So what do you think? The whole blood fraction thing is rediculous, we all know that. But is it "warming" the R&F up for a shift to blood being a conscience decision?
Pay particular attention to the WT of 1980............. some interesting wording here folks!
Or gan Transplants are a conscience decision
*** w61 8/1p.480QuestionsFromReaders***
? Is there anything in the Bible against giving one’s eyes (afterdeath)to be transplanted to some living person?—L.C.,UnitedStates.
The question of placing one’s body or parts of one’s body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one’s death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement.
Organ Transplants are BAD
*** w67 11/15pp.702-704QuestionsFromReaders***
? Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?—W.L.,U.S.A.
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in 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 process 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 man 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 flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.
Organ Transplants are a conscience decision
*** w80 3/15p.31QuestionsFromReaders***
? Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
... The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
What does this have to do with BLOOD?
Here is the Watchtower’s history on the issue of blood
? 1940 Blood transfusions are acceptable
? 1945 Blood transfusion are not acceptable
? 1956 Blood serums should be treated as blood and are banned
? 1958 Blood serums and fractions acceptable
? 1959 Storage of own blood unacceptable
? 1961 Blood fractions are not acceptable
? 1964 Blood fractions are acceptable
? 1974 Blood serums are personal choice
? 1975 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are not acceptable
? 1978 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are acceptable
? 1982 Albumin is acceptable
? 1983 Hemodilution is acceptable
? 1990 Hemodilution is not acceptable (Blood Brochure)
? 1995 Hemodilution is acceptable
So after all this what is acceptable and what is not?
? Hemophilia preparations (Factor VII & IX)
? Whole blood
? White blood cell (Leukocytes)
? Red blood cells
? Storage of blood outside of the body
The reasoning and logic behind how the Watchtower decides what is acceptable and what is not seems somewhat flawed. If we consider their current policy with
regard plasma we see that it’s composition is made up of 92% water with the remaining 8% made up from Albumin, Immunoglobulins, fibrinogen and
So in fact every thing contained within blood plasma is on the Watchtower’s acceptable list but blood plasma on its own is not.
So one can assume that as long as a patient requiring plasma receives the principle components separately there is not a problem.
The ban on white blood (Leukocytes) cells is also illogical given that only 3 percent of a bodies total Leukocytes are contained in the blood system, with the
other 97% being distributed through the body tissue. As the Watchtower now allows for organ transplants a patient receiving one will actually receive into his
body more leukocytes from the tissue in the organ than they would if they had a blood transfusion. It is also worth noting that mother’s breast milk contains as much as
12 times more Leukocytes than that found in a similar quantity of blood.
The Watchtower makes a big deal out of their stance on blood when they talk about the benefits from abstaining from it. For example they state that from not
having a blood transfusion the patient protects themselves from the risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS that may have contaminated the blood. The Watchtower fail to point out that Hemophilia preparation which were the major cause of transfusion acquired AIDS is on Watchtower’s acceptable list.
Will BLOOD become a conscience decision like Organ Transplants did?
Blood Transfusions are a conscience decision (?) - article generated from 1980 article above
***w2015 3/15 p.31QuestionsFromReaders***
? Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a medical treatment involving the use of particular blood fractions or a combination of all blood fractions?
Regarding the transfusion of human blood from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transfused blood is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming blood through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood.
Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical use of blood. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human blood that would be transfused. It may be argued, too, that medical blood transfusions are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food.
Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of medical treatments involving blood. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of blood for medical use from humans where no life was taken. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted a blood transfustion.