Is accepting a whole blood transfusion a DF offense? (page 2)

worldtraveller

Always amazes me that you live, eat and breathe, but you are the living dead. You have no life-like the Flanders zombie.

TD

It's not a DF offense. --Has not been for years now.

It's automatic disassociation. Same as joining the military.

As stated in the June, 16th 2000 letter to all Hospital Liason Committees:

"If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts a blood transfusion, he indicated by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual is no longer viewed as a member of the Christian congregation because he no longer accepts and follows the Biblical prohibition to abstain from blood."

However since the status of one who has disassociated is virtually the same as one who has been formally disfellowshipped, the end result is for all practical purposes the same.

It was probably the Bulgarian concession that sparked this change. At any rate, this policy is no different in Bulgaria.

OnTheWayOut

Accepting blood in a 'weak' state is not necessarily a disfellowshipping offense anymore.

It's their way of phasing out their blood doctrine. They don't want to be sued by those
that lost loved ones to their doctrine- they would get sued if they said "Nevermind, we
decided it is a conscience matter."

Instead, they overlook a "weak" state. Give it 10 years and they will just say that you
SHOULD abstain from blood, but out of kindness, no judicial action will be taken.
"You answer to Jehovah on this, not us."

In the next literal generation, they will just stop talking about it, they hope everyone will forget
that they used to ban whole blood just as they forgot about organ transplants.

The Oracle

EXACTLY, onthewayout.

They are slowly trying to make it go away, but it's impossible to do it suddenlt, aka "new light"

TD: I believe it goes judicial - if there is a report of a blood transfusion being taken by an active JW. At any rate, there is no difference between DF and DA now, in fact there isn't even an attempt to make a distinction any more since there are no more announcements.

The Oracle

uwishufish

It's not any kind of offense if you don't tell anyone. Just accept forgivness of your sins through Jesus.

TIMBOB

Since the whole blood fractions rule came out, it got me really wondering.

from a witness standpoint

Why is it wrong to store you OWN blood to use later?

But, its ok to do dialysis.

I mean isnt it basicly the same thing. Blood is comming out of your body and going back in.

cognac

What if they separated the blood all out into components, then mixed them up again, then what???

cognac

i could see me trying to explain this to the elders....

Elder A, I told that nurse to separate all the blood out, then out it all into my body separately. Then the other nurse came in and combined all the fractions into one bag when I wasn't looking... I'm just as mad as you are!!!

TD

Hi Oracle

TD: I believe it goes judicial - if there is a report of a blood transfusion being taken by an active JW

Yes. I've noticed there seems to be some confusion on this thread. The end result of DF and DA are similar, but there is one very important procedural difference.

In the latter, two elders simply confirm whether or not the offending conduct took place deliberately and voluntarily. If it did, then an announcement is subsequently read to the congregation. For example:

Elders: Hello brother X
Brother X: Hello. What can I do for you?
Elders: We're sorry to trouble you but we've received a report that you have enlisted in the Air Force. Is this true?
Brother X: It is and I'm damn proud of it! Anything else I can help you two gentlemen with?
Elders: No...That's all. You realize this affects your status as one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
Brother X: I do. It might actually bother me if a gave a damn about your pathetic religion....But I don't.
Elders: Okay...Goodbye.

The elders meet and an announcement that Brother X is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses is read. Note that no judgement has been rendered. This was not the result of a judicial action. Brother X has not been disfellowshipped by church court. Brother X has voluntarily and of his own accord disassociated himself.

The main difference is this:

You can be disfellowshipped against your will
You cannot be disassociated against your will

This distinction may sound like nit-picking but there is a very important reason behind it.

It is illegal in the U.S. (And probably many other countries as well) for any organization to forbid its members from joining the military when the country is at war. You may remember that this was the specific charge brought against Joseph Rutherford and his cohorts. --Wilfull violation of Title 1, Section 3 of the Espionage Act.

The Espionage act is no longer in force, but this particular provision was reincorporated in U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2388

This was the reason why "Disassociation" and the status it describes was invented. It allowed the JW's to side-step the law. They could truthfully claim that there were no internal church sanctions imposed upon anyone joining the armed forces.

How does this affect blood transfusion? During the late 1990's when the Bulgarian mess and the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights was under way, the JW's decided to make transfusion a DA instead of a DF offense. This was BIG news at the time. Several British newspapers reported that the JW's had scrapped the prohibition altogether. The letter I quoted from was an attempt to clarify this issue. In reality the JW's were simply sidestepping the objections of the Bulgarian government in exactly the same manner that they had sidestepped service in the armed forces.

Many people have pointed out that since persons that are DA'd and DF'd are viewed as essentially the same, it was no real change at all, but I disagree.

Bearing in mind that you cannot be disassociated against your will, this is how it would work:

Elders: Hello brother X
Brother X: Hello. What can I do for you?
Elders: We're sorry to trouble you but we've received a report that you accepted a transfusion of a primary blood component during your recent hospital stay. Is this true?
Brother X: It is, but I was semi-conscious and didn't realize what I was agreeing to. I'm truly sorry and have prayed to Jehovah for forgiveness. --It's nice of you to be concerned for my welfare by the way......I've had a long and a painful recovery and don't recall you visiting me when I needed help.....

Note that Brother X has stated that he is sorry and that he was acting under a state of diminished responsibility. He has indicated no desire whatsoever to leave the JW faith.

Is Brother X lying? In a normal judicial proceeding, the elders could choose whether they believe him or not. In a normal judicial proceeding, the elders are quite capable of disfellowshipping you anyway. That's the whole point of a judicial proceeding --To render a judgement.

But this is not a judicial proceeding. It doesn't matter whether Brother X is truly sorry or if he is lying his ass off. The elders have no choice but to accept his explanation at face value.

cognac

You can be disfellowshipped against your will
You cannot be disassociated against your will
What if they state that they have accepted a blood transfusion, that are not sorry for it but they do not want to be disassociated? Then what???
Would you then be DA'd against your will?

Is accepting a whole blood transfusion a DF offense?

Share this