Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • jgnat

    My JW husband has asked me to print out the salient points so he can bring it up to his study leader. Here's what I've composed.


    To whom it may concern, XXX Congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses,

    It recently came to my attention that the Watchtower Society's teachings on blood misrepresent secular evidence on the dangers of refusing a blood transfusion. This misrepresentation of facts leaves congregation members misinformed on the dangers of their medical decisions. I understand that my husband, a Jehovah's Witness in good standing, will soon be asked to sign a "no blood" card as part of the society's annual campaign, based on these false teachings. I read this information in a recently published essay, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," in the Autumn issue of Baylor University’s Journal of Church and State, December 13, 2005.

    As my husband is not being provided full information on the medical dangers of his decision, I can no longer in good conscience support my husband in his refusal to accept a blood transfusion.

    Yours truly,


    Excerpts from that article:

    The peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.

    *The misrepresentation of secular facts;

    *The misrepresentation of historians’ writings;

    *The amplified medical risks of accepting a blood transfusion;

    *The misrepresentation of blood’s necessity and the medical alternatives to blood transfusion;

    *The organization’s current blood policy misrepresents the scope of allowed blood products; and

    *The organization’s blood policy contains contradictions about autologous blood transfusions.

    The essay examines the State’s power to protect its citizens by allowing followers and their families to pursue legal action against a religion when it misrepresents secular facts which harmed the followers, and suggests possible avenues to apply the tort of misrepresentation to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Jehovah's Witnesses' corporate organization, and who publishes Jehovah’s Witnesses’ literature.

    The effect of these misrepresentations leaves both Jehovah’s Witness members, and medical staff treating them, ill-advised and Jehovah’s Witness patients more likely to suffer harm.


    Most surgeries do not require blood transfusions. Some surgeries, such as coronary bypass, hip or knee replacement, hepatic resections [liver surgery], and radical prostatectomy [prostrate removal], are a higher risk.[28] The pamphlet states that bloodless surgeries are safe and quotes as support a study by Dixon B. Kaufman concerning renal (kidney) transplants: "The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah’s Witness patients."[29] More telling, however, is the self-incriminating information that the Society omitted (emphasis on Society’s actual quote):

    Jehovah Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 percent at three months in Jehovah’s Witnesses versus 44 percent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah’s Witness who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 per cent) – two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah Witness patients but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.[30]

    Since the pamphlet dedicates pages to anemia, why did the Society omit that the almost double rates for organ rejection as well as the study’s clarification that "those with anemia" are a high risk group? (emphasis mine)

  • doofdaddy

    If there is no Statute of Limitation imagine the lawsuits against wt articles from years gone by e.g. transplants, immunisation, even their heavy commands (for women) in rape murder cases.

    At the very least, the wtbts will have to get honest from now on with their quotes and " references".

  • doodle-v
    This news is NOT going to take a "loyal JW" to utilize...

    This article, could be used by anyone who has ever been sued by the WT for administering a blood transfusion, and been sanctioned or forced to pay the WT or their fees because of the WT getting a favorable judgement on the basis of first amendment freedom of religion. They could be sued by any non-jw family member who claims that their loved one gave up their lives for a doctrine that they believed... based on lies.

    If you lie, you lose your freedom of religion protections.

    Exactly, I'm afraid some are thinking that this article alone would be attempted to pursuade a loyal JW to leave the org. This is not it. ok. maybe someone should start a separate thread which outlines the implications of this article and what it means for the Watchtower? -Doodle-V

  • AuldSoul
    i thought this was going to be big news that the watchtower was going to bring out, not some expose of the blood thing.

    You thought that even though Barb said this was coming from outside the JW/exJW community? Why did you think that?

    a lawsuit to the WTS won't change a whole lot to most witnesses i don't think.

    You are right on that point, but we aren't talking about a lawsuit. This is basis for lawsuits (note the plurality), not the causes in a legal action. If this can be successfully tested in cases while the December 2005 Kingdom ministry is fresh on the minds of Witnesses, we may develop precedent for all kinds of suits on the grounds of misrepresentation of information from secular sources. What if this isn't about quickly waking up the average Joe Witness? What if this is about putting a financial squeeze play on the overstuffed coffers?

    Is there criminal negligence and recklessness on the part of the Organization if parents make decisions based on exaggerated claims of risks? I think so.

    I was hoping it was going to be something bigger.

    If we get behind this issue, it will be causing problems for them two decades from now (if they still exist by then). But the biggest benefit is, it won't just help Witnesses. This could be ground-breaking precedent opening the doors to the individual having the right to freedom of religion again, instead of the balance of protection being in favor of the institution.

    But, religions that do not lie about secular facts have nothing to fear from any of this.



  • Ticker

    For this to be truly effective from what I see is the Government is going to have to be convinced to allow religions to be sued over their teachings, then with mass law cases witnesses may start to wake up. I hope it can be effective right away. How long will it take to have effects? Has this actually been aproved by the Justice system, Can a religion such as the JW's be held accountable in a court of law for their teachings?


  • Axelspeed

    This is pretty big!

    If you don't get it, its about misrepresentation, about anything that ultimately influences a persons decision.

    After a quick read here are a couple of other things that caught my eye.

    one court has held a religious organization liable for misrepresenting its use of donated funds.[5]
    Thus, Jehovah’s Witness parents may be surprised to learn that precedent denies their supposed “right” to make martyrs of their children.[27]
    the misrepresentations serve to warp the follower’s mind regarding the actual medical and historical perspective.


  • Seeker4

    Oops, I knew I'd offended someone already. Should have just gone to bed. Damn you Barbara, for revealing this tonight! What an asshole I am at times. I apologize.

    Check out jgnat's post. That should answer some of your questions.


  • jukief

    To illustrate how harmful the Society's misrepresentations about blood transfusions are, consider this: My parents are no longer JWs. After being in the organization for more than 50 years (70+ years in my dad's case), they've given up the ghost. They don't believe in any of the Society's doctrines. They no longer accept the "scriptural" argument against blood transfusions (heck, they don't even accept the Bible as an inspired book and are doubtful about their belief in god). But my father still refused to consider a blood transfusion as recently as a year and a half ago, when he had coronary bypass surgery. Why? Because the Society has been extremely successful at brainwashing him into believe that blood transfusions are dangerous. My sister, who has a PhD in biology, and I, argued unsuccessfully that the slight chance of getting AIDS or some other "loathsome disease" (my dad's words) were much less than the significant danger of not accepting blood should he need it during surgery. We couldn't convince him. I think he knew, deep down, that we were right. But years of brainwashing is difficult to undo. So my father, who no longer believes the religious aspects of the doctrine, has bought hook, line and sinker into the so-called medical "facts" the Society has presented year and year, for almost as long as he was a JW. And he's willing to die--not over religious beliefs--but because he bought into the lies. This is a lot bigger than the R&F going along with "new light" if the Society were to suddenly change the doctrine. If my father were to refuse a blood transfusion and die, I'd be able to successfully sue the Society because he was lied to about the medical facts--not because he chose to go along with a religious doctrine. And don't think I'd hesitate even a second to do so. Barbara, this is gigantic. Thanks so much.

  • belbab

    I have done a quick read.

    I believe that this information can be used for other areas besides blood issue.

    Their misleading teachings on two witness requirements and not reporting to authorities has led to misery, trauma, and perhaps even death by suicide by many victims of child and sexual abuse.

    Even abusive husbands in the JWs who have been mislead in believing that their wives must be total submission has lead to tradegy.

    Kidnapping of children

    Families broken apart.

    Misleading donations from Tsunami and Earthquakes to World Wide Lying Work

    Suicides and death of entire families, (compare Jonestown) by teaching that if they die now, they will be resurrected to Paradise.

    Many many areas need to be scrutinized and the use of this information widen to other areas besides blood as far as possible

    I know that a lot of thinking and study will take place for months to come.

    I gotta break for sleep.


  • Confession

    So there are at least three prongs to this fork.

    1) "Dear JW friends, the Society is misrepresenting the facts to you. And they are doing so on an extremely sensitive issue: your life in a medical emergency. This misrepresentation has been proven in a milestone essay published in Baylor University's prestigious "Journal of Church and State." It demonstrates that the Watchtower Society has misrepresented the facts about blood transfusions and historians writings, and has exaggerated the risks of receiving a blood transfusion.

    Since the Society has taught you that any decision not to accept transfusions is your own personal decision, it is important that you know the facts. But their willful misrepresention of the facts means that the Watchtower Society is not where to go for the truth when making this crucial decision. It should also cause you to wonder if any organization guilty of such deception could ever legitimately be the sole channel of communication from Almighty God."

    2) Huge, class-action lawsuit. Sure, most JWs still in the organization will not participate, but some will. And what of those who are no longer JWs and still spitting mad over the death of their loved ones? It will not be difficult to gather a large group together, and now that the word is out, I'm sure there'll be plenty of law firms clamoring for the opportunity to spearhead the suit.

    3) If the WTS alters policy as a result, it will be an obvious move done to protect itself. Many will wonder why the deaths of thousands of people all over the world was not enough to alter policy--but that the financial ramifications to the Society was enough.

Share this