In my state hospitals recently were posters (official) stating that blood transfusion is not a cure -all and giving some of the disadvantages. I have to assume that this was to inform patients and their families who might be insisting on this procedure. But... the blood supply in australia would have to be one of the safest as for one: it is illegal to sell blood into the supply so druggies cant wander in off the street and sell a pint. Donors are fully screened. eg I could not be accepted as i am on permanent medications.
Blood Transfusions - What are the risks?
1) NO diciplinary action is taken against the member.
2) No disfellowshipping to worry about.
3) The patient faces No repercussions or consequences from the organization or other individual members or from the congregation he is a member of for the blood transfusion.
4) The paitent faces No shunning for taking a blood transfusion.
5) No privileges are taken away for accepting a blood transfusion.
All the above taken right out of the horse's mouth.....so to speak!!!
bsmart: By taking a transfusion they still say that you are no longer a witness,,,,, you dissociate yourself. Till I read it in their publications I don't believe it.
But how can one be considered to have disassociated himself if no privileges are taken away?
If what JW GoneBad posted is true, I don't think you will see it in the publications - at least for a while. I believe they've been wanting to drop the blood doctrine for a while, but can't, or at least have to do it extremely gradually, for obvious reasons. Interestingly, as far I know, they did not have the annual Service Meeting blood part this year and maybe the year before, also. That seems significant to me.
Lee Elder, good to see you're still around and active.
Magnum: 'Interestingly, as far I know, they did not have the annual Service Meeting blood part this year and maybe the year before, also. That seems significant to me.'
Funny you should bring that up.
I mentioned to the person I was talking to at the Hospital Information Services (HIS) that the last Kingdom Ministry reminding JW members about having an up-to-date DPA or Medical Directive was back in 2009 or 2010 and if there was a reason why its' been so long......he ummmed and ahhed and he really didn't have anything to say. I think I may have put him in a little bit of a pickle with that question-so I decided not to press him for an answer.
I thought I'd let that one sit for a week or two then call him back and press him more for an answer. Because I too think that is significant!
marked, thanks for the information on this heinous pratice of refusing (supposedly) blood.
It is possible that the whole blood transfusion field could be radically overturned if they succeed in growing universal donor blood in the laboratory from stem cells. This may happen in a couple years.
No more blood donations needed...
Metatron, I hope that doesn't happen. I don't want them to have an easy way out. Maybe that's what they're waiitng on. Maybe they know their doctrine is wrong, but they're waiting on something like what you mentioned to occur so they won't have to admit they were wrong.
However, I don't really see how that would give them a way out. Blood grown from stem cells would seem to me to still be forbidden by them according to their doctrine. Blood grown from stem cells would still be blood. It wouldn't be like some kind of blood substitute.
I read that the GB has'nt published anything concering blood since about 2010, is this true and have they ever said in writting that Hempure is Ok to use????
Last decembee I told the elders all my reasons why the blood doctrine is wrong and that I would accept blood in an emergency.
In April they asked me officially the loyalty question if I accept that the gb is the fds and that their teaching is from god. I gave them a diplomatic answer.
This week they called me, that from my answer they feel I don't accept fds doctrine. They will call me today to state what effects this will have. I will clearly tell them that I would accept blood for myself and my boy in a matter of life and death.
We will see if there is NO df, NO da, NO consequences for that.
I believe the Watchtower can say all that was quoted earlier because they will just say the witness has decided themselves not to be a witness any more. So the Watchtower are not taking anything away or taking any action. They will simply say that the individual agreed to accept all the Watchtower doctrines at his or her baptism. If they later decide they dont want to any more, then that is their decision.
Very crafty of course but its hard to argue against that.
Great article Lee Elder!