The British Journal Of Hematology 2002 119 25-37 makes interesting reading in its article by Judith Marsh and David Bevan entitled 'Haematological Care Of Jehovahs Witnesses'. Nothing new, but in view of what I heard recently from an JW acquaintance working in the hematology department of a local hospital it gave me some food for thought.
The long article necessarily of a scientific nature and therefore without any noted bias makes this point regarding the alteration in policy by the WTS toward those JWs who take blood transfusions as a matter of choice:
"Changing consequences for JW of receiving blood transfusions: irrelevant to the issue of consent
Any JW known, between 1961 and 2000, to be transfused with a prohibited blood product would have been expelled from the Society and ostracised by other JW, a policy known as disfellowship ( Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1981; Ridley 1999 ). This often meant social isolation and rejection of the transfusion recipient by their own family. Disfellowship was abandoned in 2000. Rejection is no longer carried out by JW congregations but self-inflicted: any JW who willfully and without regret accepts a blood transfusion revokes his own membership by his own actions. This policy shift is clearly a matter for individual JW rather than doctors : the UK JW Transfusion Committee take the view that nothing essentially has changed, as no JW would wish to dissociate themselves ( JW Hospital Liason Committee, personal communication)."
Apart from the view stated by the WTS not surprising of course, that no right-minded person would not want to be a JW, it is clear that the medical profession see a clear shift in WTS policy where the taking of blood transfusions is concerned. The article further states:
"Doctors, however, should consider the possibility that individual JW patients have interpreted this change as allowing them to accept transfusion under certain circumstances. This possibility could only emerge ( and be realized ) in absolute medical confidentiality. Every JW patient should ( unless they decline the offer ) at some point be asked about their personal interpretation in a one-to-one consultation."
It would be prudent to conclude that the WTS are well aware of the ring of confusion that they have thrown over this whole issue and it serves them well to throw the issue out of focus to such an extent that many of their adherents do not fully understand and likely never will understand either the medical nor the theological implications of the choices made for them.
This is evidenced by the fact that a JW that I am well acquainted with, who is not unsympathetic to XJWs, and who works in the hematology department of the local hospital knows of four JWs who in recent months have secretly taken blood transfusions with components outlawed by the WTS and a further five who have against WTS policy allowed autologous predonation ( storing the patients own blood in advance of a needed operation ). I suspect that the WTS is glad that their dark secret remains a secret thereby precluding the possibility of any negative publicity toward them, but it does seem that at least some JWs are taking whole blood transfusions, they are just not admitting to having done so. The JW who knows this information would never think of passing it on to their elders, though of course this is required of her by WTS policy.
The problem of course with the decision making process of many JWs with regard to blood transfusions ( whom it must be admitted often understand little of the theological issues involved in the blood issue except for the simplistic interpretations and slogans forced upon them ) is that they are seldom in a position that allows for an unbiased choice in the matter. The article goes on:
"One conundrum is difficult to address in guidelines. Although the option is always given to the JW patient to discuss key issues of consent on his or her own, most will insist on the attendance of a relative or associate who is also a JW."
One wonders how many more secret blood transfusions would take place if the hospitalized JW was able to decide these matters without any external emotional and theological pressure being applied. It is clear that the medical world though trying hard to accept the decision of the patient, recognize that that 'will' of the patient often belongs not to that person but to the relative, or committee that is with them helping to ensure that they make the 'correct' decision.
That a person would be willing to play Russian Roulette with their lives due, not to genuinely held principled beliefs, which I am sure we would all respect, but due to the overriding issue of how others within their religious communities might view their choices, shows the unhealthy depth of control that the WTS has on the lives of its followers.
Best to you all, though just one blessing for each person - regardless of the number of multiple posting accounts that they do not have! - HS
Edited to clarify a point kindly made by Sam Beli.
Edited by - hillary_step on 13 December 2002 17:42:26