"Without fanfare, Jehovah’s Witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusions"

by snare&racket 6 Replies latest jw friends

  • snare&racket

    "Without fanfare, Jehovah’s Witnesses quietly soften position on blood transfusions"

    ...............The turning point seemed to come in 2007, he argued. A Vancouver hospital had child-welfare officials seize some of the sextuplets born to a Jehovah’s Witness couple that year so doctors could give them blood. The church’s governing Watchtower Bible and Tract Society fought the move in a losing — and highly publicized — court battle.

    “I think that did them in. They couldn’t take it any more,” said Mr. Hughes. “I’ve been contacted by people who used to be in my congregation, and they left because of this [blood ban].”

    Mark Ruge, a spokesman for the Watchtower Society in Georgetown, Ont., said the church, which has branches throughout the world, has not altered its blood ban, though he said he could not account for the actions of individual families............


  • wha happened?
    wha happened?

    not officially

  • snare&racket

    Indeed, intresting article though.

  • DesirousOfChange

    not officially

    Their "official" sanctioning of "blood fractions" is something this old timer would NEVER have expected to happen. Rather, decades ago JWs worried about a drop of blood in hot dogs or even dog food.

    Additionally, years ago they encouraged kidnapping children from hospitals to avoid the giving of transfusions. Now, the Liason Committee simply tells parents of minors to accept the fact that they are limited to simply expressing their wishes that blood be avoided if at all possible as the Courts will grant hospitals/doctors the authority to administer transfusions immediately upon request. This then takes the "burden" off of the parents and places the responsibility/judgement before God on the hospital/doctors/judges. Get Out of Jail Free card to the parents. Also, no bad publicity of children dying in the backseat of cars after being sneaked out of hospitals.


  • blondie

    The WTS changed taking a transfusion from a df'ing offense to an act of disassociation but only verbally through the CO to the elders, no BOE letter. I do believe that it has been changed in the newest elders manual, but nothing official in WTS publications for the rank and file. I think this is just a PR move, not for the faithful who probably think they will still be df'd (not having access to the da doctrine officially).

  • designs

    They would rather have parents live in fear for their childs welfare than come clean about the pressure they are now under by courts all over the globe.

  • dozy

    Ever since the blood ban was cooked up by Knorr the WTBTS have gradually been softening it. Vaccinations , transplants , temporary storage of blood and most fractions were all banned but now are allowed by the society. Now people can't be disfellowshipped for taking a transfusion or non society sanctioned blood product though they are regarded as disassociating themselves if they aren't repentant.

    Whether they will soften any longer , I don't know. There really isn't much of a ban left , especially now even haemoglobin products (97% of the red blood cell ) are allowed. Maybe they have pushed the envelope as far as it will go , though some think the WTBTS is due to announce that white blood cell transplants will be permitted.

    I recall an old JW ( now deceased ) who had a lot to do with the WTBTS on their blood policy and helped to design the UK version of the blood card ( which has a slightly different legal wording from the US version). He told me that many of the higher-ups in the WTBTS would love to completely dump the policy but too many brothers would be "stumbled" and the best hope the society had was that eventually medical science would come up with completely artificial blood products.

Share this