How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?

by minimus 43 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus

    Up until the very end, my mother refused blood. It didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the Bible says "no blood"!

    I wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking. Would JWs of today take the blood or give it to a loved one in a medical emergency?

  • konceptual99

    All of them. They are all prepared to take it in whatever form the GB say is OK.

    If the GB said it was all OK they would happily stick the needle in themselves.

  • Ray Frankz
    Ray Frankz

    I disagree with Konceptual. I don't really know why but the JW take the Blood issue way more seriously than any other teaching from the WT. I have seen not few cases of people who were disfellowshipped or inactive who didn't take blood.

    By the way, I always thought that it's easier to "plan" not to take blood in a previously set surgery, for example. I believe, however, that in case of an accident and they need the blood just to stay alive until the doctors finish the surgery in the spur of the moment, it's not so simple to stick to their "morals".

  • minimus

    The blood doctrine is engrained into many Witnesses. They might never be able to explain it because it defies logic and common sense but they will die faithful if need be. I knew some who did not attend meetings for decades but when they got into a car accident refuse the blood.

  • konceptual99

    Sorry Ray but I think you might have misunderstood what I meant.

    You are right that Witnesses take the blood policy seriously and often make a stand almost as a reflex action. In these circumstances however what is really happening is that the Witness is making a stand for whatever the FDS have said is currently acceptable and not acceptable. They don't make logical and conscience driven decisions based on their own understanding and research.

    If the FDS change their mind then so too the mind and conscience of the majority changes. This is where my comment comes in.

    If the FDS ever further reduced the scope of the prohibition or even removed it then my money would be on the R&F simply following them and accepting the new scope. They would all take whatever if the WTS said it was now ok.

    I have to say I don't see the WTS removing the prohibition completely as the legal exposure is probably scaring them.

    As has been pointed out in another thread the whole blood situation is far more about organisation policy management than a truly theological position based on honest and conscience driven interpretation.

  • undercover
    All of them. They are all prepared to take it in whatever form the GB say is OK.

    I dunno... my mother, when filling out a blood card (this was a few years ago, when we actually spoke of JW matters still), refused to check the boxes that allowed for certain fractions. I reminded her that it was okay to accept these fractions according to the WTS, and she should check the boxes, but she said something to the effect of, 'it's best not to test the boundaries, but to be cautious when giving doctors permission in regards to blood'.

    So even when they allowed fractions, she wouldn't bend on the previous application of 'no blood, no how, no way'

  • problemaddict 2
    problemaddict 2

    Its a reflex to refuse blood. When however faced with the real consequences, I think JW family will more often reason "if I allow it, then I am the one that is responsible.....not _____ since she was unconscious."

    In a situation regarding my family, a doctor told us to remember that they are a teaching hospital, and they WILL respect our wishes. Which means if we won't allow blood, then they won't even bring it in the room. But what the doctor said after that was what stuck with me.

    "We have found more often than not in these situations that the family or even the person at risk will change their mind, leaving us scrambling for supplies we did not bring close in order to respect religious objections. So I want you to know......we will keep your medical situation completely private."

    THAT....made an impact. I would put it in the column for a lot of JW's take blood.

  • tor1500


    Here's the deal on blood, the bible is full of do's and don'ts...Witnesses are more faithful in that than anything else, their MO is not to do nothing for instead of helping someone or be nice to someone the best they can do is the blood issue...They are not faithful with too much else...

    But I've heard some witness left the hospital and came back in disguise....& got blood...

    Do they really think God will be pleased with them for denying Blood ? Don't think so...why are there only a few blood types, & if you have the same blood as someone else you could save a life even yours...but here's the deal...only life a witness cares about is their own, they would throw their own family under the bus for paradise...

    I had an operation and a blood card....DISMISS...

    It's easy to project would you would do, but when it's time to do it...different story...

    Witnesses just like to look pious and be martry's (martry's are dead)....


  • konceptual99
    So even when they allowed fractions, she wouldn't bend on the previous application of 'no blood, no how, no way'

    You know what, my mother is the same. But she is old school and there are few with that sense of conscience and fundamental principle anymore.

    The vast majority will do anything they can't be DFed for (or disassociated by their actions to be precise).

    Not only that, but going the other way also means considering things like vaccines and things grown in bone meal.

  • steve2

    You raise a good question. However, it is unusual to use an example that is the opposite of what you are asking (that is, your mother refused a transfusion).

    If you know of any JW who has accepted a transfusion, that would be a more powerful way to explore your good question.

Share this