JW's okay blood transfusions???

by deddaisy 14 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • deddaisy
    deddaisy

    The Vancouver Sun

    June 14, 2000, Wednesday, FINAL

    SECTION: News; A1 / Front

    LENGTH: 531 words

    HEADLINE: Jehovah's Witnesses okay blood transfusions

    BYLINE: Ruth Gledhill and Petti Fong

    BODY:
    Jehovah's Witnesses are to be allowed to accept blood transfusions after an extraordinary U-turn by leaders of the
    controversial religion.

    Elders have decreed that Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood transfusions under life-or-death conditions will no longer
    face excommunication from their religion.

    The move represents the biggest climbdown in the movement since the predicted Armageddon failed to materialize as forecast in
    1975. The decision, arrived at by a secret meeting of the 12-member world governing body at the movement's headquarters in
    New York, was dismissed as a ''slight adjustment'' by the religion's leaders.

    But the mother of a Burnaby woman who died after refusing a transfusion said she hopes the change will prevent similar deaths
    in future.

    ''It's too late for me and my grandchildren,'' said Helen Sorenson of Edmonton. ''But maybe someone else will have a chance at
    living now because of this.''

    Sorenson's 31-year-old daughter, Audrey Lois Lawson, died in 1987 after giving birth to twins. Lawson had experienced
    post-partum bleeding and died of hemorrhagic shock.

    When first admitted to hospital, she signed a consent form stating she wanted no blood transfusion for religious reasons.

    Lawson was a member of the Jehovah's Witness church, which views life as a gift from God, represented by blood. Witnesses
    interprets certain Bible passages to mean that they cannot accept any form of blood transfusion.

    Sorenson, who has been raising her grandchildren after her daughter's death, said she does not want them following their mother's
    religion.

    ''It could have been dangerous for them,'' she said Tuesday. ''Many innocent lives were lost because of this decision not to allow
    transfusions. I hope no more.''

    Ernie Hobbs of Chilliwack, a Jehovah's Witness whose wife Daphine LeFrans Hobbs died during surgery in 1966, said Tuesday
    he does not believe the reports about the church's change of heart.

    ''I haven't heard anything about this. It's not true.''

    There are about 14,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in the Lower Mainland, and about 25,000 in B.C., said Al Hamacher, a long-time
    member of the church's medical liaison committee.

    Hamacher, who also said he doesn't believe the reports that church policy has changed, said in the nearly 50 years he has been a
    Witness, he has never known anyone who died from refusing a blood transfusion.

    ''We die from the same thing everyone else does. Taking blood or not has nothing to do with it.''

    The church's decision follows decades of adverse publicity about adults and children who have died or come close to death
    because of their faith.

    Paul Gillies, spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Britain, said the church's teaching about blood has not changed and not
    taking blood is still a ''core value'' of the religion.

    ''It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they
    did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help.
    No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness.''END
    ______________________________________________________________________
    In the above article, Hamacher says "he has never known anyone that died from refusing a blood transfusion." What is he saying, that the Witnesses that HAVE died from refusing transfusions don't count because they didn't know him, or so few have died that it's not important?
    Also, check out Gillies in the last paragraph "...someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion..."
    EXCUSE ME???? that's certainly the time to be making a life or death decision, when you're most likely unconscious........
    so what they're saying is "well go ahead and sign the form refusing blood, but if it looks like you may actually DIE, well at that time it's ok to change your mind," that is, if you're still conscious...

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    I wish someone would tell the guys at the WTS that are harrasing the Calgary Father...

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=27159&site=3#348471

    "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
    Believe in yourself, not mythology.
    <x ><

  • gumby
    gumby

    The Vancouver Sun
    Do you have the link?

  • seedy3
    seedy3

    Do you suppose this has anything to do with the Bulgaria issue? I'm not too sure when it took place and most JW's don't really know about it.

    Seedy

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    Two years ago this appeared and we are just now hearing about it? Very unlikely!

    Sam Beli

    "...religion opposes the commandments of Almighty God." Violence by J. F. Rutherford 1938

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    If that is referring to the Bulgaria deal, then they neglected to mention that the JWs who take blood are automatically considered to be DAed. That way the WTS can say that they did not DF the person.

    "As every one knows, there are mistakes in the Bible" - The Watchtower, April 15, 1928, p. 126
    Believe in yourself, not mythology.
    <x ><

  • Moxy
    Moxy

    this is old news

  • deddaisy
    deddaisy

    Gumby, I saved that article to disc, it's from the college database which, unfortunately, I can only save to disc or print from. of course, I'm not very computer "savy," but you need a password to access the database remotely, which is successful only half the time....

    yes, the article is almost 2 years old, but interesting nevertheless ...not unlike the other articles I came across, which also seem confusing as to just where the "society" stands when it comes to a JW actually submitting to a transfusion....You're probaly familiar with the baby in Zambia, from October 2000, that needed a transfusion, which of course her JW parents refused to have. The spokesman for the Zambia WTS, however, stated in the article that

    "THERE IS NO POLICY IN THE CHURCH WHICH BARS ANYONE FROM BLOOD TRANSFUSION, IT IS ALL A PERSONAL CHOICE THAT ANYONE IS ENTITLED TO."- Clement Sambona

    I had never heard this before, and even though another WT member in the article supported the parents' decision, it seemed confusing as to WHY, if "there is no policy in the church which bars anyone from blood," THE SISTER IN THE ARTICLE BELOW was df'ed for just TALKING about blood transfusions.....

    Copyright 2001 Micromedia Limited
    Canadian Business and Current

    Copyright 2001 Canadian Press
    Canadian Press Newswire

    March 22, 2001

    SECTION: Mr 22'01

    CBCA-ACC-NO: 5075237

    LENGTH: 440 words

    HEADLINE: Questioning blood transfusion stance results in Jehovah's Witness expulsion

    BODY:
    PORT ALBERNI, B.C. (CP) _ After 16 years as a Jehovah's Witness, Jackie
    Milne decided she would violate a strictly enforced church rule and
    receive a blood transfusion if her life was at stake.

    Although she has never received a transfusion, Milne was kicked out of the
    religion and members of the congregation no longer speak to her.

    Now labelled an apostate by the religion, Milne claims she wasn't trying to
    teach anything contrary to the church's teaching, but was merely
    questioning the dogma. Within 24 hours of undertaking her own door-knocking campaign _ a common
    practice of the religion's members _ to discuss the blood issue with other
    Jehovah's Witnesses, she was expelled.

    She appealed unsuccessfully.

    By virtue of the church's teachings, Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from
    illegal drugs, adultery, voting and blood transfusions.

    Abstaining from drugs, adultery and voting can't kill a person, but Milne
    said abstaining from blood transfusions can.

    Her conclusions were drawn after reading more than 400 passages in the
    Bible which make reference to blood, she said.

    ''I was disfellowshipped over only talking about the blood issue,'' she
    said. ''To get me out as an apostate, they said I was trying to teach them
    something.

    ''All I was trying to say was that after reading just the 100 passages in
    the New Testament regarding blood, I couldn't support that (teaching).''

    Members of Milne's former congregation refused to speak on the issue, but
    the religion's headquarters provided a spokesperson.

    Dennis Charland, the Georgetown, Ont.-based spokesperson for Jehovah's
    Witnesses in Canada, said the church is committed to its teachings and to
    its members.

    When a member strays from the fold, Charland said, the church attempts to
    work with him or her through Bible studies and counselling. But if all
    attempts fail, that person is free to leave the church.

    ''We don't excommunicate willy-nilly. We work very hard to help people who
    have made moral mistakes,'' he said.

    Charland said the Jehovah's Witness teachings regarding blood transfusions
    are based on readings of the more than 400 Biblical passages regarding
    blood.

    People can reach their own conclusions, he said, but the Jehovah's Witness
    teaching must be respected by the church's membership.

    While he wouldn't comment on Milne's case specifically, Charland said the
    church has no choice but to disfellowship people who disrupt a
    congregation.

    Milne said her excommunication was the result of an unwillingness to accept
    a different view, and a result of Jehovah's Witnesses' faith in their
    leaders.

    JOURNAL-CODE: 1418

  • whatsthisabout
    whatsthisabout

    IT is very doubtful that this NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, a secondary source of all secondary sources, has its facts straight. If one looks on the latest Power of Attorney form, on the back page I believe one can see exactly what the Witness stance is on the blood issue. A witness will not accept whole blood. Nor will a witness accept the 4 definitive components of blood which are red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. This is because these components cannot be found anywhere else in the body, and therefore defines and constitutes blood. Now, there are other components of blood, like water, and protein, which are not distinctly and characteristically, and EXCLUSIVELY "blood" because they are building blocks that can be found in other parts of the body. I believe the logic in this is clear. The Power of Attorney form has checked boxes allowing the witness to choose which he or she feels is appropriate. Maybe this is old news for all yall, but with that article, it doesn't seem like it. I dont know whether a person willingly going against these standards will immediately be disfellowshipped, but if it is certain that they HAVE gone against these clear standards of whole blood and the 4 main parts, judicial action of some kind will be taken, as is proper.

  • deddaisy
    deddaisy

    whatsthisabout,
    This NEWSPAPER ARTICLE quoted PAUL GILLIES, SPOKESMAN FOR THE WTS IN BRITAIN....He, Gillies, stated that policy had not changed but then goes on to say that "no action would be taken,"
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Paul Gillies, spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Britain, said the church's teaching about blood has not changed and not
    taking blood is still a ''core value'' of the religion.

    ''It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they
    did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help.
    No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness.''
    ______________________________________________________________________
    I wonder if Mr. Gillies contacted the "Vancouver Sun" and, as you claim, let them know they didn't have their "facts straight" and had "misquoted" him?

    you: "...judicial action will be taken..."

    Paul Gillies, WTS spokesman: "No action would be taken against them."

    It certainly sounds like one or the other is confused.......

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit