New Blood policy for JW medical professionals?

by FreeAgent 41 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • FreeAgent

    Hey folks,

    It’s been a long time since I’ve posted, good to see the forum well attended & spicy as ever. This just in from a close & trusted source, names & local places redacted for obvious reasons:

    “Shit’s happening. It’s been on our radar since January but [----] just got confirmation today that JWs are quietly rolling out a policy change intensifying their stance on blood transfusions. They’ve been having private special meetings in different cities across the country. The liaison committees in each of the cities gathered all the JW healthcare professionals in their areas and read a letter stating that they can no longer administer, order, or even recommend a blood transfusion in any form, even if it means termination from their job. We got confirmation of meetings happening in Atlanta, Chicago, and Florida. Plus one person in [a nearby area] said a brother from the liaison committee….called [----] on the phone and informed [----] of the change. So this is real and it’s just a matter of time until the letter gets read in [your area], [-----] makes a stance, and gets disfellowshipped.

    Has anyone else heard about this? I don’t want to shoot off a flare over an unverified rumor, but these stories have come in recently from several unrelated & unsolicited sources. Trying to obtain a copy of any official documentation confirming this policy, if any. If true, it appears this info is being dispersed directly through the Hospital Liaison Committees in each region, and as usual letters are read but not distributed. If any of you are close to anyone on your local HLC, this would be excellent time for a clandestine book bag inventory near a convenient scanner .

    I find it a little suspicious that there are not widespread reports indicating an organization-wide initiative. These kind of things usually get orchestrated in lock-step. The person who reported this to me feels the Org may be putting out feelers to the JW healthcare community to gauge response prior to issuing an official change in policy. Or, more sinister and true-to-form, they may be laying the groundwork for saying later that “we’ve always had this policy” to force submission via gas lighting in the future. This has always been understood to be a personal "conscience matter" to my knowledge.

    If this is verified, it looks like they’ve finally targeted the last well-educated and reasonably prosperous demographic block they have left, the medical professions. Not sure how many of this group would simply fold and refuse to treat patients in dire need though, especially at the risk of a well-paying & stable job. Oh...and abandoning the Hippocratic oath in the process.

    I definitely figured the Org would go in the opposite direction on the blood issue over time. Looks like I may have underestimated the Cool Aid mixture again….

  • DesirousOfChange

    Anxious to hear any further info on this.

    This would be a big deal for RN's and hospital staff.

    Hard to believe WTS is digging in deeper on this when they've been "watering it down" for the past decade.

  • lastmanstanding

    This is interesting. I recently had BIG surgery and I consented to a transfusion if needed to save my life. At the hospital, there was a JW nurse and I successfully avoided any contact with him, but by a hair. I had to discharge kinda early to avoid him.

    Now, I had several conversations with another nurse, and this ‘worldly’ nurse said he knew the dub nurse for a long time, and that the dub nurse gave transfusions all the time.

    So, it will be interesting to see this play out.

  • waton

    Jw medical personell will balk at a ban on life saving procedures in their professions. The blood sacrifices have to happen because of the talking snake, and that never happened.

    You can not let people die, the ones you are trained to save , because of a badly written story.

  • careful

    Thanks FreeAgent for the post.

    As lastmanstanding says, this is interesting and bears watching. For years the organization has used Deuteronomy 14:21 for their policy on this matter. It says that Israelites under the law could not eat meat found dead, but they could let Gentiles living among them eat it, or even sell it to them. The implication is that Israelites could not eat eat it because of the prohibition against eating blood. Thus this passage has been the scriptural "okay" for Witness personnel in medical fields to administer blood products to "worldly" patients.

    So if there is some change in policy here, I have to wonder whether some "new light" is about to "revealed" regarding Deuteronomy 14:21. Of course, they may just ignore it and push ahead with this policy change without offering any new interpretation. That would fit the trend under GB II to do just such a thing.

  • I believe in overlapping
    I believe in overlapping

    It's just Gossip. You can download the ethical position for clinicians on their website in PDF format and just about all blood fractions are allowed for the members. Nothing has changed or will change. WT is trying hard to make the blood policy a conscience matter. They are not about to take two step backwards at this point. Any changes would have been put on the website first.

  • Finkelstein

    because of a badly written story.

    Yes a badly interpreted story which was originally focused around a religoius dietary law.

    See what happens when you let novice bible theologians such as what had been driving the WTS/JWS religion create doctrines of faith.

    To date the no blood transfusion doctrine of the JWS has cost the lives of thousands.

  • Atlantis
  • dropoffyourkeylee

    I don’t believe this story is legit

  • Atlantis


    I would like to see the letter or something in writing that would help to verify this. I have contacted an elder to see if he can come up with anything to assist us.


Share this