JW comments about blood

by startingover 18 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Jourles

  Arrrggghh!! But we have to remind jw's that this isn't a medical issue. It is a biblical one. A jw must agree with you on this point. If the Watchtower bible says a fraction/component is not ok to accept(which it doesn't), there should be no "medical" breakdown of what percentage is allowed. If a particular component is banned, there is no leeway on the matter. Accepting just a little bit of it is still breaking the Watchtower's bible's command to abstain from blood.

  The biggest problem the WTS has right now is separating the medical issues from the biblical ones. They obviously cannot follow the bible to the letter or else they would fall back to the 1950's prohibitions. So what do they do now? They cloud the blood issue with "medical advancements." I think this is why so many jw's are conflicted with choosing what treatment they should go with. On one hand, they have been used to hearing "NO BLOOD" for their entire life, but on the other hand, the WTS is saying medical treatments have advanced to where it is now allowable to accept a wide range of "non-blood" alternatives - which is blatantly false. Their idea of "non-blood" alternatives is anything other than 100% whole blood. It's confusing as hell to the jw's to pick what their conscience allows. Your average jw is more worried about his standing in the hall if he happens to take the wrong item in surgery - not to mention... "Will Jehover kill me at armageddon for taking this fraction since it is derived from stored blood???"

  I honestly think the blood doctrine will eventually be a huge catalyst in the future in getting more people to leave. If the WTS ever makes it all a "conscience issue," they will be screwed. They are getting damn close as it is now.
• 

  willyloman

  What GaryBuss said.

  I have been saying for more than a few years that the "prohibition" against taking blood has been watered down substantially and that, in fact, the WT now wants dubs to take blood... as long as they only take it a fraction at a time. The want dubs to use cell savers and other equipment designed to pick up the blood the body loses during surgery and put it back in. They want dubs to take drugs that help produce red cells, even if blood is used to create the drugs. They are part of the medical establishment, now, and they are tired of being embarrassed by the wanton ignorance of their supposed followers.
• 

  garybuss

  The ONLY way the Witness people aggregate will take blood is if the Society tells them they will lose their ticket to paradise if they DON'T take blood.
  
  No blood has been a "product" for so long it's a trigger subject now and it kicks in auto-think.
  
  The Society's facing the job of defeating their own best work. They have to publish a letter or article on why respecting life means TAKING BLOOD.
  
  
• 

  SirNose586

  The ONLY way the Witness people aggregate will take blood is if the Society tells them they will lose their ticket to paradise if they DON'T take blood.
  
  No blood has been a "product" for so long it's a trigger subject now and it kicks in auto-think.
  
  The Society's facing the job of defeating their own best work. They have to publish a letter or article on why respecting life means TAKING BLOOD.

  If the Society wants to undo their no blood ban, then they're in over their heads on this one. My grampa gave a talk last Sunday about how bad it would be to take blood to save your life, since you will "die eternally" for doing so. He also equated eating or drinking blood to taking a transfusion. Another claim was that if a doctor knew he could transfuse a patient with blood, it allowed him to "cut and slice wherever he pleased, then pack it up and call it a day." So according to my grandfather, blood allows a doctor to become incompent.

  THIS is why the average dub doesn't know what to do. A KM comes out that tells him he can take any fraction he wants, then on Sunday he hears how taking blood will damn him eternally.

  I really do love and look up to my grampa, but talks like these make it hard to do that...
• 

  garybuss

  In past times Witnesses who wouldn't change with the directions from the Society on issues like vaccinations were called steadfasters. The Witnesses in prisons refused to accept vaccinations and caused big problems inside the prisons. Macmillan had to go in the prison as a director of the Society and tell them to take the vaccinations, that the directors were taking vaccinations so they could receive passport (or other) permission to travel to other countries.
  
  Here is history repeating itself:
  
  http://www.e-cepher.com/books/fotm/13faith.htmlFaith on the March
  A.H. Macmillan
  Copyright 1957
  
  page 188
  
  One of the more serious problems I had to deal with, as I remember, was vaccinations. An order was received from the health department in Washington for all the inmates and guards to be vaccinated. Some of our boys in one prison in particular considered this the same as blood transfusions, and refused to submit. This caused considerable trouble. Then the order came from Washington to put all the men who refused to be vaccinated in solitary confinement. This did not change our men. The prison authorities hesitated to be overly strict about it; still they had their orders from headquarters. Well, during the excitement I arrived on my regular visit. Now the matter was put up to me to advise our men. I asked the Warden to permit me to talk to all the men who refused to be vaccinated. He said, "We can't do that because all the men are in solitary on orders from Washington and they'll have to stay there until they submit." "Well," I answered, "they'll be there all their lives, then, for they're not the kind to go contrary to their consciences. Now if you'll permit me to talk to all the men we can do something, but with some in solitary I'm helpless." Then the Warden phoned Washington and told them what I said. He was told to permit all the men to attend the meeting and to allow them to spend as much time in the meeting as Macmillan thought best. We had an interesting time. For about half an hour the men talked about the evils of vaccination, and so on. After all had had their say, I told them, "We're wasting time talking about the evils of vaccination because much could be said both ways. The point for us to consider is what are we going to do about being vaccinated. They have you all where they could vaccinate an elephant, and they will vaccinate you all." Up spoke the leader of the resistance and said: "What would you do if you were in prison and were called up for vaccination? "
  
  page 189
  
  "I was in prison," I reminded them, "and I bared my arm and received the shot. Furthermore, all of us who visit our foreign branches are vaccinated or we stay at home. Now vaccination is not anything like blood transfusion. No blood is used in the vaccine. It is a serum. So you would not be violating those Scriptures which forbid taking blood into your system.
  
  End quote:
  
  
• 

  Pubsinger

  Dont argue the rights and wrongs of their teaching, only it's inconsistency and it's lack of logic.

  Ask:

  Is it a "matter of conscience" to give blood? NO

  Is it a "matter of conscience" to store your own blood for transfusion? NO

  Is it a "matter of conscience" to give blood for the removal of fractions? NO

  Is it a "matter of conscience" to accept blood fractions obtained by the above methods? YES
• 

  moshe

  I called a KH this morning a little past 9 AM and talked to a sister. I told her I had moved into town and had studied a few years ago, but they wouldn't let me get baptised because I didn't accept the WT teachings about blood transfusions.

  She was all excited, because they had meeting just this past week about that and she could answer my questions. Well, in short order she got flustered trying to explain why fractions were OK but whole blood was not. "It's compicated", she said- "we have a video that explains it better".

  I then asked her if eating blood what what was prohibited and she agreed that was the issue.

  What about Orthodox Jews who still keep the kosher dietary laws on bleeding all blood from their meat- they all agree that a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood, - I asked her. "Orthodox Jewish doctors see no problem with blood transfusions, you would think they would know about that sort of thing, if it was forbidden by the Jews", I told her.

  That was all news to her, she had never heard about that stuff. I then asked her If she was in a coma and could not eat, would a transfusion of glucose keep her alive? "yes" ,she admitted," that's what would happen."

  What if they got a blood transfusion instead- would that be food for the body?" , I asked. Now she was starting to squirm and after a pause she admitted to me that a blood transfusion would not keep a starving person alive. Now I delivered the coup de gras, " So then a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood, and could not possibly be a violation of God's laws against eating blood!"

  The poor sister was at a loss for words and was saying how she had never thought about that or seen anything in the WT about how Jews accept blood transfusions or how a blood transfusion can't save the life of a starving man. I rang off telling her , that if JW's ever change their ban on blood transfusions, I might start my study back up, but I couldn't be a part of a religion that has bloodguilt for the innocent deaths of people caused by their unscriptual rules on blood transfusions. "Jehovah has to punish those responsible for bloodguilt, you know", I told her. With that unsettling comment, I said goodbye. I wonder , If she was brave enough to talk about this conversation in the car group as they drove off to the territory? At least she was able to start her time at 9AM, so it wasn't a total loss for her.
• 

  Pubsinger

  Moshe

  Brilliant
• 

  BrentR

  That is some new logic! I have never thought about that angle yet and believe me I have had over two decades of thought. Thanks for posting that.

  Being in EMS for many years I have seen many people go on to live normal lives after a blood transfusion. I have always considered life to be more sacred then blood, which our body is always manufacturing any way.