Several people pointed out an old post about the 2001 and 2002 blood cards:
The links to scans of the cards seem to be gone, so here they are again:
Allan, I noticed the change between cards. One says no blood transfusion and the second says no allogenic blood transfusion.
I'm a mundane bird-food non-believer, so excuse my question: Do you mean that witnesses had to refuse allogenic blood (blood donated by someone other than the patient) and that autologous blood (your own) was not forbidden?
On the new card one can check the acceptance of autologous blood and all human blood products.
Aargh! Sneaky f'ing bastards. I like how they present you with a false choice by giving you the apparent "option" of accepting certain types of blood transfusions or blood products. It's almost completely irrelevant since they provide absolutely no disseminated information about what's acceptable and what's not. You can bet that when they have the big blood card signing party at the kingdom hall or book study, 99% of Witnesses are going to initial the line that says they want none of any of them. They've created the belief for years that your level of faith is directly proportionate to how strongly you refuse certain things, blood being at the top of the list. I'm sure most will see the "options" on the card and think that by initialing that they will accept autologous blood transfusions or certain parts, especially with an elder looking on, that they're actually compromising some part of their faith. Sons of bitches. This way they can say "We gave our members the option, and they all chose to refuse blood completely, praise Jah!" Bastards.
At the very least many will think twice about it and wonder why all of the sudden they've got this option on the blood card and research the matter further.
NICE avatar, CD.
The WT has created so much confusion that even I don't know what is going on, and I have spent many hours resarching this.
Well spoken, cd; thank god we never had to deal with this issue when my beautiful babies were growing up.
I am trying to decide how to use this info; I don't think I can put up with the usual silence.
I asked my hubby what he was going to do and he just said (like a well trained dub) that he was going to say no to everything just to be on the safe side!!! Just struck me that a lot of witnesses will just do what they are told rather than try and work out what is right and wrong for themselves as it's too complicated! arrgggh
*** Watchtower 9/1/1987 pages 14-15 "A Time to Speak"-When? *** Thinking Ahead Employers have a right to expect that their Christian employees will ‘exhibit good fidelity to the full,’ including observing rules on confidentiality. (Titus 2:9, 10) If an oath is taken, it should not be taken lightly. An oath makes a promise more solemn and binding. (Psalm 24:4) And where the law reinforces a requirement on confidentiality, the matter becomes still more serious. Hence, before a Christian takes an oath or puts himself under a confidentiality restriction, whether in connection with employment or otherwise, it would be wise to determine to the extent possible what problems this may produce because of any conflict with Bible requirements. How will one handle matters if a brother or a sister becomes a client? Usually such jobs as working with doctors, hospitals, courts, and lawyers are the type of employment in which a problem could develop. We cannot ignore Caesar’s law or the seriousness of an oath, but Jehovah’s law is supreme. Anticipating the problem, some brothers who are lawyers, doctors, accountants, and so forth, have prepared guidelines in writing and have asked brothers who may consult them to read these over before revealing anything confidential. Thus an understanding is required in advance that if serious wrongdoing comes to light, the wrongdoer would be encouraged to go to the elders in his congregation about the matter. It would be understood that if he did not do so, the counselor would feel an obligation to go to the elders himself. There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God’s Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. Courage and discretion would be needed. The objective would not be to spy on another’s freedom but to help erring ones and to keep the Christian congregation clean. Minor transgressions due to sin should be overlooked. Here, “love covers a multitude of sins,” and we should forgive “up to seventy-seven times.” (Matthew 18:21, 22) This is the “time to keep quiet.” But when there is an attempt to conceal major sins, this may be the “time to speak.”
The Watchtower policy above afoul of HIPAA (that nasty US federal law that says medical providers must hold your information confidential). When a JW signs an information release, he/she is consenting to the HLC's right to see your medical records. I imagine US hospitals would want to reconfirm this directive.
Also, the old Watchtower policy could have been thought of as coercive. They are making doctors & nurses break medical ethics and rules. Plus, imagine you are a near death JW who needs a blood transfusion. With the old policy, you had to worry about the Society getting your records becuase of their sneaky tactics. So, by changing it to the JW allowing medical release....the "coercion" argument begins to lose merit. But, the argument is not gone - the JW was coerced into signing the blood card. But, this is a harder to prove, as the person did not have a gun to his head (i.e. facing death) when the decision was made. The Society is trying to checkmate the JWs. Damned if they do, and damned if they dont.
Thanks for posting the new card in your country.
I am wondering what the US card will be like...anybody from the states received one yet and can you scan it for us?
Thanks for posting - you done good!
But what i want to know is this:
Did they schedule a SM part to teach everyone how to fold the new card?
Cheers, Ozzie (permanently upside-down class)
Freedom means not having to wear a tie.
Of course, I will not go anywhere near that card. But I don't know if I should try to persuade my wife not to sign. It has been my experience that blood is arguably the touchiest issue you can ever raise with a witness. I personally know several people who faded years ago and would never consider being a witness, but they say that they would refuse blood at the hospital. It seems to be an ignorance issue. I don't know if it would be worth it to make an issue with my wife, or if I should just be happy that she is not pressuring me. Oh well, right now I don't care.