Organ transplants!

by Parliament 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Parliament

  I have read a few posts in threads about organ transplants. Does anyone have a list of articals regarding the transplant issue. The past April I gave my sister a kidney. She had been sick for almost 7 years. She is a witness. I remember her saying that at one time transplant where not allowed. When I asked an elder that stops by my house, he tells me that the org has not change there mind on this matter,that it has always been a Conscience matter. If it had been banned, thank goodness she got sick when she did. I'd be pissed if she would have had to go through all those years, not being able to live a normal life( if any life at all). I am the only one in my direct family that is not a witness, and I didnt even give it a second thought. I do get compliments from other witness's that I run into that know her and I. So, if it was banned I would like to show this elder that in fact it was.

  Thanks
  Me
• 

  Sirona

  Hi

  They did their usual "advising against" in a very strong way, just like they do with blood. It would have been a disfellowshipping offense. Just read below and tell me if you think they were strong about it:

  *** Watchtower 1967 11/15 702-4 Questions from Readers ***
  Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.
  When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.
  It is of interest to note that in its discussion of cannibalism the Encyclopœdia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Volume 3, page 199, has a section designated “Medical cannibalism.” It points out that this is associated with the idea of obtaining strength or some medical virtue from the flesh of another human, adding: “The most remarkable example of this practice occurs in China. Among the poor it is not uncommon for a member of the family to cut a piece of flesh from arm or leg, which is cooked and then given to a sick relative. . . . The whole superstition in China is certainly connected with the idea that the eating of the human body strengthens the eater. . . . Among savages the practice is found of giving a sick man some blood to drink drawn from the veins of a relative.” Some might argue that therapeutic practices involved in modern organ transplant operations are more scientific than such primitive treatment. Nonetheless, it is evident that men practicing medicine have not been beyond using treatments that amount to cannibalism if such have been thought justified.
  Modern science has developed many different types of operations that involve human body parts, some common and usually successful and others experimental and often unsuccessful. It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God’s viewpoint presented in the Scriptures.—Eph. 5:10.

  Then some scaremongering:

  *** w75 9/1 519 Insight on the News ***
  ó It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance.
  A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.

  Then years later, they promote BLOODLESS kidney transplants, stating JWs had had the transplants.

  *** g89 2/22 29 Watching the World ***
  Bloodless Transplants
  A recent study found that kidney transplant recipients who did not receive blood transfusions prior to surgery had survival and organ function rates similar to those of kidney patients who did receive transfusions. Researchers at the University of Minnesota compared Jehovah’s Witnesses, who refused blood transfusions for religious reasons, to a control group of non-Jehovah’s Witnesses who received kidneys along with transfusions. Their findings were published in the June 1988 issue of Transplantation.

  Hope that helps.
  Sirona
• 

  wannahelp

  At the bottom of this page is a link to watchtower observer..

  Goto that website, and then on the left hand site click on 'transplantations'..

  It gives alot of info on their views of organ transplants..

  BTW: You must be careful how you word things, as the witnesses are very well known and adapt at something called 'theocratic warfare'. Basically, the elder is correct, in that they were not 'banned'.. Anyone could have an organ transplant, but in doing so, they would have been found to be canibalistic and expelled from the congregation..

  The proper phrase of the question you should ask the elder is something like:

  At one time did the JW's view organ transplants as cannibalistic, and if a JW accepted one, would they have been disfellowed?

  We all know what you meant by the word ban, and so did the elder.. But in the wonderful <gag> world of the JW, they are allowed to deceive you in this manner, by doing a bill clinton "Exactly what do you mean by sexual relations"...

  Of course, the JW's are even more deceptive, because they will not even ask you what do you mean by 'ban'.. They will just pick an interpretation they want, and then give you the answer with that interpretation..

  If you want to have fun with the elder, after he tells you that yes, indeed at one time organ transplants were considered canibalism, ask him why he told you they were not banned..

  He'll probably say something like, "Well, if someone wanted the transplant, we cannot ban them from getting it".. You'll see exactly how he knew what you meant, but purposly tried to deceive you..

  Wonderful bunch....

  - Wannahelp
• 

  edward gentry

  yeah, mentioned one earlier today actually,March1, 1971 WT.
  Says if you recieve a heart transplant from a murderer youll become a murderer.
• 

  Sirona

  Oh I omitted to mention that I think it was around 1980 when the thought changed on this. They had another questions from readers:

  *** w80 3/15 31 Questions from Readers ***
  Questions from Readers
  ó Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
  Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and ÞLa Ü4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.
  Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person’s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God’s command.—Acts 15:19, 20.
  Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

  Sirona
• 

  AlanF

  Nice work, Sirona!

  I want to emphasize one point for Parliament's benefit: The quote from "W80 3/15 31" begins with this:

  "Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?

  Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses."

  In JW-speak, this means that taking an organ transplant was a disfellowshipping offense prior to 1980, but the 1980 QFR rescinded the ban on transplants by making the taking of one "a matter for conscientious decision". This is the key point to prove to a modern JW that the Society did indeed once consider taking a transplant a DF'ing offense.

  Over the years I've argued with a number of JWs about this point, and until I discovered the language in this 1980 QFR, they would always claim that the Society never actually banned transplants, but only suggested that JWs avoid them. Having lived through that period and argued with certain JWs back in 1967 that the ban was stupid and had no scriptural backing, and having been informed by various "Servants" (elders, now) that taking a transplant was indeed a serious offense, I knew that I was right. But I never could find any specific statements anywhere in WTS literature that taking a transplant was a DF'ing offense. Only in the 1980 QFR could I find a specific statement that rescinded the DF'ing policy. Obviously, if no DF'ing policy had been in place, publishing a QFR rescinding it would be senseless.

  AlanF