"Some physicians or hospitals...will not give 100 percent assurance that they will not use blood...Nevertheless, when a cooperative doctor has performed similar procedures without blood in the past, he may assure parents that he will do everything he can to avoid using blood. Under this circumstance, parents may conclude that this is their best option. If they grant permission for treatment, parents should make it clear in writing that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion for their child...this would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."
I find this paragraph facinating for three reasons:
1. The WTS is putting in writing that a parent's "best option" may be to grant written permission for treatment to a doctor who "will do everything he can to avoid using blood."
- The WTS lawyers carefully worded these statements. The legal construct used here is intentional. It's legal meaning is that parents are permitted to consent, in writing, to treatment that they acknowledge may include the use of blood.
2. The parents are directed to also put in writing "that they are not authorizing a blood transfusion".
- Again, the legal construct used by the WTS is intentional. It lays the foundation for the following statement, that "this [consenting to treatment that may include the use of blood after the doctor has done "everything he can"] would not be viewed by the congregation as a compromise."
3. Thinking back the legal compromise made in Bulgaria: "The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."
- This new KS Blood handount seems to be carefully aligning all of its blood policies to comply with any potential future legal/human rights challenges.
This paragraph is, to me, the most significant portion of the entire KM Blood handout. The WTS is permitting parents to consent to treatment that may involve blood, yet it does so in way that the parents will not suffer any sanction by the congregation since it is "not viewed by the congregation as a comprimise. This paragraph protects the WTS's legal reputation to the authorities, yet allows it to protect its spiritual reputation to members.
I'm sure many here will disagree, but I see this new handout as yet another way they are SLOWLY loosening their stance on the use of blood. (I think we all understand the legal/organizational implications of what would happen if they did it quickly, or even in a way that was perceptable to members.) Whether they're doing it out of a legal need, or whether they're doing it out of a recognition that their previous stance was not correct is up for debate. But anytime the WTS puts in writing that consent to treatment that may result in the use of blood will not result in any sanction, it's undeniable what direction the WTS is moving in.