Basic Blood Questions For Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  TD

  Fisherman,
  

  Fetal blood cells persist in the maternal blood because they are nucleated and able to reproduce.

  Erythrocytes in adults are simply capsules of hemoglobin and when they become damaged, they are broken down and excreted. The technical term is enzymatic degradation. This happens with both your own blood and donated blood.

  As the cells in an organ age, they die and are replaced. The dead cells are broken down and excreted. This happens with both your own organs and donated organs.
  

  None of these processes constitutes ingestion.

  ----------
  

  I've heard the argument that, "the Bible does not sanction any medical use of blood or other use of blood except for ritual" before, but the idea that a prohibition on the "use of blood" can be derived from the Bible's silence is soundly contradicted by JW literature itself.
  

  To illustrate, the March 1, 1989 issue of The Watchtower described intraoperative autotransfusion explicitly as an "autologous blood use."

  "A final example of autologous blood use involves recovering and reusing blood during surgery. Equipment is used to aspirate blood from the wound, pump it out through a filter (to remove clots or debris) or a centrifuge (to eliminate fluids), and then direct it back into the patient. " (Emphasis mine)

  The previous two examples of "autologous blood use" in the captioned article were isovolemic hemodilution and predonation. So here we had three autologous uses of blood, two of which were matters of conscience and one of which was not. Clearly some uses of blood are distinguishable from others.
  

  The August 8, 1993 issue of Awake! explicitly acknowledges that allogenic blood is used in the production of the hepatitis B vaccine:

  "These active immunizations include all the baby shots and the injections that are commonly considered as vaccinations. With one exception (discussed later), these do not involve the use of blood in any step of production?..One other active immunization deserves attention because it is the only active immunization made from blood. It is a hepatitis-B vaccine called Heptavax-B." (Emphasis mine)

  The October 1, 1994 issue of The Watchtower amplifies on the subject of "baby shots" by acknowledging that blood products are indeed used in their production:

  "Many find this noteworthy, since some vaccines that are not prepared from blood may contain a relatively small amount of plasma albumin that was used or added to stabilize the ingredients in the preparation."

  Examples would include MMR II, MUMPSVAX, ATTENUVAX and MURAVAX II by Merck & Co. The growth mediums for these vaccines (e.g. Medium 199, MEM, etc) typically contain both human albumin and fetal bovine serum. Additionally the vaccines themselves contain human albumin as either an adjuvant or excipient. (or both) Other examples of this include VARIVAX and VAQTA, also by Merck & Co., EOLARIX, INFANRIX, and GLAXO by SmithKline Beecham, PENTACEL by Aventis Pasteur, and Connaught Laboratories IPV just to name a few. The acceptance of some of these vaccines is virtually unavoidable in modern society.

  Invoking an unconditional argument in defense of what they themselves explicitly acknowledge to be a conditional prohibition yet again exposes the confusion of Watchtower writers.
• 

  TonusOH

  Transfused blood is not absorbed. It is not ingested, and it is not consumed. Substances that are absorbed, ingested, or consumed are typically metabolized by the body and used up, with any byproducts used or discarded as a waste product. Blood transfusions do not trigger this response in the body, as they are used to replace lost volume and the added blood behaves the way blood always does, circulating throughout the body.
• 

  luckynedpepper

  I think you've misplaced your argument with the use of the term "gallon of it via IV". That prejudices your answer. Acceptable use of blood is certainly discussed. Jesus sacrifice was the blood of an innocent man, used in order to save life, all life.

  Is there a difference in using similar "innocent blood" (not taken unlawfully) in order to save life, albeit in a lesser way? After all, no dead person praises or loves god...
• 

  luckynedpepper

  Unlike a kidney transplant or a metal buttress for a broken bone, BT blood is absorbed by the body thereby ingesting it.

  Its not ingested, digested or consumed- the individual components continue in the system until they fail and are removed by the various systems, like the liver or the spleen
  
  
• 

  Fisherman

  they are broken down and excreted.

  
  

  You understand very well that that is not always true because the body can eat itself by catabolizing (sounds like cannibalizing) protein into energy. If that happens to an organ that belonged to a donor, it is serving as a food source. Also, not all hemoglobin that is broken down is excreted. Some can be recycled or metabolized. If you are absorbing, consuming, ingesting, using —or whatever, your own blood, that is what your body naturally does but if you are consuming 1/2 gallon of whole blood that you have ingested or transplanted into your body via IV, how are you abstaining from blood as the decree commands within the definition of abstaining ? In every case in the Bible where conduct is restricted, what conduct is authorized is also defined. No Bible authorized use for blood is defined in the decree. Interestingly, the scriptures go on to explain as I mentioned previously how Christians should not go around investigating whether a meat is kosher for christians which could result in eating prohibited food whereas no further explanation is given on abstaining from blood.

  
  

  As you pointed out, some vaccines are made from blood —or contain a little blood? and JW can take such vaccines and there is reasoning behind it that you find inconsistent. I’m just guessing but JW decision makers don’t find a reason that using vaccines violates the decree however putting a gallon or a a couple of pints of whole blood into a person’s body for medical reasons that can save a person’s life is understood by JW that it violates the decree.

  
  

  What is difficult to understand about BT is that obeying God’s commands should result in life or good health but a person that refuses a blood transfusion in a medical emergency can die whereas taking one can either save a person’s life or give the person a chance to live —but with a possible health risk of a deadly disease like the surprise of aids or who knows what other effects to expect years down the line and with other people’s dna and chromosomes running through a person’s veins.
• 

  Fisherman

  TD,

  I really enjoy your point explaining that abstaining from an object is nonsensical because abstaining refers to conduct usually having to do with consumption such as with ethanol which can also be consumed via IV although as you have kindly clarified, blood is not like alcohol which doesn’t behave like an organ but is solely metabolized when ingested. I think what needs to be clearly understood is what uses of blood are restricted and which are allowed according to the decree. Maybe you can try to explain.
• 

  cofty

  I think what needs to be clearly understood is what uses of blood are restricted and which allowed

  That's very simple.

  1. If the animal was killed the blood can only be used for sacrifice.
  2. If it died of itself (or if nothing died as in a transfusion) the blood is no more sacred than the teeth
• 

  Fisherman

  the blood is no more sacred than the teeth

  You keep asserting that.

  Without discrediting your point that there is a distinction between the blood of an animal that died on it’s own and the blood of a living animal that was slaughtered for food, I have already refuted your application to BT. Also, whole blood taken from a living organism is not congruent with the blood inside a carcass that cannot be removed because we see tolerances for Christians when eating animals not slaughtered correctly compare to abstaining from blood.
  
• 

  cofty

  If you think you have even began to refute my argument you are thoroughly deluded.
• 

  Fisherman

  Cofty, I understand your point that the blood of a slaughtered creature is not being used in a BT. It is a good point juxtaposition that blood is intrinsically sacred because the soul is in the blood to begin with.