Taken from the book Opening the Door to Jehovah's Witnesses - by Trevor Willis
On 1 December 2000, elders in the USA were informed in writing by the Society that in line with articles appearing in both 15 June 2000 and 15 October 2000 Watchtower magazines, the DPA forms had been amended to allow members to accept the previously forbidden fractionated blood parts.
Using the name Lee Elder, the founder of AJWRB, a group that has been set up to determine the feelings of Witnesses regarding the ban on blood, stated the following:
“ Even more significant is this further comment from the Watchtower Society: “only a small percentage of the brothers have filled out the Society’s DPA form.” This recent statement from the Watchtower Society is very important in that it shows that level of commitment to the Watchtower Society policy is very small. If a Jehovah's Witness is unconscious and exsanguinating and no DPA can be presented, I believe a very strong argument exists that the person is not committed to the Watchtower Society policy. Especially in light of this recent disclosure by the Watchtower Society, which reveals dwindling support for its partial blood policy. It is also noteworthy that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of disfellowshiping Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood or the blood products that are still forbidden; the Watchtower Society has never informed the general membership of the change. Only the congregation elders have been informed to date.” (www.ajwrb.org)
One elder, writing under the pseudonym Mr Shilmer, to avoid disciplinary action has asked the Watchtower’s head office to justify this turn-around and clarify the position. A copy of his letter was sent to The Regional Ethics Council in Portland USA. A reply was received from Dr. Osamu Muramoto, which reads in part:
“I appreciate Mr. Shilmer’s comment as an active Witness elder. Compared with Mr. Bartlett's letter, the opinions of Mr.Shilmer and Mr. Elder testify how diverse the views are on this issue among Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Mr. Shilmer raised the question of partial abstinence from blood, I would like to add one example to show how the new WTS blood policy is NOT abstaining from blood.
As I stated in this paper, and as clearly stated in the new version of the Durable Power of Attorney form printed by the WTS and distributed to the JWs in the United States last week, the new policy allows JWs to accept “all fractions” of “any primary component.” The WTS has emphasized in its literature that those "fractions" are "small” and therefore acceptable.
When I ask JWs why those "fractions" are acceptable, most would reply, “because they are tiny fractions.” Under this new policy, the most important “fraction” JWs are now permitted to accept is hemoglobin-based blood substitutes, which had been prohibited until recently. How “small” is hemoglobin as a fraction of the blood? Let me quote a simple sentence from a college- level anatomy textbook: “Discounting its water content, an erythrocyte [red blood cells, which WTS determined unacceptable] is over 97% hemoglobin, the molecule that binds to and transports respiratory gasses.” (Reference 1. Marieb E. Human anatomy and physiology. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA:Addison Wesley Longman Inc; 1998:630)
“If God commands to abstain from red blood cells, as the WTS teaches, why does the WTS also teach that accepting 97% of what God prohibits does not violate God's command?” (US spelling)
As the Society have changed their mind on so many other verses of scripture, and applied the scriptures on this matter in so many different ways, perhaps they will change their mind on this issue completely. If they do, it will be of no comfort to the relatives of those who have died as a result of their ruling.
More critically for the Society, these changes further undermine their claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit to dispense accurate knowledge which they insist the members eternal lives depend upon. By making the Bible’s comments on the use of animal blood into a law regarding the life-saving use of human blood, have they carried out their “duty of care” towards the present lives of their members?
