GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill 25 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gill

  CoCo - Thanks! Solid substantiation is something that I need and it may well be that this will never be forthcoming. The persons I was discussing this with need solid substantiation and quotes that will stand up in a court and people who may well stand up with them.

  I suspect that many people 'in the know' on these things may well want to see the blood ban removed BUT want the Watchtower Society to continue and grow. This may not happen if their real reasons for continuing to allow the loss of life of their members for no good reason is ever revealled.

  However, there seems to be a lot of older Watchtower information on blood transfusions that may well yet bring them down.

  Thank you all. But still, any furthur info would be greatly appreciated.
• 

  Warren

  A new version of the blood card was published in June 2001. The cards were shipped to some congregations and probably a few were actually distributed to members who were baptized over the summer and fall in congregations that ran out of the older version.

  A few months later congregations were informed not to distribute these new cards, but rather destroy them. The difference is one line where the older March - 1999 card states "I direct that no blood transfusion (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or blood plasma) be given to me...," the June - 2001 version reads "I direct that no allogeneic blood transfusion (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or blood plasma) be given to me..." So the difference in the cards is the use of the word allogeneic in the June 2001 version.

  An "allogeneic" transfusion is one derived from the blood of a different person. The implication here is clear. The Watchtower Society stood at the threshold of permitting autologous whole blood transfusions (transfusions of one's own blood) and for some reason, presently unknown, suddenly shifted and stepped back.

  ..... Any who are still convinced that the WTS stands solidly behind this policy and are prepared to die defending the policy (or even worse - permit their children to die) have cause to soberly reflect on their support.

  This may be one of those situations where the governing body voted to permit Jehovah's Witnesses to use their own blood and put the wheels in motion to change the policy - only to have one member of the body change their mind at the last second and call for a re-vote.

  http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/bloodcard.htm
• 

  Gill

  Thank you, Warren!!

  I wonder what the average JW would have made of being able to store their own blood?

  To be honest, I would have been totally relieved about it and had less fear of surgery for myself and loved ones.

  It may yet happen that they feel they have to do this. It will be interesting to watch and see.
• 

  Warren

  Hi Gill,

  JW's are already allowed to have their blood stored, just not very long. Blood can be removed, stored, treated in some manner, and then transfused back into the patient if done within a single hospital stay. I have heard of procedures taking up to a day or two. Storing blood a couple of weeks is still forbidden. This is an arbitrary rule imposed by the Watchtower Society. There isn't a shred of scriptural or logical support for a rule that says blood can be stored a few hours but not a few weeks. That JW's are permitted to have blood fractions derived from donated blood but are forbidden from using their own blood is insane!
• 

  Gill

  Warren - The degradation of the 'No Blood Policy' is fascinating.

  It would be interesting to know how they came to their decisions on what fractions were permisable, how long blood could be stored or not etc. Did they drop lots in a hat? The whole thing has become laughable and nonsensical.

  There has to be some large change in the near future to sort this mess out. My guess is that the old blokes in Brooklyn will jump backwards to 'No Blood' at all and there will be no real changes or improvements for at least another ten years or so.

  Then again, I'm hoping for relatives that they will allow storage of ones own blood, but I'm not holding my breath.
• 

  Warren

  Like I said, JW's are already allowed to store their blood but the Watchtower Society thinks they have the right to put a time limit on it. They do so without a shred of scriptural or logical support. They have yet to explain why they think it's okay to store blood a few hours or even days but not weeks.
• 

  pandora

  Warren I'm sorry, but I don't fully understand the timeline you posted earlier. Which blood card are they using now? The one that says 'allogeneic' or the one that Doesn't use that word? Thanks. Pj
• 

  TD

  Gill,

  It would be interesting to know how they came to their decisions on what fractions were permisable, how long blood could be stored or not etc. Did they drop lots in a hat? The whole thing has become laughable and nonsensical.

  It's all semantic legerdemain ---wordgames. It's not based on the Bible and certainly not on science or logic.

  As long as the blood storage can be looked upon as an "ongoing" procedure, then it is permissible. For example, blood can be removed, taken to some other part of the building for testing and then reinfused. (An example where this might happen is blood gas analysis with premature infants.)

  But if the blood storage is a separate procedure, then it is not permissible (i.e. Predonation and storage prior to a surgical procedure.)

  Pandora,

  Current blood cards Do Not have the word "allogenic." Like Warren said, this would have left the door open to accepting autologous (Your own) blood.
• 

  pandora

  Thanks TD- I was confused because the dates seemed to say that the current cards have that word on them. Thank you for clearing that up. Pj
• 

  Mary

  Who was it who revealled that the Governing Body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?

  Are you sure you're thinking of the blood ban and not the Malawai incident? In CoC, Ray described that the majority of those on the GB had no problem with the brothers carrying the required "Party Card" but one asshole decided to change his vote at the last minute and they didn't get the 2/3rds majority vote. I don't recall the blood doctrine going through this, although I could be mistaken.

  I know Franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?

  My understanding is that up until 1945(?), taking a blood transfusion was a matter of conscience. Garybuss recently did a thread on this that as late as 1951, you didn't get the Axe for accepting a blood transfusion: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/136019/1.ashx

  As to when they made the official change, I'm not sure. You could always phone Crooklyn and ask them when Jehovah revealed to them that they were being way too easy on the brothers and needed to 'see the light'.