Watchtower's deception regarding blood transfusions

by Rufus T. Firefly 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Rufus T. Firefly

  I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my post.

  When our 13-year old son began chemotherapy for cancer, our local elders told us to be prepared to make our objections known regarding blood transfusions but to realize that our son’s treating physician would take whatever steps were deemed to be in the best interest of our son. Our son had to undergo several surgical procedures over the course of two years, and each time we made our objections known, the hospital provided a document for us to sign which was basically the Letter of Understanding. The only time that the blood issue was really pressed was when our son’s red cell count was at 3.2, and the treating physician ordered EPO to be administered to our son, and the need for a blood transfusion was averted. Prior to our son’s final surgical procedure, as we signed the document, the anesthesiologist expressed amazement that during two years of chemotherapy, our son had never received a blood transfusion.

  At that time, I was still a Blood Card carrying JW, and I do not regret having taken the stand we took. My purpose of my original post was to show how deceptive the Watchtower has been regarding its blood policy. It wasn’t very long ago that my cognitive dissonance would not permit me to see how indoctrinated I had become. When I first read In Search of Christian Freedom, the chapter on the blood issue was the only one that proved hard for me to accept. I had to reread it a couple of times before it all sank in.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The thing that continues to stir me on this subject is the utter contempt Watchtower officials demonstrate toward its own membership when they ask learned and precise questions. The disrespect for factual information accompanied with questions leaves me speechless. The religion's leadership has no moral or ethical compass.
• 

  Simon

  At that time, I was still a Blood Card carrying JW, and I do not regret having taken the stand we took

  Is that because you have the benefit of looking back and not having to look at as tragic outcome?

  What if refusing blood had contributed to such an outcome? Do you think you would still "not regret" taking a stand on something that you later find to be based on bogus reasons and deception?
• 

  Kanon

  Well, I think ultimately the bloodless route is ideal. However there are certain situation where it becomes necessary. Much like chemo is not ideal for the body but in certain situations it becomes necessary.

  I think they see that a total blood ban was an error however to many children have been sacrificed on the policy a quick 180 would be unacceptable. But know thanks to medicine blood has been broken down for different situations.

  The watchtowers hope most is that down the road all these things can be treated by the so called fractions that they will allow. This will allow them to undo the policy without actually undoing it.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Is that because you have the benefit of looking back and not having to look at as tragic outcome?

  Many times I've witnessed individuals express non-regret for previously holding a moral position against accepting transfusion of blood. In each case the sentiment was expressed on grounds of morality, meaning they held no regret for once holding a position they now know is errant because at the time they honestly held the position.

  I've also witnessed individuals express non-regret because they believe in their particular case it led to a better standard of care.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  This will allow them to undo the policy without actually undoing it.

  I think your assessment is correct. I don't think Watchtower is worried about potential civil lawsuits or criminal prosecution related to its position on blood.

  I've often read ex-JWs opine that Watchtower would end its blood taboo were it not for fear of lawsuits. Yet to this day I've yet to see anyone express a legal argument supporting such an opinion. The position Watchtower holds is a religious one which essentially means it can relax it to allow blood transfusion in a heartbeat without fear of serious civil lawsuits.

  My view is that Watchtower has resisted relaxing its religious position to allow blood transfusion in order to protect its religious viability rather than its legal position. The fallout would be enormous were Watchtower to suddenly change its blood taboo to allow wholesale transfusion of blood. On the other hand, Watchtower in effect does let JWs make wholesale use of the donor blood supply but it's done so with such convolution that JWs use massively from the blood supply yet think they abstain from blood. (See: Over 96% Accept 99%! )
• 

  Rufus T. Firefly

  Thank you, Simon, Kanon and Marvin, for your very thoughtful responses. I believe each of you hit the nail on the head. I do not regret the decision I made because I believe it resulted in my son receiving a higher standard of care. But, your point is very well taken, Simon. What makes me shudder is the thought that, had the results of the EPO not been as effective in our son’s case, would I have let my son die? But even that thought is outweighed by the confidence I had in his treating physician. I am certain that he would not have permitted my son to die, even if I would have. He had much experience in treating children of JW parents in the past, and he had even gotten court orders permitting him to administer blood transfusions over the objections of misdirected parents, including a certain nephew of ours. Yes, Simon, if my son had died as a result of my cognitive dissonance at the time, I would be carrying a much heavier burden today. Thank you for making a very valid point.
• 

  Vidiot

  Martin Shilmer - "I've witnessed individuals express non-regret..."

  WTF is "non-regret"???