Lets project the parody forward and imagine that in the near future a medical use of coffee is discovered, indeed when taken orally or injected directly into the bloodstream it can save lives.
Now we must consider the word "abstain"..This is understood to be a total rejection of something and having no contact with the item in question.....but the context of the ruling makes it clear that it was discussing the drinking of coffee for pleasure, indulging in the pleasant hot drink with a unique flavour that tickles the taste buds and goes down so well, often in a warm social setting...(Mmmm, I get carried away!)
But should that also include abstaining from a medical use of "coffee" which has none of these "forbidden pleasures" and is administered tastelessly (could I suggest a suppository?)
Back to reality now..I refer to an Awake that showed how drugs that are abstained from when used for pleasure are viewed differently when used as a medical treatment -
Awake 2001 11/8 "From Our Readers"
In the article “Coping With Marfan’s Syndrome—When Joints Dislocate” (February 22, 2001), Michelle says that she takes morphine daily. How can an addictive drug be used by a Christian?
S. D., United States
It would be wrong for a Christian to use drugs simply for the thrills or the highs they produce. However, one who accepts a painkilling narcotic under the direction of a physician because of some medical problem could hardly be called a thrill seeker. Of course, even in circumstances like that, a Christian must carefully weigh the possibility of addiction and other harmful side effects from taking such a medication.—ED."
So, my point is.....If they can see a difference between one use of drugs and another , making it OK to take morphine under medical supervision to prolong life....Why can't they see the difference between the dietary and the medical use of blood??