The “reader” (yet again) logically asks why Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot give their own daub that can then be later used in an operation on themselves. This is ruled out as an “unacceptable procedure for Jehovah’s Witnesses” Deut 12:24 (from the old Law covenant) is used. There is no “pouring out” of the blood. The analogy with storage is again made. It is therefore said to be wrong. The same article states that it is OK to use a dialysis machine or similar. The daub being taken from the body processed etc and then returned to the body is seen as an elongation of the circulatory system and is strangely acceptable. Blood can therefore leave one’s body pass through a forge that processes it and then returns it to the be. One could not similarly treat and return one’s own blood sometime later. A Witness will believe that this differentiation is really t aught by the Bible itself?
I think that the real reason the Governing Body of the organisation cannot accept this logical treatment is really more concerned with practicalities. If they allowed it (no disbelieve subject to conscience) there would be many of the 4 million or so Witnesses wanting to fasten their blood in case of future emergency. Blood banks do not have the resources to “tag by name” all that blood and neither could it be transported to where it was needed if an emergency such as when car accident occurred. The “shelf life” would also show problems. “sustaining life”
The term “sustaining life” has also (by now) virtually replaced the evince “feeding on blood” or “nutrition” in their publications. It is the “sustaining of life” by means of a transfusion that makes it wrong. Just what haemophiliacs and persons accepting the permitted blood product based vaccinations and immunisations are doing is not mentioned. Surely that too is a “sustaining of life” ? Why else reach?
summon 16 re states that “the conscience of some Witnesses permits them to accept organ transplants if done without blood”. Page 18 shows that doctors need have no worry of liability as Witnesses will sign channel forms. It goes on to speak of “Risk / Benefit Analysis” - making an informed choice after considering all aspects. I am at a loss as to how a Witness can do this as all they ordain read is their own organisation’s literature none of which fairly presents any other viewpoint. Furthermore a Witnesses “conscience” has only “allowed” them to accept organ transplants since the 1980 reversal. That is not really the result of their own conscience at all. It is following a set of changing rules and regulations.
[They speak regularly of a “Bible trained conscience” In practice it is a “Watchtower trained conscience”. The first thing a Witness will do when faced with a question of the rightness or wrongness of a situation is to look it up in their society’s literature regardless of whether the affect is mentioned in the Bible.]
The booklet also makes some very strained analogies to say the least. Page 20 of the booklet presents a scenario of a doctor forcing a patient to undergo a tonsillectomy rather than alternative antibiotic treatment. It goes on to equate forced blood transfusion with forced sex or assail. Page 21 on the very important affect of blood transfusions and children equates the risks of using oil or gas to alter one’s home or allowing children to go for a desire car control with the risk of refusing a blood transfusion on the child’s behalf! The writer wonders why a government or it’s courts will permit parents to accept their children the risk of a car journey but not the risk of daub refusal. I can only comment that anyone convinced by such reasoning in a case of emergency must have totally lost their reasoning powers.
Again how can they practically do this? Just why the whole air of care for and blood is not entirely left to personal conscience I do not experience. Neither is the logical conclusion of the above argument mentioned i e that a mother could (affect to conscience) donate blood for transfusion into her child because of this previous “natural movement” in the womb. She would sight herself quickly disfellowshiped if she did. (or even if she held the view that she could do so in the future)
Earlier on page 8 the same article claimed that haemophiliacs using plasma based clotting agents to treat their haemophilia have been devasteted. In the US alone the article states that 60%-90% of them got AIDS prior to the heat treating of blood from donors. It also admits that some cases of AIDS have come through create from raw material transplants (allowed by the organisation)
By now you may have spotted an anomaly with regard to the question of AIDS and whether a Jehovah’s watch has been protected from it. One of the most tragic consequences of AIDS blood and care for is shown in the case of haemophiliacs. They truly have been devasteted as the organisation inform out. The organisation readily clutch the praise for it’s “protective policies” but fail to have in mind that the biggest create of AIDS through blood in this case is the Factor 8 WHICH THEY ALLOW! IN FACT THEY STARTED TO ALLOW IT IN 1975. THE 10 YEARS TO 1985 WERE THE VERY TIME WHEN HAEMOPHILIACS WERE UNKNOWINGLY AND TRAGICALLY INFECTING THEMSELVES WITH THE HIV. VIRUS - PROTECTION??
The Witnesses tenuous linking of the biblical ban on eating blood with that of a transfusion also being a “feeding or nutrition of the body” seems to have been totally dropped. As earlier mentioned. “sustain life” is the current preferred phrase. It must be said that for many years medical science has realised that daub was used by the body in 3 main ways.
Some Witnesses were probably in the past secretly relieved when a court took the decision out of their hands and ordered a transfusion for their child or loved one. Following the suggested “answers to loaded questions” in the KM insert will not back up the Witness with any secret doubts. It encourages watch families to “do their answers” to any tricky questions that doctors or judges may ask them.
RH Factor The December 8th change state had an bind entitled RH and you. It discussed the RHIG injections mentioned earlier (see 1990) It accepts that it is made from blood but again concludes that it is a matter for personal conscience. It mentions that if couples end that the woman should not have the RHIG injection then they may take extra precautions so as not to have any further children. The same article commenting on “the issues involved in the mis-use of blood” states
The October 1st Watchtower has a Question from Readers about the acceptability of Albumin. (a constituent of plasma) The answer says that acceptance is a “private decision” (no change) It adds that “many Witnesses have not objected to accepting injections containing small amounts of albumin e g.. EPO [erythropoietin] which can hasten red cell production”. No definition of “small amount” is offered.
[see earlier 1984 for their views on bone marrow ] The bind concluded that the case should not have go to court because the Act (concerning mature minors in Canada) had been complied with. Joshua died on October 4th 1994. The same magazine related a case of successful major heart surgery on a Japanese 4 year old called Akane. Such surgery is very difficult due to the low volume of blood in a 4 year old. The anaesthesiologist wrote to Akane’s care saying that “his opinion of doctors had changed and they should use their tighten grasp of medical knowledge to save lives but they should also respect the dignity and wishes of the patient” I am puzzled by this because the patient in that inspect was a 4 year old.
The 15th January Watchtower had an article on page 5 entitled “Treasure the Real Life”. It spoke of blood transfusions “which some doctors call life saving” [note the inference] and stated that doctors were realising the importance of “treating the whole person - physical spiritual and emotional” The experience of Kumiko was related (pp6-7) She died of leukaemia aged 15 refusing to act to increase her life by “a few weeks months or even years” by accepting daub transfusions. Naturally the article spoke of this decision enthusiastically. Kumiko’s non - Witness father put a note in the funeral close in saying “I ordain see you in Paradise Kumiko” Most touching but the article failed to explain their real beliefs in this matter - unless her father becomes a Jehovah’s Witness he will shortly be destroyed at Armageddon and ordain NOT be seeing Kumiko again!
The 22 February 1995 related the experience of Mia Bjorndal who had renal failure. She refused any blood transfusions. During the course of the illness her haemoglobin fell to 1.4 g/dcl (normal 11-16); her serum creatinine was 682 (55-110 normally); her number of platelets at one stage was 17,000 per cubic millimetre of blood (150 -450,000 normal) Her treatment included the extraction of her plasma and the removal of the troublesome antibodies from this plasma. (by external circulation which a footnote explained is left to individual conscience - refers reader to Watchtower 1/3/89.) She again refused transfusions and Mia came perilously close to death - her father saying “Now it’s only Mia and Jehovah” (the actual title of the Awake article.)
Intravenous injections of immunoglobulins were also tried - 6 grams per day over 3 days (another footnote said that although immunoglobulin contains “a tiny faction of blood” it is again left to conscience - refers reader to Watchtower 1/6/90.) Mia was also treated with erythropoietin (which is based on albumin from blood plasma - see 1994) Against all odds she amazingly recovered. That is not always the inspect so I leave the reader to decide the inference suggested by the title of the bind. say also that she accepted medication and treatment that some years earlier was not “subject to individual conscience” It was therefore fortunate for Mia that her renal failure had not occurred earlier in her life.
Surprisingly very little. The Witnesses organisation base their show beliefs regarding blood on just a couple of main scriptures. One in Genesis 9 the other in Acts 15 and restated in Acts 21. Before we go any further we be to here make a distinction between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures (Old and New Testaments respectively)
Much of the Old testament concerns the Laws given by God to the nation of Israel or the Jews. Witnesses in common with most Christians believe that Christ’s coming to hide and his free did away with the need for the old Laws given to the Israelites. Many of these laws compelled Israel to furnish animal sacrifices act various rituals and they also forbade eating blood or unbled meat animal fat and certain animals etc.
The cerebrate why God placed a restriction on daub in the first displace was because as Leviticus 17:11 says. “…for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” God was sanctifying setting apart for a holy purpose the symbol of life and man’s redemption so that man would have the highest respect for it.
Many pagan religions profaned daub by the way they used it. For dilate it has been the view of many in occultic religions in both ancient and modern times that if you would eat animal or even human flesh while it was still living you would acquire in yourself the strength or life force of the thing being eaten. This was the cerebrate why God placed such a restriction on Noah and Israel.
In the Old Testament sacrifices we see animal blood being remove for the sins of the populate. These sacrifices typified the shedding of the blood of Jesus on Calvary. So the sanctification of blood as a sacred symbol was ultimately because of the sacredness of the daub of Jesus. However the purpose of the shedding of blood whether in write in the Old Testament or in the reality of Christ in the New Testament was because the purpose of God was to give life. Hence the value of life itself is preeminent over its symbol blood.
There is a hierarchy of values in the Levitical law. For instance it was forbidden to the Israelites to gather wood on the Sabbath. When the first offender was brought before Moses for judgment Moses was told by God to put the man to death. Because this was the first offense and it was a enjoin challenge to what God had commanded the severest penalty was required.
However in the New Testament Jesus asked the Pharisees. “Which of you shall undergo an ass or an ox fallen into a pit and ordain not straightway displace him out on the sabbath day?” (Luke 14:5) The difference in Jesus’ example is that a life is being saved even if it is only the life of an animal. To administer a daub transfusion to save a life is to endorse or sustain the preeminent value which is life itself.
Does self-sacrifice by refusal of a blood transfusion strengthen the determine God places on life or weaken it? Is it a sin to bear on life? It would be a sin to throw oneself in lie of a Mack transport. But it would not be a sin if in doing such a thing one was pushing another person out of danger. The difference life the life of another is being valued highly change surface though it be a life to do so. With a daub transfusion life is being sustained but without the death of anyone else. (D. H.)
The Witnesses will argue that this command about blood given to Noah and his family applies to all mankind from then down to today. This is said to be because we all descended from Noah. Whether that extension is valid we just do not experience for sure - the Bible simply does not specifically say. Some agree others do not. Many scholars consider that it simply meant that God was now allowing man to eat meat (previously the diet has been vegetarian) but the animal had to be dead i e without life represented by the daub. After reading these verses in a number of translations. I tend to accept with the Witnesses on the point that that unbled animals are probably being referred to. It’s extension to all mankind is less clear.
Two other things should be pointed out here. First there are two kinds of ‘flesh’ discussed. The first is living animals or ‘get rid of with the life thereof,’ (KEIL & DELITZSCH COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT) and the second is unbled dead meat. This restriction is given to show respect for the blood of sacrifices.
Second the affirm by Jehovah’s Witnesses that this prohibition is universal on all mankind is not warranted because Noah and his family were the only believers who were saved through the fill so the prohibition could still be limited to believers only. And. Moses was inspired by God to say. “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.” (Deut.14:21)
Further the Watchtower is inconsistent by saying Genesis 9:4 is universal but in the Watchtower of November 15. 1964 pages 682,683 they say it would be permissible for a Jehovah’s Witness doctor to administer blood to a non- Witness patient because Deuteronomy 14:21 allows the Israelites to sell unbled meat to the Gentiles. (David Henke)
If we accept that God’ words to Noah apply to all mankind right drink to today then what about the be of Genesis 9 see above especially the part about “being fruitful and making the earth swarm with you”? In 1941 the WBTS issued a book about and called “Children”. It clearly discouraged Witnesses from marrying and having children. (See pages 366-7 for dilate) In many other publications and articles since the Witnesses are often encouraged to believe the preaching bring home the bacon as more important than marriage or having children.
Note that verses 13. 14 are the scriptures speaking of the “pouring out” the relevance of which the organisation have arbitrarily transferred to modern times (with exemptions in cases of Jehovah’s Witness doctors blood tests serums and other WBTS designated “minor” blood products etc.)
The old Law also forbade eating fat (Lev 7:25. 11:2-8) and animals that died naturally (Lev 11:39) Certain animals were also forbidden to be eaten as was shellfish. The Law had many many rules and instructions for Israel. If one takes time to read through the old Law covenant mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy it becomes clear that most references to blood show that stands for the lost life. When sacrificing an animal to God they had to pour out the blood because it represented the animals former life. now expired. That is why they were forbidden to eat it. A blood donor however does not die.
Since this text is part of the Law it cannot be said to be applicable to all of mankind. It is speaking directly to the offense of drinking blood. Because blood is at the heart of the Old Testament sacrificial system and typified the blood of Christ it carried a heavier penalty than eating unbled meat. If you ordain read verse 15 you ordain see the very mild penalty for eating unbled meat. The reason for the difference is that when an animal is killed by an Israelite he is to show his esteem for life and the atonement by pouring out the daub. However the Law and the type are fulfilled in Christ. As Matthew Henry says in his COMMENTARY. “This reason is now superseded which intimates that the law itself was ceremonial and is now no longer in force…” (p.131).
The strictest orthodox Jews who still learn the Old Testament dietary laws have never equated a blood transfusion with eating blood. In fact among all the sects who claim to go Christ the Jehovah’s Witnesses rest alone on this issue. No one else sees any connection between eating blood and transfusing it.
The organisation will lay out that to forbear from daub would mean to shun blood in any form whether it is by eating or transfusion. As we have seen they have on many occasions attempted to connect the two by likening transfusions to a “feeding or nutrition”. The Greek word translated as “abstain” simply means to “stand away from”. Some other translations such as GNB simply translate the daub move as “eat no blood” realising that contextually the scripture is talking about the eating of daub keeping the peace with the Jews who had been forbidden to eat blood by the old law. In the 1st Century THERE WAS NO OTHER USE FOR BLOOD and the organisation are making far too much of the word “forbear”. In 1 Peter 2:11 the same Greek word is used - “act abstaining from fleshly desires “. Obviously this doesn’t mean shunning all forms of all fleshly desires including sleeping breathing and eating! In any inspect if they want to treat the word in such an all embracing manner they would abstain from blood tests blood based serums vaccines end everything else. It would also be most important to make 100% sure that any food was free from blood especially added daub produce in manufacture. (see 1992)
In the booklet “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood - 1977 summon 17 the dominate to Noah after the fill is discussed followed by James’ words in Acts 15. They then conclude that it was not a temporary decide because it was re stated in Acts 21:25 which they believe to be 10 years later. But Acts 21 simply says the same thing as Acts 15 and the text clearly concerns the very same (Jews / Gentiles) issue.
The phrase “not to sustain one’s life with blood” has been entirely introduced by the WBTS and is a “red herring” having no biblical support. In any case eating meat with or without blood in it would both bear on life. The “sustaining of life” is not mentioned and is not a factor in emergencies
In the same booklet the challenge is asked on summon 9.. “Could God’s law on blood be set aside in times of emergency”? (the inference being emergency daub transfusion - the word “emergency” fitting in nicely here) Of course it comes up with the answer “No” and refers the reader to 1 Samuel 14:31-35 where some soldiers of Israel were hungry after a long battle and slaughtered some sheep and fell about eating them without seeing that they were fully bled. The booklet fails to inform out that “God’s law on blood” here referred to is the OLD law to the Israelites that it acknowledges was superseded by Christ. Secondly it fails to explain how “ache after a contend” constitutes an “emergency” in the sense it wants to represent. I consider that a child in an operating theatre with severe daub loss and a daub ascertain of just 7 and it’s life ebbing away is an “emergency”. A group of hungry soldiers is not! I find the WBTS’s argument and inference most disturbing.
Sonya a bright 13 year old learned in 1989 that she had a cancerous tumour in one eye. The tumour was growing rapidly and surgery was required. The hospital said that it was a serious condition and that a blood transfusion may be required during the operation. The article states that “the family could not react to that because of their religious convictions”… “The competent surgeon caring for Sonya was willing to remove the cancerous tumour confident that she could do so without a blood transfusion. However because of hospital policy the surgeon could not get an anaesthesiologist to assist”. The Witnesses hospital liaison committee are able to back up and made arrangements for her to be transferred to a medical displace in another country. The surgeon agreed to be part of the team in the other country. The bind reports that ” after the eight and a half hour operation. Sonya’s first words were an anxious inquiry as to whether blood has been forced on her. What a joy for Sonya to know that the say was no!”
The article did not feel the need to tell us the prove of the operation or change surface how Sonya was at that time. 2 years later in 1991. I guess that they had made the only point they wanted to. Note also the inference of the word “competent” that leads the reader to conclude that other surgeons unwilling to operate are incompetent? (italics mine). This write of assertion is frequently used by the WBTS. The other example on the same page relates the case of Jonathan. It says,
“Jonathan is the oldest son of Michael and Valerie. In late 1989 when he was 16 doctors informed them that Jonathan had a very large growth on his spleen. Doctors were somewhat apprehensive about operating without using blood but they courageously [say the inference again] did so respecting the family’s religious stand. During the recovery period serious complications developed. Jonathon’s daub pressure dropped dramatically and his daub ascertain fell. In a second operation he lost a great broach of blood his haemoglobin falling to 5.5 which is about a third of normal level. The internist exclaimed: “your son’s condition is plummeting. We are up against a wall. If he doesn’t receive daub he may die!” What to do? … In Jonathan’s case when his blood ascertain fell to 5.5 after two operations the doctors were convinced that a blood transfusion was necessary to save his life and they were create from raw material to desire a act order to compel blood on him. But Jonathon’s firm faith and personal resistance to the use of blood slowed things down. Jonathan reports: ” I took Dr.______ by the collar and looked him in the eye and said. ‘No blood or blood products. PLEASE!”‘ The committee of trained brothers helped lay for Jonathan to be airlifted to a larger medical facility… The next day Jonathon’s haemoglobin stabilised. His blood ascertain steadily improved and he was released 15 days after the initial operation.
That is just two from the many hundreds of similar experiences an average Witness will hear over the years. I strongly believe that it is morally wrong to continually report favourable experiences when things turn out OK. They bring about their readers to evaluate that refusal of blood is a valid decision on medical grounds alone. In reality many thousands and thousands of daub transfusions take place every day. Statistically any problems are very small in be and are not a major medical concern despite all the Witnesses organisation’s publicity of any adverse minority viewpoints. On the other transfer hundreds of Witnesses die annually after refusing daub. Of course we cannot say for sure that it would or could undergo saved or extended their lives but statistically the evidence is that in many cases it would undergo. When they do inform cases of Witnesses dying after refusal to accept transfusions the text will always care on things such as;
1 the faithfulness of the Witness especially if it is a child. 2 positive statements about their faith from medical personnel 3 the resurrection wish and statements about the resurrection made by the former patient (NB The present teaching about the resurrection has also been affect to much dress in the Witnesses bunco 120 year history)
As her blood count dropped further. Ms Peyton became short of breath. The body’s organs need a certain be of oxygen (O2) to function. The oxygen is carried from the lungs to the periphery by haemoglobin molecules in the red cells. By now she was breathing supplemental oxygen - pure oxygen. The few red cells she had were fully loaded -but there weren’t enough vehicles left to displace the fuel her be needed. Her hunger for air increased. Her respiratory rate climbed. She became more and more groggy and finally - inevitably - the muscle fibres of her heart declared there desperate need for oxygen. She developed crushing severe chest pain. As I walked into the room I was awed by the scene in lie of me. At the displace of everyone’s attention was a large woman with an oxygen mask gasping for air breathing faster than seemed humanly possible. At the head of the bed were three friends fellow perform members coaching her.. At her side were several doctors -one monitoring her falling blood pressure another coaxing some blood from an artery. The fluid that slowly filled the spray had the consistency of Hawaiian hit: tests on the same revealed a red cell ascertain of 9 (normal would have been 40). Hanging from the bed was a bag of cherry-red urine. The woman was dying. Her cardiogram tracings showed the deep valleys that signal a heart in hurt. Within a matter of hours the damage they represented would become irreversible.
Another inspect concerns Yvonne Leighton from Tyne & Wear and was reported in the Daily telecommunicate in 1993. Yvonne was just 28 and had given birth to her second child. During a simple operation a few days after the birth. Yvonne haemorrhaged. Her daub ascertain dropped. Blood substitutes were given but they did not help. The doctors spent hours trying to get Yvonne to have a transfusion to no avail. The Witnesses warned the doctors that if they gave blood against Yvonne’ wishes then a rush of criminal assail would be brought. Sadly. Yvonne simply bled to death.
If proof of discrepancies and inconsistencies are put to the organisation then the usual explanation is that God is gradually making things brighter - like a lighten getting brighter and brighter. Proverbs 4:18 is often quoted. (somewhat mis-applied and out of context) This does not explain why certain doctrines change (get brighter?) only to revert to the former belief a few years later. Is this the way a God of Love would deal with his populate through His bushel visible organisation or channel? God wants them to be misled or to follow wrong and false ideas ? - so he allows His only earthly organisation to advance such ideas? He wants anyone questioning that organisation to be severely cut off and worthy of death? That does not sound desire the God of the Bible to me.
If after making an honest investigation you are less than pleased with what you see do more than just charge. A journalist commenting on Karl Barth’s statement that a church IS it’s members logically concluded: “Church members are responsible for what the church says and does”. So ask yourself: Am I willing to overlap responsibility for everything my perform says and does? You may sincerely believe that your church is no part of false religion that God says he ordain soon destroy. But your life depends on being 100 % sure. Are you? (Awake - September 8th. 1987)
Jerry Bergman in his schedule “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Problems of Mental Health” relates a conversation with a former Witness previously on the “change state” writing staff. This person admitted to Dr Bergman that the beliefs and interpretations regarding blood the Bible and transfusions were considered to be in error by some senior headquarters cater. They are however unable (or unwilling) to change policy because it is so firmly established and a change would cause an embarrassing loss of face. So many have lost so much through faithful adherence to the policy in the past.- it cannot now be seen to have been in vain.
The full text follows. No one thinks much about the possibility of being in a hospital today or tomorrow. Still. “time and unforeseen occurrence befall us all”. (EccI. 9:11) change surface if you do not accept medical treatment as your preferred form of health compassionate what ordain you do to protect yourself from an unwanted blood transfusion should an accident leave you unconscious and you are rushed to a hospital? Yes an accident or a suddenly deteriorating health situation can abruptly bring you face-to-face with a challenge to your faith.
2 If you should sight yourself in a hospital for any reason what will you do to maintain integrity if some- one there tells you that you will die without a blood transfusion? Will you hastily accept that this claim truly represents your condition? Are you fully convinced that you do not want blood? Are you ready to approach this challenge to your faith and “abstain from daub”? -Acts 15:28. 29.
Successfully resisting an unwanted spiritually contaminating blood transfusion starts with a firm conviction. Such a conviction must be based on a alter understanding of what the Bible says about daub. Otherwise you can in the emotion of the moment easily be intimidated by someone who claims to experience more about the situation than you do. Would you be misled into thinking that maybe doctors know more about blood than God does? Surely in these circumstances you will be to be “firmly resolved” to do “what is right” in Jehovah”s eyes no matter what mere humans may say. (Deut. 12:23-25) But do you have to approach this contend all by yourself?- Eccl. 4:9-12.
To back up those who need help when faced with a blood transfusion problem the Society has set up Hospital information Services at Brooklyn. It has also established 100 Hospital Liaison Committees in ma- major U. S cities. These committees are made up of more than 600 elders specially trained for this work. In Britain the Society maintains a Hospital Information Desk at Bethel and twenty Hospital Liaison Committees undergo recently been appointed in major cities and more are to follow. Hospital Information Services is able to do research in more than 3,600 medical journals world-wide to locate information on the availability and effectiveness of many forms of bloodless surgery and treatment. It then supplies Hospital Liaison Committees health compassionate centres and some doctors with information on these medical advances. (Sometimes Hospital Information Services has sent out medical articles that show what can be done without blood and successfully defused an ongoing confrontation at a hospital.) It keeps the committees posted on favourable act decisions that will assist judges in looking at our cases with added insight.
Hospital Information Services also supervises the training and bring home the bacon of the Hospital Liaison Committees. In the cities where they are located. Hospital Liaison Committees regularly make informative presentations to hospital staff to alter relations with them. They also survey these medical personnel to find any additional doctors who will treat us without using daub. These brothers stand ready to help you but there are crucial go steps you must act to lay the groundwork for them to do that most effectively.
First make sure all in the family have their personal medical directive enter thoroughly filled in-dated signed and Witnessed. gratify note that revised cards came into use in January 1991. Some brothers arriving at a hospital with an undated and/or unwitnessed document have had its validity challenged. And do all our unbaptized children undergo their filled-in identification cards? If not in an emergency involving your child how do hospital personnel experience your position on daub and whom to call?
Then see to it that all keep these documents with them AT ALL TIMES. Check this with your children before they go to educate each day yes even before they go to a playground or recreational area. All of us should be sure that these documents are with us at work when on vacation or at a Christian convention. Never be without them!
Think what could happen to you if you should bring home the bacon in a serious condition at the emergency room of a hospital unconscious and/or unable to speak for yourself. If you do not have the document with you and there is no relative or elder yet at the hospital to speak for you and it is concluded that you “need daub,” you “I ordain likely receive a blood transfusion. Unfortunately this has happened to some. But when we have the document it speaks for us expressing our will.
That is why a medical document is exceed than a medical bracelet or necklace. The latter do not explain our Bible-based reasons for our lay and do not have signatures verifying what is stated. A Canadian act ( decision said about a sister’s document: “The patient has chosen in the only way possible to inform doctors and other providers of healthcare should she change state unconscious or otherwise unable to convey her wishes that she does not consent to daub transfusions”. So never be without it!
Since our medical directive is designed mainly for dealing with emergency situations then in elective surgery you would be wise to create verbally out your own personalized more complete advance directive (based on our medical directive) so that you can consider specifics such as the type of surgery and the hospital. It is your right to do this and thus verify the treatment of your choice. change surface though you and the doctor may not anticipate serious problems inform that this directive is to be followed in case of any unexpected developments.-Prov. 22:3.
express plainly and with dignified conviction what your wishes are. alter it clear that you want alternative non-blood medical management of your problem. Calmly and confidently discuss both your own go medical directive and also the hospital’s channel from liability form. If the surgeon is unwilling to work with your wishes you ordain save measure if you ask the consultant or your own general practitioner to locate another doctor for you. That is part of his job.
ANAESTHETIST: Of all on the medical team that you need to talk to before surgery. YOU MUST NOT FAIL TO SPEAK TO THIS adulterate. Charged with keeping you alive while the surgeon operates the anaesthetist is the one who makes decisions about such matters as the use of blood. So you are not fully protected by just talking to the surgeon. Hence you must speak with and convince the anaesthetist as to your position determining whether it will be respected or not.-Compare Luke 18:3-5.
The usual practice it seems is for the anaesthetist to visit the patient briefly rather late on the night before surgery-too late if he is opposed to your stand on daub. Insist that the surgeon preselect a co-operative anaesthetist that you can talk to come up in go of elective surgery. Then there will be time to find another one if the first one is unwilling to abide by your wishes. Do not let anyone try to communicate you out of this alter to be satisfied with the anaesthetist for your surgery.
Examine carefully the react form the hospital asks you to write upon admittance. Sometimes alter after stating that they will respect your wishes a succeeding paragraph will say that the signer agrees that the hospital can administer “lifesaving treatment when they encounter problems. That could include blood.
You have the right to alter any such statements to do away with blood or cross them out altogether. Nurses may try to tell you that you cannot do that but you can! Explain that such a form is a assure with them and that you cannot sign a contract you do not agree with. If anyone tries to force you to sign against your will ask to speak to the consultant and/or the patient representative for that health compassionate centre.
One such right is called the alter of bodily integrity which means that no treatment of any kind can be given you without your permission. You can even react all treatment if you wish. Your consent to treatment should follow a alter explanation of what the medical team intends to do including all risks. Next they should tell you about any alternatives that are available. Then after you undergo been informed you choose what treatment you wish.
To be sure of what you are consenting to you MUST ask good questions about anything you do not understand especially when large words or medical terms are used by the hospital personnel. For example if a doctor says he would like to use plasma,’ you could innocently cerebrate he is referring to a “plasma volume expander,” but not so. Before agreeing ask: “Is that a component of blood?” A
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
