Watchtower's deception regarding blood transfusions

by Rufus T. Firefly 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Rufus T. Firefly
    Rufus T. Firefly

    “You also ask why one can be dis-fellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions. While both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment. In this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body. It is this aspect of taking in blood, that is, to provide nourishment that links blood transfusions with the Biblical prohibition. Note that "Questions From Readers" of the July 1, 1975, issue of The Watchtower stated: "The Bible specifically forbids the taking of blood to nourish the body.-Gen 9:4; Lev. 17:1-14; Acts 15:28, 29." The motive or reason for taking a serum is significantly different. It is not to feed the body, as would be the case if there was an eating of whole blood (or a major component thereof) by mouth or by having it transfused intravenously. Rather, the antibodies that have been separated out are administered for the purpose of immunizing the body against a certain disease. While blood fractions in certain situations can be lifesaving, they do not operate to feed and nourish the body and in this way sustain life but, rather, utilize other mechanisms.” (Watchtower Branch letter of March 23, 1998 to Randall Jensen.)

    But the Watchtower Society had known since the 1950s that transfusing blood is far different from eating blood for nourishment, that transfused blood is not digested but retained in the body much like a transplanted organ. “Transfused blood cannot be used by your body as food any more so than can a transplanted heart or kidney.” – (Watchtower 9/15/58, p. 575)

    “By your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:37)

  • DesirousOfChange

    I'm sure the blood issue is a major thorn in their side, and surely the old fools that really believed all that transfusion in the veins = eating are dead and gone. But they can't figure out how to get out of it without risking a flood of litigation. It will silently become a non-issue, just as transfusions for children has become. Just let the Court issue a judgement for transfusion and let the doctors do their job. No guilt on the parents. Caesar's Court took it out of their hands and took the decision (and guilt) off of their shoulders.

    It's all about potential lawsuits.

    It's always about the money.


  • Crazyguy
    Just the fact that they allow all fractions including hemoglobin shows they know that the blood transfusion prohibition is crap. They should all be lined up and shot and if it wasn't for the fact that it's a religion they would be at the very least be in jail.
  • Vidiot

    DesirousOfChange - " It will silently become a non-issue..."

    I thought so, too, for a while.

    It really did look like they were slowly easing towards making it a "conscience matter", but recently, they've reiterated all the hardline stances that, not coincidentally, all seem related to health and well-being.

    I suspect that - at least in part - it's because the XJW community has been so vocal in its criticism and scriptural refutations of the policy; the WTS is absolutely loathe to appear as though it's capitulating to its opponents, particularly "apostates".

  • EdenOne

    I don't think you can be DF'd for taking a blood transfusion. You have to be repentant. (Wink!!)

    Its a load of BS for sure. They are saving face and covering their asses, meanwhile people die believing that "GOD" told them to stay away from transfusions.

    I believe they want it to become a non-issue at some point. I'm sure they don't want one more embarrassing issue at this point in time. The problem is that people continue to die, all because of the "special relationship" that exists between the GB and the R&F.

    I know of someone right now, who found out they have leukemia. It's very agressive. The hospital wants a transfusion. The HLC is trying to save the person from "Satans" hospital. The courts will most likely win and the JW will be forced to take blood.


  • Fisherman
  • millie210

    There is something now called a "letter of understanding" was used here locally (in U.S.) on the advice of the Liaison committee for an infant who needed surgery.

    Apparently this letter was used first in Canada.

    Here is an excerp and link. The heading of the article is interesting too

    Header: "JWs Quietly Soften Position On Blood Transfusions"


    Toronto’s Sick Kids now will go to “all lengths” to find alternatives to transfusing blood when Jehovah’s Witnesses voice their opposition, said Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    "There is something now called a "letter of understanding" was used ..."

    Here: Letter of Understanding

  • millie210

    Thank you so much Martin Shilmer!

Share this