@ mmxiv "By donating blood an apostate would save a JW's life but JW's refuse to save an apostate's life. So who's the good Samaritan?"
Easy - and perfect reasoning. I never saw this point. thx.
Donation of blood fractions
by why144000 28 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JW GoneBad
MMXIV: "By donating blood an apostate would save a JW's life but JW's refuse to save an apostate's life. So who's the good Samaritan?"
-
TD
Yet, witnesses now have the the ability to take blood fractions from the blood bank without ever contributing to the blood bank.
Most plasma fractions have been permitted since 1958.
If the inherent hypocrisy hasn't upset them for the last 56 odd years, why should it suddenly start upsetting them now?
-
steve2
TD, my understanding is that it is only in more recent years that the organization's printed literature has been more upfront about the role of conscience in these matters. Besides, whilst allowing Factor X goes back more than 55 years, the allowability of other components is much more recent. Lastly, the medical and "Scriptural" mendacity of the organization's " policies" on blood have been powerfully argued and exposed only in more recent years.
-
blondie
Not every person can give blood, medical reasons. Hospitals don't require proof of donating blood to receive blood. Many non-jws don't donate even though they don't have medical reasons. Selfishness is not limited to jws. I have been donating blood for 12 years,
-
not bitter
I tried to donate yesterday. I don't know why it's taken me so long to do this.
-
TD
Greetings Steve. I studied with the JW's but walked away over this very issue 40+ years ago. So I'm not in any way trying to be argumentative here. It's just a subject I'm pretty conversant on.
TD, my understanding is that it is only in more recent years that the organization's printed literature has been more upfront about the role of conscience in these matters.
I would agree with you that the concept of a, "Conscience matter" when it comes to the acceptance of blood fractions gradually gained force after it was introduced in 1958, but would disagree that the JW parent organization has been more upfront about this in recent years than in the past.
Expressions like this actually go back many years:
"...so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual..." (W64 p. 682)
"...their use is a matter that must be decided by each person according to his conscience" (G65 8/22 p. 18)
"We believe that here the conscience of each Christian must decide" (W74 p. 682)
I believe the real problem here is that JW publications only get into this subject with any degree of depth once every seven to ten years. Unless a JW has some compelling reason to be interested in it, (e.g. They're either faced with it personally or are starting to question their faith) it simply goes in one ear and out the other.
Individual "Conscience" is actually the whole basis behind the Advanced Medical Directive and its predecessor, the blood card. And the reason, of course, has always been to place responsibility for untimely death squarely on the head of the individual. Towards that end, the JW parent organization has offered four separate and distinct rationales for the allowance of blood fractions as matters of conscience over the years.
1.) In 1958, blood based serums and vaccines were allowed on the basis that these "..did not nourish the body." This included all IgG preparations including post exposure vaccines for rabies, tetanus, diptheria, etc. as well as antivenins for snake and other venomous bites. Since all of these contain albumin either as an adjuvant or an excipient as well, we're talking about the allowance two separate families of plasma fractions here.
The JW parent organization flip-flopped a little on this in the early 60's, but by the late 60's, settled down into pretty much the position they have maintained to this day. Gamma globulin and Albumin are the two most common plasma fractions used in medicine and together compose the vast majority of blood based preparations the individual JW is likely to come across in their lifetime. All of us have in fact accepted them in one form or another, because albumin is found in tiny amounts even in the battery of childhood immunizations that children in developed countries must have in order to attend public school.
2.) In 1982, blood components were classified as either, "Major" or "Minor" based on raw percentage of blood volume. This put and end to lingering inconsistencies vis-à-vis plasma fractions and created the following hard divisions:
ALLOWED: Albumin, Immune globulins, serums, Factors VIII and IX and RhoGAM
FORBIDDEN: Red Cells, White Cells, Plasma and Platelets
3.) In 1990, blood components were classified on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained.
4.) In the year 2000, blood components were classified as either "Primary" or "Secondary." This resulted in the allowance of an additional handful of non-plasma fractions, including hemoglobin based blood substitutes and platelet gels. This created the following divisions:
ALLOWED: Anything derived from a "Primary" component.
FORBIDDEN: Red Cells, White Cells, Whole Plasma and Platelets
This policy adjustment is fourteen years in the past at this point, so stating that JW's can "Now" accept blood fractions is becoming a stretch even if this is all one has in mind...
Besides, whilst allowing Factor X goes back more than 55 years, the allowability of other components is much more recent.
I would guess you're probably thinking of Factor VIII/Cryoprecipitate, which was actually one of the very last of the plasma fractions to be allowed. Even as late as 1975, the JW parent organization was still stating in print that it was prohibited.
Lastly, the medical and "Scriptural" mendacity of the organization's " policies" on blood have been powerfully argued and exposed only in more recent years.
Well, this isn't to say that I don't think very highly of people like Kerry Louderback-Wood and her excellent article in The Journal of Church and State several years ago, but from what I've observed, the highest quality of argumentation against the transfusion medicine taboo occured between the years 1996 and 1999, when Dr. Muramoto and others working with him got articles published in major medical journals and the JW parent organization via their mindless vignettes attempted to respond. The entire medical world got to see them for the self-serving, morally compromised cultists that they are.
Personally, I think the adjustment in 2000 was in direct response to this pressure.
-
Bobcat
TD said:
Well, this isn't to say that I don't think very highly of people like Kerry Louderback-Wood and her excellent article in The Journal of Church and State several years ago, but from what I've observed, the highest quality of argumentation against the transfusion medicine taboo occured between the years 1996 and 1999, when Dr. Muramoto and others working with him got articles published in major medical journals
Is any of this online so that it can be referenced?
BTW, thank you for the information.
Take Care
-
TD
Bobcat:
Is any of this online so that it can be referenced?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9752623
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9800583
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10635499
For a good laugh, read through the Rapid Responses at the BMJ site:
-
steve2
I take my hat off to you TD. You are the "go to" man on providing a helpful and informed overview on this compelling topic.I also get strong impression - backed up by your excellent overview - that the Watchtower's "stand" in recent years has largely been a reactive one in response to others critiquing the (pathetic) distinctions made by the organization with some components okay and others not.
Oh and yes, I meant Factor 8 - er VIII.