My Sister Died This Morning After Refusing Blood On Four Occasions.

by still wondering 78 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • still wondering
  • mrsjones5

    *sigh* That's a damn shame. I'm sorry for your loss.

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    I can't even begin to know how you feel. My condolences

  • Scully

    So sorry.

    PS try using firefox or chrome if you're trying to post with IE new version

  • AnneB

    But did she die because she refused the blood transfusions or was that just part of the series of events which made up her life? It would be just as easy to say something like "my sister died this morning after having four children", but there might be no causal relationship between the two elements of the sentence.

    My condolences on the loss of your sister.

  • blondie

    So sorry..............when I was a jw I knew so little about what was available. I took my list of "approved" procedures and the anesthiologist and surgeon laughed because the procedures were so out of date. The local HLS was of no use. I finally contacted the head of surgery at the world-reknown university hospital. He updated my list and helped me work it out with my insurance. Since the men on the HLC or HIS are rarely doctors, they have no real information. The blood doctrine was one of the last I ditched. I been so programmed...I have learned since to go to the best source, never the WTS.

    Love, Blondie

  • NewChapter

    I'm sorry.

  • carla

    I'm sorry for your loss.

  • still wondering
    still wondering

    I'm having difficulty posting but thankfully Scully sussed it out. Having just panicked then installed Chrome and tried posting again I've mistakenly started another thread. Many apologies.

  • JustThatGirl007

    So sorry. :(

  • N.drew

    I am sorry dear, nothing to say, but that it is so unfair.

  • still wondering
    still wondering

    Many thanks to all for your sympathies.


    I don't want to go into the details but just to say that she minimised at every opportunity her chances of recovery by refusing even what the WT states is permissible even according to their irrational criteria of what is acceptable.

    Her blood count was so low she was barely conscious so there was no chance her body could successfully fight her illness as well.

  • crazycate

    I am sorry for your loss.

  • still wondering
    still wondering

    For her the fear of man (WTS) is greater than the fear of death. Their God the WTS, the antitypical Molech (WT speak), the one who makes up the rules, demands they sacrifice their life when so required.

    The following letter was ignored because her fear of becoming the object of pointing fingers and wagging tongues at the kingdom hall was too great even with only a haemoglobin transfusion plus the ever present desire to prove themselves more righteous than others by becoming a martyr.

    For many years the Society taught that the life of a creature was literally in its blood. Then some 25 years ago they changed it back to the belief that the Society formally had prior to 1945, that is at a time when blood transfusions were allowed and not viewed as unscriptural by the Society. The view then and now is that blood merely symbolises the value of life. It is now viewed simply as a metaphor for the value of life.

    Please remember that a symbol or metaphor is neither as, nor more important than that which it symbolises. A wedding ring is just a symbol and is clearly not more valuable than that which it symbolises.

    Just as it is not rational for a person to attempt to prove that they value their marriage by committing adultery and throwing their marriage away, so neither does a person prove that they value life by committing suicide so throwing their life away.

    Respect for the value of life demands that a person would do all that is possible to preserve it.

    Jesus outlined the principle when he said;

    Matthew 12:7 "However, if YOU had understood what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice,' YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones."

    Matthew 12:11 "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!"

    Clearly the Society's post 1945, in contrast with its pre 1945, interpretation put on Acts 15 and 21 is not consistent with any attempt to demonstrate a person has a high value for life or consistent with the principle outlined by Jesus.

    So although the Society says that they now view blood just as a representation of life (a reversal to their previous view) is that currently stated view seen in actuality, that is in real life situations? In reality is this changed view apparent in practice? Clearly not because in contradiction to this view is also the stated belief that the Creator of life requires such sacrifices and is pleased when they are made.

    Think about it, which has greater value, the wedding ring or what it represents, your marriage? Which has greater value, blood or what it represents, life? There is simply no contest. Whilst you view your marriage vows as sacred you do not hold their representation, your wedding ring, as sacred. That would be turning it into an idol. Just as life is sacred its representation, blood, is not sacred because it's just a symbol. The symbol is replaceable. It is simply a representation of the real thing which is of infinitely greater value. The problems arise when the representation is viewed or masquerades as the real thing.

    It is not only irrational to elevate an object, a symbol, to be of equal or greater value than that which it represents but the effect is to convert what was just a representation into an idol. It is a foregone conclusion what the effect will be of such elevating of blood from that of a simple symbol, representation or metaphor to that of an idol.

    The consequence of making an idol is that sacrifices are invariably made to it. So the belief became that God requires and is pleased when such sacrifices of human life are made. Is that different from what the Canaanites believed? Clearly it is not. Just as the Canaanites made the ultimate sacrifices to their idols i.e. human including child sacrifice, so too in this instance many human lives including the lives of children and babies have been sacrificed over the last 65 years after the Societies ruling on the use of blood in medical treatment changed from permitted to not permitted thereby elevating the value of blood from a that of a simple symbol to that of an idol.

    The Canaanites were condemned for, amongst other actions, not simply for engaging in idolatry but engaging in the most heinous and wicked form of idolatry that there could possibly be, that of human sacrifice in an attempt to please their god because they believed their god required such sacrifices."

    As you know the Society's rules as to the medical use of blood have undergone a few changes, some 20 major changes since 1945 to the present. At each change of the rules some individuals will die who would have lived or some will live who would have died.

    For example, in 1954 the Society's ruling on blood serums disallowed their use because using blood serums was displeasing to God. Some individuals will now die under the new ruling that formerly would have lived.

    Four years later in 1958 this ruling was reversed thus allowing some individuals who would have died under the previous changed ruling to now live. It was now decided that using blood serums was not displeasing to God after all hence the change from disallowed to allow.

    This single change presents two immediate problems. Firstly, who is responsible for the deaths, and the consequences of those deaths on their families, of those who, because they were told that using blood serums was displeasing to God, followed the Society's rules and lost their lives for no reason other than they were mislead about what God requires?

    Secondly, what now happens to those individuals who followed their own conscience and decided to use blood serums to save their life and were subsequently disfellowshiped? Under the new rule saying that God does allow blood serum usage and that it never had been offensive to Him they had been disfellowshiped not for doing what was wrong but rather for doing what was right, for showing respect for life. Disfellowshipping is supposed to keep the congregation clean by expelling wrongdoers not expelling those who are practicing righteousness, those who are showing the utmost respect for life.

    So just what does happen to those ones who had been wrongly disfellowshiped under the previous incorrect rule and even those who had been wrongly disfellowshiped in the intervening weeks from when the Watchtower Society first internally decided to change the rule and the actual arrival of the issue of the Watchtower or letter publically announcing the NEW rule in the kingdom hall?

    Would the Society make a concerted effort to immediately contact those ones explaining that they had been wrongly disfellowshiped and will be immediately re-instated and will not after all suffer eternal death in Gehenna when they die and needless separation from baptized members of their family now? Even if the Society did do this (which they don't) could they be sure of finding every single individual who had been wrongly disfellowshiped? Some may have moved away and left forever thinking that they were condemned to Gehenna when they die.

    If all this sounds like a messy situation think of what happened five years later (1963) when the ruling allowing blood serums was overturned yet again and completely reversed. Why? Because the Society said once again that using blood serums was displeasing to God. If you were ill and needed blood serum and were able to squeeze it in the day before the ruling changed you may have lived but if you fell ill a day after the ruling changed you may die. Yes, the decision whether to sacrifice one's life in an attempt to please God entirely depends on whether a person fell ill and needed such treatment on the Saturday before the Sunday Watchtower meeting (when the change was announced) or on the Monday after. Is this treating life as sacred and showing respect to our Creator?

    But then it became even more complicated because twenty one months later (1964) the ruling was, unsurprisingly, reversed yet again. Blood serums were again no longer offensive to God so those needing them were now reprieved and may live.

    This is just one example, out of many, of the Societies changes that can determine whether a person may live or die. These life or death changes in the rules as to what is pleasing/displeasing to God have occurred at random and frequent intervals throughout the past 65 years and resulted in many thousands of deaths.

    If you regard playing Russian Roulette as a gross and immoral disregard for life, the person's life depending as it does on the click of a trigger, then do you regard the fluctuating rules of the Society equal or more immoral, depending as it does on the transient and erratic opinion of what God requires, where it is not just consenting adults (as in Russian Roulette) who are dying but much worse than that even babies and children are dying? Surely, subjecting one's own life and that of one's dependent children to such a lottery is the very pinnacle of disrespect for not just life but also for the Creator of life. It is clearly the exact opposite of what the blood transfusion ban is claimed to be about i.e. respect for life and its Creator.

    After a review of just these few reversals made in this life or death issue, the Society's totally irrational view can be seen from the statement in the Awake 12/8/94, p.27. It states that:

    "This journal and its companion, the Watchtower, have commented consistently on the matter."

    If all the facts are examined along with the above it is abundantly obvious to any observer that the only consistency is that the Society is consistently irrational in everything it states about blood transfusions and in every reversal inflicted on others while people wait for the latest pronouncement (reversal) on what pleases/displeases God knowing that for some mother, father, son, daughter, husband or wife it will mean either a death sentence or a reprieve.

    Are we back in Canaanite territory here? The answer is plain not only by examining the facts but according to their own stated admission.

    "In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
    Awake! - May 22, 1994, p.2

    Yes, the sacrifice of human life, human sacrifices, to please God by as is stated "putting God first".

    Why? Because we are told that's what He requires and is pleased by such sacrifices, just like the Canaanite gods.

    Not just for the above two reasons alone but for many, many others it is clear that what James meant when speaking the words recorded in Acts was clearly and absolutely not the meaning that many are coerced into believing by the Society. Coerced, that is, by the threat of disfellowshipping if one doesn't fall into line with what can only be regarded as an abusive preoccupation with medical proscriptions going all the way back from the prohibition of vital and life saving vaccinations and organ transplants along with the plethora of fluctuating rules on treatments involving blood products these past six decades.

    By taking James's words in Acts out of their context they can be manipulated to appear to mean almost anything. In his book of James he emphasised the constancy of God;

    (James 1:17) "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows".

    This whole subject is not just a minor issue. It is a matter of life or death. Ask yourself, is the constancy of God James referred to evident in the record the Society has built up when dealing with this vital life or death issue?

    The trust people have put in the ever changing and frequent reversing of what the Society says God requires has killed people, it's killed many thousands. After causing so many deaths you would think that they would recognize their inability to understand and legislate on such matters and leave it entirely alone. But not so they continue just as they have these past 65 years piling up an ever increasing record of death and grief. Death and grief not just for consenting adults but infants who have not only the God given right to life but also the right to expect their guardians (parents) to do everything in their power to exercise their God given responsibility to protect and nurture that life.

    Does all this amount to anything less than the exploitation of families who are already in great distress?

  • zoiks

    Still Wondering, I am so sorry for the loss of your sister. What a senseless, tragic thing. My thoughts are with you.

  • deep-blue-sea

    So sorry

    I wish you lots of strenght!

    Regards, Claudia

  • JeffT

    My condolences on your loss.

  • designs


    So sorry for your loss, it is hard to put in words the feelings of losing family and with these circumstances it is so much greater the loss. I lost my Father to the JW Blood Issue.

    Heart felt peace.

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    I am so very sorry to hear that. What a mix of emotions you must be experiencing.

  • Gayle

    My sympathy to you and family at this time. The Watchtower Society/organization doesn't help their members through the hard times and trials. They only burden their members further with their policies.

    I lost my mom due to cancer. During that time in one surgery the denial of blood transfusion added much more anxiety and additional expense to my family at such a vulnerable time. My point is that though the blood issue wasn't a direct cause of my mom's outcome, it was clearly a burdensome anxiety unnecessary for my mom and family at this difficult time in our life. Plus, we received so many empty promises that she would be resurrected 'soon.' That was 41 years ago. Still hurts.

Share with others