Blood and The WTS Blunder Machine

by Marvin Shilmer 8 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Blood and The WTS Blunder Machine

  Since the inception of its infamous Blood Doctrine prohibiting Jehovah’s Witnesses from accept blood products under pain of punitive congregational repercussion the WTS has meticulously avoided use of the term “transfusion” in relation to any blood-based therapy permitted to Jehovah’s Witnesses under its Doctrine. As the WTS’ current Blood Doctrine has developed through the decades it has had to take ever increasing pains to avoid using the term “transfusion” in relation to blood and blood-based therapies Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept because the WTS has over the same period allowed more and more in the way of use of blood under its infamous Doctrine. Alternate terms include “therapy,” “applications,” “injections”, etc.

  In October of 2005 the WTS initiated a huge change in its Blood Doctrine so that it allowed virtually any autologous blood transfusion (including whole blood!) so long as the transfusion was not allogeneic and it was part of a “current therapy.” What is the change that allowed this? Prior to 2000 the WTS’ Blood Doctrine required blood to be discarded if it had been removed from the patient’s (JW’s) circulatory system. As of 2000 the WTS jettisoned this doctrinal tenet so that today Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept autologous transfusion of blood (their own blood that has been removed from their circulatory system!) so long as the treatment is part of a current therapy. But in announceing this doctrinal change the WTS again meticulously avoided the term "transfusion".

  The Blunder

  The now public WTS “no blood” instruction document published for Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United Kingdom contains the following statement:

  “Point 4 addresses autologous transfusion procedures (those involving the use of your own blood, which may temporarily leave your body, including for example heart-bypass and haemodialysis). When making your personal decisions, please read and prayerfully consider the Biblical principles discussed in the October 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower, pages 30-1. Then follow the guidance of your Bible-trained conscience…” (Underlining added)

  Please note that with those words the WTS for the first time blundered by applying the term “transfusion” to medical uses of blood acceptable under the WTS' current Blood Doctrine.

  WTS apologists have long denied that Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any transfusion of blood or blood products. Over and over again these apologists have rejected use of the term toward therapies accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. More specifically, lately these same apologists have bristled at the suggestion that Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any form of autologous blood transfusion. Well, with the WTS’ recent document distributed to all UK Jehovah’s Witnesses the WTS has again provided information that punishes any notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from any and all blood transfusions.

  What makes this blunder of the WTS even more incredible is that its 2001 instructions for US publishers contained a line item of language that completely debunked the notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from blood. That line item read:

  “I accept all fractions derived from any primary components of blood.” (Underlining added)

  With that statement the WTS used language that in exactly so many words expressed the idea that a JW would be willing to literally accept all of all from blood, yet the WTS continued wanting everyone to believe that JWs abstain from blood. The WTS was so beat up over this use of terms that later versions of instructions had removed this language and replaced it with something not as damning in so many words. Now, with its most recent instructions to UK publishers the WTS has again used language (re: “transfusion”) that yet again gives the lie to WTS apologists who would still argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse any and all transfusions of whole blood, white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma. For a fact, as of the October 15, 2000 Questions From Readers article in The Watchtower the WTS’ Blood Policy allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept autologous blood transfusions of whole blood, white cell, red cells, platelets or plasma so long as the same is part of a “current therapy”. The recent UK instructions to Jehovah’s Witnesses only underscores this fact with language that by now the WTS is already regretting that it used.

  Right about now someone at Bethel is getting their ears pinned back tightly by Teddy for this faux pas.

  Marvin Shilmer, who likes to have his facts straight before he opens his mouth, or depresses his keyboard.
• 

  RunningMan

  The blood policy has been so thoroughly bungled since its inception, that they simply move from one error to the next. The problem is that the organization is being run by followers. Some said, "let there be no blood", and the yes-men have fallen over each other to make it happen. No one has had the leadership to stand up and say that the premise is wrong.
• 

  jst2laws

  Marvin,

  WTS has again provided information that punishes any notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from any and all blood transfusions.

  What makes this blunder of the WTS even more incredible is that its 2001 instructions for US publishers contained a line item of language that completely debunked the notion that Jehovah’s Witnesses abstain from blood. That line item read:

  “I accept all fractions derived from any primary components of blood.” (Underlining added)

  With that statement the WTS used language that in exactly so many words expressed the idea that a JW would be willing to literally accept all of all from blood, yet the WTS;continued wanting everyone to believe ;that JWs abstain from blood.

  Big Oops for WT.

  This thing is so convoluted, how long will they even try to defend it?

  OH, yeah. The legal department. They are surely involved now.

  Steve
• 

  sf

  A little something in my archived files that I think is important for the lurkers and seekers:

  http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/322/7277/37 [ I will paste a portion therein...please open link to read in its entirety ]

  >>BMJ 2001;322:37-39 ( 6 January )
  

  Education and debate

  Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses

  Osamu Muramoto , council member.

  Regional Ethics Council, Kaiser Permanente, Interstate Medical Office East, Portland, OR 97227, USA

  [email protected]

  The medical community generally knows that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses reject red and white blood cells, platelets, and plasma, even at the cost of their lives, but they accept so called minor fractions such as albumin and globulin as a personal choice.1 The church organisation, the Watchtower Society, introduced the policy on refusal of blood in 1945. Since 1961 the church has enforced it by "disfellowshipping" or expelling un-repentant members who wilfully accept prohibited blood components. Other members are then instructed by the church to ostracise and shun the expelled individual. Internal dissidents have criticised this practice, which they feel coerces those who have divergent views on this issue and compromises autonomous decision making in medical care. 2 3 I analyse the recently publicised changes in this policy from a bioethical viewpoint to help understand the impact of this controversial policy on clinical practice.4

  Summary points Under recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses, members can remain silent about the medical treatment they receive and avoid religious punishment Such freedom of conscience hinges on the integrity of medical confidentiality, which may not be adequate for Jehovah's Witnesses A broadening of options for acceptable blood products could open the way for use of various secondary blood products Such a change could also make the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable treatments further obscure and subject to personal interpretation In light of these changes it has become essential to treat members independently of the church's official policy by exploring personal conviction and preference

  	Policy changes

  Judicial proceedings
  In June 2000, the Watchtower Society issued a directive stating that the organisation would no longer disfellowship members who did not comply with the policy of refusal of blood. Its official statement to the media was that "if a baptized member of the faith wilfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith."5 This directive was widely publicised in the press as a reversal of the policy regarding blood. 6 7 A similar policy was established in Bulgaria in 1998 with the European Commission of Human Rights,8 in which Bulgarian Jehovah's Witnesses were promised free choice to have blood transfusions "without control or sanction on the part of the association." Although an official from the Watchtower Society denied any change in the policy then,9 that there is a need to issue a similar directive worldwide two years later indicates that there has been a major procedural change in the policy for Bulgaria and elsewhere.

  To understand the real impact of this change it is important to understand how Jehovah's Witnesses are sanctioned for wrongdoing. Besides being disfellowshipped at the conclusion of a judicial process by which unrepentant offenders are expelled, a member may be automatically shunned if there is reason to believe that he or she has renounced a core tenet of the faith by some specific action such as joining another religion or the military and if the allegations are substantiated by an investigation. He or she is classified as having thereby "disassociated," and this policy change puts the conscientious acceptance of blood in this category. According to the rules of Jehovah's Witnesses both disfellowshipped and disassociated members are considered outcasts. In both cases the religious community must ostracise and shun the wrongdoer as set out in the official statement, "the end result is the same."10 According to dissidents, ostracism and shunning by family and friends work as strong deterrents against leaving the religion or acting against the church's teachings, thus compromising the freedom and autonomy of patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses.3

  Nevertheless, the patient's autonomy differs importantly between the two procedures. Disassociation is initiated by the member's own action, whereas disfellowshipping is initiated by each congregation through a judicial committee.5 Under disfellowshipping the member is expelled when the committee rules him or her guilty and unrepentant. In contrast, disassociation automatically excludes a member from the congregation only when the member's offensive action becomes known through self disclosure or substantiating evidence of the offence. Simply put, if the act of receiving blood is kept strictly confidential, disassociation is highly unlikely, whereas disfellowshipping would still have resulted from interrogation initiated by the committee.

  __

  At the end of this page is comments from the readers.

  sKally
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Addenda
  

  
  
  Incredibly the same UK "no blood" document that says "I direct that no transfusions of blood… be administered to me in any circumstance" also gives an option later on to accept any autologous transfusion procedure! We can only guess that the initial statement, in this document intended to make clear a JWs stand on blood, is supposed to be read by doctors as saying "I direct that sometimes no transfusions… be administered to me under some circumstances".
  

  
  
  What a stinking bloody mess the WTS has made for itself, and its wannabe apologist worshippers!
  

  
  
  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  Gerard

  This thing is so convoluted, how long will they even try to defend that?

  It seems to me this legal document (the blood card) authorizes autologous blood transfusions and authorizes treatment with "all" or any blood fraction. That is how they will defend themselves legaly if you refused them.

  In real life, a dub will be DF'd and shunned.
• 

  skeeter1

  The WTS are semantics wordsmiths. Whether they choose to call it current therapy or a transfusion, it is the same thing.

  " What's in a name? that which we call a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet; " William Shakespeare

  Skeeter1
• 

  Gill

  The only way the WTBTS could have 'kept face' on the blood issue was to stick to it absolutely.

  What's with the accepting of 'blood fractions?' Is it no longer blood if it's only a little bit? Did the Bible say (or their interpretation of it) say, that they could not have blood but could have bits of it instead?

  Too many people have died over the mess they have made over blood transfusion for them to be allowed to get away with it. If they continue splitting hairs with the blood issue they'd better be warned that the day is coming when they sit in a court room and answer for their crass arrogance and stupidity.
• 

  toreador

  Thanks for your work Marvin!

  If the WTS continues to keep shooting themselves in foot they will soon find themselves without a leg to stand on! Simply amazing, it is like a poorly written story by a very inept writer. Its really too bad its NOT a piece of fiction, instead its actually hurting so many people. I think the ones at the top of the WTS ladder actually do know they are wrong with this doctrine but find themselves between a rock and a hard place in trying to change it.

  Tor