Bloodplates... Can it Really be Justified?

by mrbunyrabit 51 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  cofty

  mrbunyrabit - the answer that elder gave you makes no sense at all. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

  According to the Watchtower eating blood is a serious crime punishable with death under the Law.

  If an Israelite deliberately killed an animal for food and ate it without bleeding it he was to be "cut off" which most scholars consider to mean the death penalty.

  If an Israelite came across one of his sheep that had died of natural causes during the night he could not physically bleed it so he had a dilemma.

  If he buried the carcass he was unclean and had to bathe and change his clothes. If he decided not to waste the animal and cooked it and ate it he had to bathe and change his clothes.

  Exactly the same. No crime, no penalty.

  The only issue was uncleaness. If he had sex with his wife he was also unclean - no crime, no penalty just a requirement to observe purity rituals.

  If he willfully ignore purity rituals that was a problem and he would be "held responsible". Whether his uncleaness resutled from eating an animal "already dead" or from burying its carcass or from making love to his wife was not the issue. That is a complete red herring.

  If the elder thinks that christians ought to avoid doing stuff that god said caused uncleaness then he needs to give up sex and be sure never to touch a dead body.

  I explained in the article why it was a crime to kill and eat an animal unbled but only a matter of ceremonial uncleaness to eat an animal "already dead". Blood is only a symbol of life, when taking an animal's life god required that respect was shown for the giver of life by symbolically returning the life to god.

  This is also the reason blood had sacrificial value. You might want to read the article again and play devil's advocate with it. I believe it is bomb proof.

  ---

  Excerpt from article...

  So what’s the difference? If he had killed the sheep himself and ate it unbled he would be guilty of taking a life and not respecting the giver of life by returning it to god through the pouring out of its blood. But, if another animal takes the life of the sheep or if it falls over and breaks its neck or dies of illness there is no guilt. No life was taken, and so no life can be returned to god. The blood of the animal “already dead” has no value and can be eaten with impunity.
  
  It is clear by a comparison of these verses that the value of blood is not intrinsic but symbolic. Value is conferred on it by god who accepts it as representing a life that has been taken.
  It is interesting to look at this from a different perspective for a moment. The Law clearly stated that blood had sacrificial value.
  
  For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. – Lev.17:11
  
  So what if an Israelite bled his bull without killing it? He could remove a pint or two at a time and bring gallons of it to the altar. It is obvious that such a sacrifice would have no value at all for one simple reason – NOTHING WAS KILLED! The blood only represents the value of life when that life is taken and at no other time.
  
  In the case of blood transfusions the blood that has been donated was not collected at the cost of the donor’s life and therefore has no more religious significance than the blood of an animal already dead which could be consumed without penalty.
• 

  3dogs1husband

  marked
• 

  Dogpatch

  Hi Cofty,

  I or Zen will try and get more specific info on that. But I do know they will not NOW automatically DF or DA you without a committee on this issue. And highly unlikely on blood unless other issues are involved. Obviously, if you start attacking the WT right after taking blood, they will DF or DA you for apostasy (REBELLION LIKE kORAH), not for taking blood. But how likely would that ever happen? This is an emergency scenario in most cases, and not the best time to vent your grievances. You say, 'Yes, massah!"

  And as TD said,

  Someone in a position to do so once searched the records and found only one judicial case involving organ transplantation during the entire period they were 'forbidden.' They told me (In private conversation) that no action was taken in that case.
  
  I wonder if there is a history of toothlessness behind JW doctrines which prohibit certain medical treatments?
  
  TD

  Of course, elders do not always follow official policy, however you define that. :-))

  There is:

  1. WT policy announced to the public.

  2. WT policy in print in elders books and memos. (Very vague as to making any rule-read the elders' books!)

  The "secret" elders manuals are as boring as you can imagine a book to be. They don't want any legal trouble, so they make YOU write in the REAL rules in the huge margins of the book (at least the older ones had huge margins).

  As a Bethel elder we were TOLD to write in the books the REAL policies of the Service Dept. Then when you ceased to be an elder, you HAVE TO TURN IN YOUR BOOK, LEST IT GET IN THE WRONG HANDS.

  3. WT policy from the head of the Service Dept. when elders or other higher ups call in.

  For six years at Bethel I lived in the 107 C.H. building, 10th floor, within clear listening distance (5 feet away in a Bethel hallway) of Harley Miller, head of Service back then. I heard all the cover-ups you can imagine, and the doublespeak. Hallways can be very loud, so others heard it every day, too. They would never allow that now, but I guess Bethel was too cheap to put a phone in his room, maybe they were afraid his wife Brooks would use it, as she stayed in her room all day in a bathrobe.

  Randy
• 

  TD

  the answer that elder gave you makes no sense at all. He hasn't a clue what he is talking about.

  Yes. It's 'cute' when fundamentalist Christians start pontificating on the Law.

  mrbunyrabit , we're talking about ritual impurity. --tum-ah. It was not a sin in and of itself. Sex and childbirth also resulted in ritual impurity. A rabbi or shochet slaughtering and bleeding an animal in the kosher manner experienced the same thing and needed to wash afterwards. You could not enter the temple proper in such a state, which is why washing was such an integral part of temple ritual.

  The absurd JW blood doctrine does not have any support from Jewish law. A fundamental principle in the Law is called pikuach nefesh. (Uncovering life) Preserving life is the very highest of all mitzvoth and takes precedence over almost everything. (Murder and idolatry are two exceptions) If an occupied building collapses on the Sabbath, what do you do? Do you work to dig out survivors even though work is forbidden on the Sabbath? Of course you do.

  Pikuach nefesh can render the Sabbath either hutra (abrogated) or dechuya (suspended) and the Sabbath is far more important than kashrut (food laws) Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day would not have had a problem with transfusion, which should tell you something.
• 

  cofty

  Randy - I see where you are coming from. The message that the borg won't take action for blood transfusions needs to be made public to the R&F yes?

  TD - Thanks for really useful background.

  before taking action against somebody who has unrepentently taked a transfusion? - cofty

  How embarassing! Its late here ...
• 

  mrbunyrabit

  Damn.... What you said made even more sence now... Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy does it have to make more sence!~! Dammit!
• 

  cofty

  mrbunyrabit - I remember it well, the day I figured out the blood thing I was exhilarated and terrified at the same time. Its a rollercoaster but you can't "unknow" stuff. You can supress it with platitudes for a while but it won't go away.

  Please don't ask any more questions of elders, that will lead straight to being disfellowshipped. Its a fallacy that the elders welcome questions. They only welcome people who are happy to humbly accept their bullshit answers. Stay in control and if you leave do it in your own way in your own time.

  There is lots of experience, support and advice here if and when you want it.

  JWFacts.com is a great place to research.
• 

  Shawn10538

  Cofty,

  I do not know where you get your information that whole blood transfusions are still the standard of care....

  This is not true. I ask you first, what is your definition of whole blood? What do you imagine the process is for donation and processing of blood?

  According to my research and actual interviews with Blood Bank professionals, there is essentially no such thing as 100% whole blood transfusion.

  1. 30% of the world's blood banks take out white blood cells as the very first thing done once the blood is donated.

  2. ALL Blood banks divide blood donations into red blood cells platelets and plasma. White blood cells only have a use in premature babies and babies still in the womb and some cases of new borns with their particular problems. No adult in any city with a population over 100 will ever be pressured to take a white blood cell transfusion. It just doesn't happen. there is no reason or use for the white blood cells. It would be deadly to the patients. If you can name a specific case, hospital etc that has transfused white blood cells, let's hear it. We'll talk about the case and why white blood cells were used. But I challenge you to provide me with one example.

  3. Doctors get their blood from blood banks, not the arms of people close by in their hospital. No hospital I know of collects its own blood. They get the blood in bags of red blood cells which are refrigerated, bags of frozen plasma, and platelets which are in special machines that keep the blood moving back and forth so they don't gum up. So you can see how and why it would not be possible to keep bags of whole blood: 1. The white blood cells are deadly 2. the plasma needs to be frozen but freezing the red blood cells or platelets would destroy them 3. The platelets need to be kept warm and flowing in a special machine that would render the plama and red blood cells unusable. This has been the standard of blood donation for over 50 years. this is not new stuff. But the leuko poor (lack of white blood cells) blood is growing in popularity since it is safer and the standard will soon be that no white blood cells will be collected by any blood banks. Except in extremely rare situations that I mentioned above. (prenatal).

  So where is this whole blood that you speak of? Do you imagine that there are bags of whole blood out there in existence? Even in emergencies? Randy is wrong that whole blood is used in emergencies. Whole blood is not used in emergencies. Where would they get bags of whole blood in an emergency? From a blood bank that has already divided it up into its different parts. Hospitals do have all blood types on hand 24/7. The blood typing is already done and the bags are labeled accordingly. I just can't imagine a scenario where whole blood would be used, except on the battlefield in an ancient war.

  Gotta go now. I'll post more later.
• 

  cofty

  Shawn10538 - Thanks for the information I appreciate it.

  I think there is a misconception among JWs that blood is no longer an issue because they only need permitted fractions or that surgery can always be done bloodlessly. This is not true. In an emergency they will require blood in a form that breaks their rules. Even with white cells removed it is still not officially permitted and no other treatments will save their life in some situations.

  It is also worth noting that some of the more advanced techiques that are making JWs situation beter are not available to members in less developed countries.

  Randy's information that the service dept are giving direction not to take judicial action in blood cases sounds very credible and I am sure it is motivated by legal and PR concerns. I was just wondering whether and how this change is being communicated to local elders. Perhaps that's something we could do?
• 

  TD

  I just can't imagine a scenario where whole blood would be used, except on the battlefield in an ancient war.

  Warm fresh whole blood transfusions (Containing fully activated donor leukocytes) are still common in the treatment of battlefield injuries, especially in forward units. Advances in pathogen reduction have made them successful enough in Afghanistan and Iraq that there has actually been speculation that they could become more commonplace in civilian applications again.