Hello everyone
without going to a lenghty discussion I would like to
comment about the article on the
BMJ 2001;322:1123 (5th may 2001):
Changes in policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses
and more specifically to the answer given to Dr. O. Muramoto from: Paul Wade
director, Hospital Information Services (Britain), London NW7 1RN.-
In the second § of his comment he writes:
"The position of Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to refusal of donor blood transfusion, based on their personal, deeply held religious beliefs, is well known among members of the medical community.
The understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses have of the biblical command to abstain from blood3 precludes their use of whole donor blood and its four primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma).
Acceptance of derivatives of any of these major blood components, including albumin, clotting factors, immunoglobulins, and haemoglobin based oxygen carriers, is a matter for each Witness patient to decide. "
About the first part I'll recall what was published in a watchtower article more than 41 years ago:
*** w61 1/15 63 Questions from Readers ***
In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?
The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. "
And also:
*** w61 1/15 64 Questions from Readers ***
God’s law definitely says that the soul of man is in his blood. Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. This is a violation of God’s commands to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon. The decree of the apostles at Jerusalem declares: “If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.” Hence a Christian who deliberately receives a blood transfusion and thus does not keep himself from blood will not prosper spiritually.
According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God’s people by excommunication or disfellowshiping.
If the taking of a blood transfusion is the first offense of a dedicated, baptized Christian due to his immaturity or lack of Christian stability and he sees the error of his action and grieves and repents over it and begs divine forgiveness and forgiveness of God’s congregation on earth, then mercy should be extended to him and he need not be disfellowshiped.
He needs to be put under surveillance and to be instructed thoroughly according to the Scriptures upon this subject, and thereby be helped to acquire strength to make decisions according to the Christian standard in any future cases.
If, however, he refuses to acknowledge his nonconformity to the required Christian standard and makes the matter an issue in the Christian congregation and endeavors to influence others therein to his support; or, if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God’s requirements.
As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping.
Thereby the Christian congregation vindicates itself from any charge of connivance at the infraction of God’s law by a member of the congregation through blood transfusion, and it upholds the proper Christian standard before all the members of the Christian congregation, and keeps itself clean from the blood of all men, even as the apostle Paul did who promulgated to the various Gentile congregations the apostolic decree handed down at Jerusalem.—Acts 20:26."
See the clear statement at the beginning to the QfR:
"… would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?"
AND THE ANSWER:
"…The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. "
But what most of the brothers and sisters do not know is the existence of a previous
Watchtower article dated 1.08.1958:
*** w58 8/1 478 Questions from Readers ***
One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States.
We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital.
We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.
We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge.
The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.
Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake."
So one could not fail to notice that only 25 months before the w61 1/15 article, the WTS did write the above !!!
Note also the wording:" …We of course, regret,.." and" …We believe…" and also "…We let the judgement…"'!
Furthermore one should notice the statement : "… We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. "
A question comes to the mind : Who would
"…. subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation …"
the scriptures or the WTS???
If the answer was so emphatically stated , as they wrote: "…The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. " why wait 25 months before sharing its content with the brothers
and sisters worldwide?
Furthermore the WTS stated very clearly :
" We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge."
and:
" Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, …" how is it possible to reconcile the two answers???
Let's remember that the conclusion reached in the "blood issue" was presented,
in 1973 as this:
*** w72 8/15 502 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***(°)
For example, the issue over blood began to arise particularly after 1937, when the first blood bank was established in Chicago, Illinois. Christian witnesses of Jehovah who became ill were faced with the question, Should I accept this form of therapy? Is it in harmony with God’s Word? A prayerful examination of the Scriptures was made, revealing God’s will in the matter."
In the light of the above WTS quotation , in 1958 and in 1961 any sincere person
can rightfully asks: " What is really God's will in the matter? How was it revealed?"
These are not rethorical questions, if we consider further public statement made
by the WTS almost 21 years after the above quote(°):
*** jv 183 13 Recognized by Our Conduct ***(book published in 1993)
Why Blood Transfusions Are Refused
The respect for life shown by Jehovah’s Witnesses has also affected their attitude toward blood transfusions. When transfusions of blood became an issue confronting them, The Watchtower of July 1, 1945, explained at length the Christian view regarding the sanctity of blood. "
and :
(p.184) "…Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Yet this clearly stated "understanding " wasn't given to doctors present
at a meeting at the Complutense University in Madrid (Spain) as mentioned
in the watchtower article :
*** w97 2/15 20 Bioethics and Bloodless Surgery ***
Another question on the minds of several doctors related to group pressure. What would happen, they wondered, if a Witness wavered and accepted a blood transfusion? Would he be ostracized by the Witness community?
The response would depend on the actual situation, for disobeying God’s law certainly is a serious matter, something for the congregation’s elders to examine. The Witnesses would want to help any person who has undergone the traumatic experience of life-threatening surgery and who has accepted a transfusion. Doubtless such a Witness would feel very bad and be concerned about his relationship with God. Such a person may need help and understanding. Since the backbone of Christianity is love, the elders would want, as in all judicial cases, to temper firmness with mercy.—Matthew 9:12, 13; John 7:24
.
“Won’t you be reassessing your ethical stand before long?” asked a professor in bioethics, who was visiting from the United States. “Other religions have done that in recent years.”
The stand of the Witnesses respecting the sanctity of blood is a doctrinal belief rather than an ethical viewpoint subject to periodic review, he was told. The clear Biblical command leaves no room for compromise. (Acts 15:28, 29) Violating such a divine law would be as unacceptable to a Witness as condoning idolatry or fornication."
Why even this kind of "understanding" effective since 1961, was modified
recently in the year 2000, more precisely June 16, 2000 with a letter from
the Wts to all Hospital Liaison Committees . Its 4th § states:
"If a baptized member of the faith wilfully and without regret accepts a blood
transfusion, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one
of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual is no longer viewed as a member of the
Christin congregation because he no longer accepte and follows the Biblical
prohibition to a bstain from blood. However , if such an individual later changes
his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
So, in few words " accepting a blood transfusion " is no longer viewed from june 16,2000 as :
- "… something for the congregation’s elders to examine."
-"… the elders would want, as in all judicial cases,…"
(why not the same procedure for idolatry and fornication? After all ,concerning the blood issue, "…Violating such a divine law would be as unacceptable to a Witness as condoning idolatry or fornication.")
Another very important point is that the content of this WTS letter (16.06.2000),
is still - unknown - to the vast majority of brothers and sisters! WHY???
In conclusion , with all the changes in the decades after 1945, the latest one beeing confirmed by , Paul Wade director, Hospital Information Services (Britain), London NW7 1RN.-:
…and haemoglobin based oxygen carriers, is a matter for each Witness patient to decide.(°°°) "
when is it going to end ???
What and when will be the next WTS " viewpoint " …" clarified wiew " or " adjusted understanding"???
Let's remember part of a statement in 1961:
"…Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. This is a violation of God’s commands to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon."
And :
"… According to the law of Moses, which set forth shadows of things to come, the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God’s people by excommunication or disfellowshiping." ( *** w61 1/15 64 Questions from Readers***).
In conclusion do we agree with Paul Wade statement:
"The position of Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to refusal of donor blood transfusion, based on their personal, deeply held religious beliefs,…"
On the base above reasons, made very, very short I do answer :"NO! "
Agape to you all, J.C.MacHislopp
(°°°) currently approved as "Hemopure" by the
South Africa's Medicines Control Council.
