Official Blood Document for Legal Purposes (page 4)

hippikon

Doesn’t look like a conscience matter to me

Mr Kim, the WTS should not be in the scientific business, though it does try to give scientific advise frequently. Rather the question of them should be "what is the religious basis for these do's and don'ts." They claim that the Bible guides all of their conduct, so let them explain from the Bible the do's and don'ts.

manon

I believe these forms are designed with the intention to manipulate the thinking of the carrier it's a form of mind control. They are a reminder, token, object referral of the conditions/specifications that are acceptable to the "society". The personal decision aspect is deceiving "NOT ACCEPTABLE" is in bold type they are telling you how and what you should already be thinking.

LDH

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

When I think of the average JW, with no more than a high school education (that's in *this* country; to say nothing of JW's in like, say, Peru) well, I laugh out loud.

I mean, really, is this document going to be provided to all JWs to share with their Doctors?!?!? How foolish! If I were a doctor and someone came to me and said, "I don't want XXXXX1 but I will accept XXXXX2 because someone else says it's ok!" well guess what, you are going to get a letter telling you I can't continue to be your Doctor anymore. It wouldn't surprise me if Drs. refused to have JW's as their patients.

Lisa

"NEXT!!!!" Class

Mr. Kim

Sam,

You have a good point. IMO, The WTB&TS should try to cleanup their own mess created by the MAN MADE decisions, pride, etc. before issuing new marching orders. As you know, the list could go on and be very accurate.

The WTB&TS should stop saying, giving the impression, perception and letting people believe that they speak for almighty God (Jehovah). Because of this belief, many, many people continue to suffer and die.

The past several years, Millions of people have died because of Mankind's faults and sin. Not because of God.

However, I will say that billions are going to die (quickly & slowly) because God's appointed time will arrive---- when he is ready. Not when the WTB&TS says so...............

KIM

Room 215

Good point, Joy...Or certainly, the blood which gets processed into the various allowable components was certainly stored from the time it was taken from the donor until it got to the lab.

sandy

It wouldn't surprise me if Drs. refused to have JW's as their patients.

From what I hear many Doctors do refuse to treat JWs who need surgery because of their refusal of blood.

I know at my job (Legal Firm) the attorneys hate JW cases. LOL

MacHislopp

Hello everyone,

above all many thanks to AlanF , for digging out and presenting this

great piece of evidence, published by the WTBS Inc.

Many have already commented , giving well thought points and

real sharp observation, which shows again, that this forum acts

as a 'thinking tank' to dissect and expose the double talk and

devious ways of the mighty WTBS Inc.

Btw, the document looks like a 'revised version ', dated

April 2002. I have never seen a similar one before and I do

believe that it is used only among the HCL in the United States.

These below, are imho, the most outstanding points,

that have been hightlighted:

Waiting:

"...refusing to take blood stance was NOT a medical response.....

.....but a scriptural response only.

NOT ACCEPTABLE

PERSONAL DECISION

He is being TOLD by the WTBTS in writing that he CANNOT take some blood components. NO personal decision in the matter. "

City Fan:

" ...cryoprecipitate which contains a small amount of plasma is in the personal decision list but plasma itself is in the not-allowed list. That doesn't make sense to me!"

Pathofthorns:

"It looks like by clearly listing what is acceptable and what is not, they are avoiding the obvious question as to why some parts of blood are acceptable and others are not. The chart makes it clear that they are not "abstaining from blood" since it is plainly obvious where these fractions come from.

and:

By simply dictating to the members what is acceptable and what is not, they avoid having to explain the reasoning behind a policy that makes no sense. "

Rocketman:

'The "not acceptable" part takes it out of the realm of personal decision'

Hawkaw:

The stupid part is that they do accept white blood cells in peripherial blood stem cell autographing procedures as well as white blood cells that are transplanted with organ transplants.

... also accept whole blood bone marrow.

...also accept whole blood when hemodilution, heart lung and other techniques that connect the patient to a machine via a tube are employed.

Some techniques like hemodilution store the blood before transferring it back into the patient.

and:

" Where in the bible does it say blood is considered to be whole blood, red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma and platelets but blood is not all the fractions of red blood cells, white blood cells, plasma and platelets."

Metatron:

"We need to emphasize - as the document shows- that , for Witnesses, refusing blood is not voluntary.

It is ordered or demanded by the Watchtower Society , using the hostage arrangement known as "disassociation".

Sam Beli:

"....much of what is on page two has nothing directly to do with replacing lost blood, either because of hemorrhage or because of disease that has interfered with the normal blood manufacturing processes of the body"

and:

"They claim that the Bible guides all of their conduct, so let them explain from the Bible the do's and don'ts. "

.

joy2bfree:

I'm surprised no one else has commented on this statement of theirs "Any technique that involves blood storage".

All products of blood, whether whole blood or the "fractions" that are allowable are STORED. You don't drip it straight from soneone into another human.

"... this rule null and voids all their silly rules on blood."

Bluesbrother:

"Nowadays I am amazed at the highhanded attitude of the WTS , This is their definition of acceptable and unacceptable and the congs, like the sheep they say they are, meekly follow."

Manon :

"These forms are designed with the intention to manipulate the thinking of the carrier it's a form of mind control. They are a reminder, token, object referral of the conditions/specifications that are acceptable to the "society". The personal decision aspect is deceiving "NOT ACCEPTABLE" is in bold type they are telling you how and what you should already be thinking."

Now just as a reminder let's read some of their publications on the matter,

focusing on the WTBS Inc's claim of:

"... Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God."

and:

" Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected."

***" "The Watchtower" 1964 November 15th pages .680-3

Employment and Your Conscience ***

The Society does not endorse any of the modern medical uses of blood, such as the uses of blood in connection with inoculations. Inoculation is, however, a virtually unavoidable circumstance in some segments of society, and so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual to determine whether to submit to inoculation with a serum containing blood fractions for the purpose of building up antibodies to fight against disease. If a person did this, he may derive comfort under the circumstances from the fact that he is not directly eating blood, which is expressly forbidden in God's Word. It is not used for food or to replace lost blood. Here the Christian must make his own decision based on conscience. Therefore, whether a Christian will submit to inoculation with a serum, or whether doctors or nurses who are Christians will administer such, is for personal decision. Christians in the medical profession are individually responsible for employment decisions. They must bear the consequences of decisions made, in keeping with the principle at Galatians 6:5. Some doctors who are Jehovah's witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah's dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person."

*** "The Watchtower " 2000 June 15th, page 31 Questions from Readers ***

Do Jehovah's Witnesses accept any medical products derived from blood?

The fundamental answer is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood. We firmly believe that God's law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions. Still, new issues arise because blood can now be processed into four primary components. In deciding whether to accept such, a Christian should look beyond possible medical benefits and risks. His concern should be what the Bible says and the potential effect on his relationship with Almighty God.

The key issues are quite simple. As an aid to seeing why that is some consider some Biblical, historical, and medical background.

As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah's Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God's law and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah's Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God's law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.

However, since blood can be processed beyond those primary components, questions arise about fractions derived from the primary blood components. How are such fractions used, and what should a Christian consider when deciding on them?

Blood is complex. Even the plasma which is 90 percent water - carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries such proteins as albumin, clotting factors, and antibodies to fight diseases. Technicians isolate and use many plasma proteins. For example, clotting factor VIII has been given to hemophiliacs, who bleed easily. Or if someone is exposed to certain diseases, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin, extracted from the blood plasma of people who already had immunity. Other plasma proteins are used medically, but the above mentioned illustrate how a primary blood component (plasma) may be processed to obtain fractions. *

*Footnote: See Questions From Readers in "The Watchtower" of June 15, 1978 , and October 1, 1994. Pharmaceutical firms have developed recombinant products that are not taken from blood and that may prescribed in place of some blood fractions used in the past.

Just as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be processed to extract a wound healing factor. And other medicines are coming along that involved (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.

Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God's command to 'abstain from blood.' They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be 'poured out on the ground.' (Deuteronomy 12: 22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.

Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions?

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCTOR

· If you face surgery or a treatment that might involve a blood product, ask:

· Do all the medical personnel involved know that, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I direct that no blood transfusions (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma) be given to me under any circumstances?

· If any medicine to be prescribed may be made from blood plasma, red or white cells, or platelets, ask:

· Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup?

· How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way?

·

· If my conscience permits me to accept this fraction, what medical risks are there?

· If my conscience moves me to decline this fraction, what other therapy might be used?

· After I have considered this matter further, when may I inform you of my decision?

·

Questions From Readers in "The Watchtower" of June 1, 1990, noted that plasma proteins (fractions) move from a pregnant woman's blood to the separate blood system of her fetus. Thus a mother passes immunoglobulins to her child, providing valuable immunity. Separately, as a fetus' red cells complete their normal life span, their oxygen-carrying portion is processed. Some of it becomes bilirubin, which crosses the placenta to the mother and is eliminated with her body wastes. Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept blood traction derived from blood plasma or cells.

Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue inconsequential? No. It is serious. Yet, there is a basic simplicity. The above material shows that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to 'abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication'. (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.

Many people would be willing accept any therapy that seems to offer immediate benefit, even a therapy have know health risks, as is true of blood products. The sincere Christian endeavors to have a broader, more balanced view that involves more than just the physical aspects. Jehovah's Witnesses appreciate efforts to provide quality medical care, and they weight the risk/benefit ratio of any treatment. However, when it comes to products derived from blood, they carefully weigh what God says and their personal relationship with our Life-Giver. Psalm 36:9.

What a blessing for a Christian to have such confidence as the psalmist who wrote: Jehovah God is a sun and a shield; favor and glory are what he gives. Jehovah himself will not hold back anything good from those waking in faultlessness. O Jehovah., happy is the man that is trusting in you! Psalm 84: 11, 12.

Now concerning tthe following questions:

· Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup?

· How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way?

a "Friend" on the 4th June 2000, made these comments:

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 1 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 100 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 1000 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

If the physician says, "This treatment contains 10,000 red cell" would you object to it? Would elders have a judicial case?

And the list could go on and on.

I would like also to remind Waiting comments, 26th June 2000:

I also have noticed, like you, that the Society writes a lot about

"some have concluded",

"some have allowed their consciences".....

Well, who determines who is right?

The "some have concluded" or the "some have not concluded?"

The majority rules? Where does the GB fit into that scheme? Who counts the votes?

and this:

*** w00 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law

*** w00 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

For example, during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient."

Now, old on and let's go for a little time travel:

*** 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."

Please remember the WTBS'' claim :

"... Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God."

and:

" Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected."

Let's advance in time, and we arrive in the year 1961, i.e. only 25 months later and we get this:

*** w61 1/15 63-4 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. About the middle of the first “Christian” century the twelve apostles of Christ met with the other mature representatives of the congregation at Jerusalem to determine what should be the Scriptural requirement for the admission of non-Jews into the Christian congregation. The twelve apostles and other representative men of the Jerusalem congregation as met together on this occasion to decide this vital question were Jews or circumcised proselytes, and, as such, they had been up until Pentecost of A.D. 33 under the prohibition contained in the Mosaic law against eating or drinking the blood of animal creatures. In that Mosaic law at Leviticus 17:10-12 God said to the Jews: “As for any man of the house of Israel or some temporary resident who is residing for a while in your midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel, ‘No soul of you should eat blood and no temporary resident who is residing for a while in your midst should eat blood.”’

Those Jewish Christians had now come under the new covenant that had been validated by the pouring out in death of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and men. What, then, was their decision as to the requirements to lie imposed upon Gentile believers for admission into the Christian congregation? The decree setting forth their decision replies: “The apostles and the older brothers to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the nations: Greetings! . . . For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 15:23-29) Thus for all Christian believers the apostolic decree under the guidance of God’s holy spirit declared that among the things necessary for them was the keeping of themselves free from blood and from things killed without draining their blood. Years later that decision was still in force upon Christians according to Acts 21:25. That decision has never been revoked, because it is God-given and still applies to Christians today who are dedicated, baptized believers, faithfully following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, who was born a Jew over 1900 years ago.

Under God’s law as mediated by the prophet Moses toward the nation of Israel those Jews or circumcised proselytes who violated God’s prohibition against eating or drinking animal blood were to be cut off from his chosen people. According to the apostolic decree as handed down by that conference in Jerusalem, the Christian congregation was under obligation to do a similar thing toward those who ate or drank animal blood. Blood transfusions were not in vogue in apostolic days. Nevertheless, although the twelve apostles and their fellow members of the Jerusalem congregation may not have had such a thing as the modern blood transfusion in mind, yet the decree handed down by them included such a thing in its scope. The medical profession today admits that blood transfusion is a direct feeding of the blood vessels of the human body with blood from another person or other persons that the practitioner of blood transfusion says is necessary for the survival of the recipient.

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."

Let's advance a litlle more, up to the year 1964 :

*** w64 2/15 127-8 Questions from Readers ***

Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it?

The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: “How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern.” Such a love of God’s law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God’s law whatsoever. God’s law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah’s law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.

Since God’s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah’s law on blood. They do not obey God’s law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right.

Furthermore, because of their love of God’s law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.

How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.

In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God.—Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.

What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21.

But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God’s Word.

Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah’s law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: “For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome.”"

Now let's jump to the year 1997:

*** bq 3 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

*** bq 4-5 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood *** The Religious Basis

7 Most doctors view the use of blood essentially as a matter of medical judgment, much as their daily decisions about using certain medicines or surgical procedures. Other persons may view the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as more of a moral or legal question. They may think in terms of the right to life, authority to make decisions about one’s own body, or the civil obligations of the government to protect the lives of its citizens. These aspects all bear on the matter. Yet the stand taken by Jehovah’s Witnesses is above all a religious one; it is a position based on what the Bible says.

8 Many persons may wonder about the validity of the above statement. They are aware that numerous churches support the use of blood, establishing blood-bank programs and encouraging the donation of blood. Accordingly, the question logically arises:

What does the Bible say about humans taking blood into their bodies?

*** bq 12 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

29 The command to ‘abstain from blood’ was not a mere dietary restriction but was a serious moral requirement, as is seen by the fact that it was as serious to Christians as ‘abstaining from idolatry or fornication.’

*** bq 16-17 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

And down through the centuries this requirement has been recognized as “necessary” for Christians. Thus the determination of Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood is based on God’s Word the Bible and is backed up by many precedents in the history of Christianity.

*** bq 18 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

Similarly, the decree that Christians must ‘abstain from blood’ clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream.

*** bq 18-19 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

49 Persons who recognize their dependence on the Creator and Life-Giver should be determined to obey his commands. This is the firm position that Jehovah’s Witnesses take. They are fully convinced that it is right to comply with God’s law commanding abstention from blood.

In this they are not following a personal whim or some baseless fanatical view. It is out of obedience to the highest authority in the universe, the Creator of life, that they refuse to take blood into their systems either by eating or by transfusion.

*** bq 20 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

Hence, despite the immediate cost, those Christians obeyed the apostolic decree to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from fornication and from blood. Faithfulness to God meant that much to them.

*** bq 20

54 Today it means that much to Jehovah’s Witnesses also. They rightly feel a moral obligation to make decisions about worship for themselves and for their children. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not looking for anyone else, whether a doctor, a hospital administrator or a judge, to make these moral decisions for them. They do not want someone else to try to shoulder their responsibility to God, for in reality no other person can do that. It is a personal responsibility of the Christian toward his God and Life-Giver.

*** bq 24 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood *** The Doctor’s Role

65 We have seen that, because of their strong religious beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid both food that contains blood and medically administered blood.

*** bq 29-30 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood *** 29

Relieving Doctors of Liability

76 Doctors are in a difficult position in treating any serious case, for failure to use all available procedures may involve them in a malpractice suit. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, are willing to bear the responsibility for their refusal to accept blood transfusion. They will sign legal waivers that relieve the medical staff and hospital of any concern about suits, in the event that harm be attributed to their operating without blood.

77 The American Medical Association has recommended a form entitled “Refusal to Permit Blood Transfusion” for patients who will not accept blood because of religious beliefs. It reads: “I (We) request that no blood or blood derivatives be administered to ._____._____._____._____._____._____._____._____._____._____ during this hospitalization, notwithstanding that such treatment may be deemed necessary in the opinion of the attending physician or his assistants to preserve life or promote recovery. I (We) release the attending physician, his assistants, the hospital and its personnel from any responsibility whatever for any untoward results due to my (our) refusal to permit the use of blood or its derivatives.” 30 This document is to be dated and signed by the patient and by witnesses present. A close relative such as a mate or parent (in the case of a child) could sign the form too.

78 The willingness of Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept personal responsibility regarding their stand on blood is further shown by the fact that most of them carry a signed card requesting “No

Blood Transfusion!” This document acknowledges that the signee realizes and accepts the implications of refusing blood.

*** bq 41 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

111 Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood."

*** bq 48-9 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood ***

138 Does this brief consideration of only some of the medical risks of blood mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses object to transfusions primarily for medical reasons? No, that is not the case. The fundamental reason why they do not accept blood transfusions is because of what the Bible says. Theirs is basically a religious objection, not a medical one. "

For the sake of clarity, let's remember that in 1972, we were reminded of a Scriptural examination, made after the first blood bank was established in the USA:

*** 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."

Of course if we really examine the WTBS’ writing we realize that only many, many years after “… A prayerful examination of the Scriptures was made, revealing God’s will in the matter." A new attitude was shown:

*** 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 , only few years later in 1997 , this clearly stated "understanding " wasn't given to doctors present at a meeting at the Complutense University in Madrid - Spain - :

*** 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."

Alas, even this kind of "understanding" effective since 1961, was modified

recently in the year 2000, more precisely on June 16 th 2000 with a letter from

the WTBS Inc. to all Hospital Liaison Committees .

Its 4 th § 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 Christian 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."

Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

P.S. Incidentally another great puzzle is this statement :

*** g99 8/22 p. 31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary? ***

LAST November the above question was raised in a newspaper article written by Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. He wrote: “Today blood would probably not be approved as a medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.”

So if “… blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant…” why it is not a matter for which a “… Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God." and not before men ???

Blueblades

Thanks Alan, "Legal Purposes "??? Who actually wrote this information ???Legal or Governing Body by a three thirds vote or what???Did Jehovah or Christ by Holy Spirit dictate this Life and Death information to them,if so,how is it that it is so confusing to six million of the rank and file whose lives have been bought by Christ???Where is the public forum,open discussion like in the first century.No closed door discussion back then.

But you already know this,Alan,BLOOD ON THE ALTAR,is still BLOOD ON THE ALTAR,AND SO MANY HAVE DIED NEEDLESSLY SPILLING THEIR BLOOD ON THE WATCHTOWER ALTAR.

It just breaks my heart!

Blueblades

Pleasuredome

so, if i cant have plasma, but i can have plasma fractions, then i should be able to say to the doc,

"i cant have plasma, but i can have plasma fractions and the amount of plasma fractions i can have isnt limit ed. you know i need all the fractions of plasma, and so i'll choose to have all the plasma fractions, and to be efficient, wouldnt it be a good idea to put all these fractions into one bag. nudge nudge, wink wink."

Official Blood Document for Legal Purposes

Share this