Dear Friends,
In today's edition of the Lafayette, Indiana Journal and Courier newpaper, my letter to the editor was printed in response to an article printed on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 entitled "Bloodless Medicine." The article gave the impression that JWs have a total ban on blood transfusions. Since I know that is not true, and since I want JW's to know they have alternatives, albeit always changing alternatives, to following the JW implied total ban on transfusions, I tried in 250 words or less to let them know of first the alternatives (transfusions of blood fractions) and second, the total hypocrisy of the JW ban. Of course I think the Society should abandon its policy altogether, but they won't. But I don't think their policy should be celebrated for the times people live without blood transfusions; the policy should be condemned for the times good people die for adhering to JW rules.
link the the letter: http://www.lafayettejc.com/news20050219/200502191local_opinion1108790919.shtml
link to the article: http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/2005/LT050121.html
Because these links are often temporary, the letter is reprinted below.
Jehovah's Witnesses and bloodless surgery
Formerly a faithful Jehovah's Witness, I was drawn to the Feb. 15 article, "Bloodless medicine." The article implied that Jehovah's Witnesses have an outright ban on accepting blood transfusions. While many Jehovah's Witnesses think this is true, in the June 15, 2000, issue of the Watchtower magazine, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the legal name for Jehovah's Witnesses, loosened the ban to allow transfusions of what they call "blood fractions."
Quoting the Watchtower: "Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to 'abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.' (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. ... Some Christians may conclude that ... they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells."
So transfusions of whole blood are wrong, but fractions are OK? It is an overwhelming level of sadness to know that good people die and allow their children to die because they adhere to such a curious policy. Concerning the Jehovah's Witness policy on banning whole blood but allowing blood fractions, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, Raymond Franz, said, "It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, Page 288).
Bryan Coulter, West Lafayette