by AMNESIAN 60 Replies latest watchtower medical
The withdrawn and destroyed blood card allowing for using ones own blood a couple of years ago is another example of groping for a legal way out.
js2laws... just curious... do you have that from a good source?
I have it from a factory overseer in charge of production planning that the cards were withdrawn due to a "printing error." It would really be something if that "printing error" turned out to be a major policy reversal.
the secretary should have available sufficient quantities of the cards for . . children, . .
I can't tell you all how much reading this pisses me off. What a crime!!!
I have it from a factory overseer in charge of production planning that the cards were withdrawn due to a "printing error." It would really be something if that "printing error" turned out to be a major policy reversal.
"Allogenic" was the word used on the destroyed cards. I don't know how that could have been a printing error. I saw the card myself.
Blondie
imallgrowedup and Euphemism,
Sorry I did not get back sooner. This was the card with the "Printing Error"
Click on it to enlarge. It a new clause
"no allogeneic blood transfusions"
This replaced the old phrase "no blood transfusions".
The meaning of "allogenic" by Webster's Unabridged is:
"formed elsewhere than in the rock where it is found"
So blood transfusion would be acceptable as long as it was Not Allogenic, or blood from a source other than 'where it is found'. You could store and use your own blood and it would not be "elsewhere".
The "printing error" was legit. It appears the word allogenic was mispelled, "allogeneic". Having served there I will concede they will not distribute something of this sort with a spelling error. However, why did they not corrrect the SPELLING ERROR and then distribute the doctrinal change? Whether Writing or Legal stepped in to reverse this course I have not heard. Could have been another case where the GB had another vote and did not have the 2/3 majority on the second vote to make the change carry through.
Whatever the case I prefer to think it is evidence of change in the wind. I have a personal interest since I lost my father-in-law and my own father to lack of blood transfusion in less than one year.
PEOPLE KEEP DYING while the WT debates internally how to get out of this without monetary loss.
Jst2laws
I'll say it again- ROTTEN BASTARDS!
kj
"Allogenic" was the word used on the destroyed cards.
I told my father-in-law about this (he's an elder) and he claimed that apostates are twisting what really happened. He came up with some lame explanation... The word was added but then the legal department had a problem with it because it might be misconstrued. How can "allogeneic" be misunderstood?
LOL!
How can "allogeneic" be misunderstood
When even the definition doesn't make any sense!!!
The meaning of "allogenic" by Webster's Unabridged is:"formed elsewhere than in the rock where it is found"
Me thinks the GB needs to get their high school diplomas, 'cuz the last time I checked, there ain't so stinkin' blood inside rocks!!!!
growedup
Wow... thanks for the info, jst2laws and blondie. Was legal trying to pull a fast one on the GB? Or maybe, I wonder if it was something like the scenario that Ray Franz described with the James book, whereby the GB originally approved the text without considering it carefully, and then changed their minds after realizing the implications?
BTW, there is no printing error. The correct term is indeed "allogeneic." From Webster's:
i nvolving, derived from, or being individuals of the same species that are sufficiently unlike genetically to interact antigenically
When even the definition doesn't make any sense!!!
Allogeneic means "genetically different". So when they say "no genetically different blood transfusions" they are in effect saying you can have a blood transfusion using your own blood. That would have been a nice step in the right direction, but jehober's spirit must have changed its mind.
Euphemism,
BTW, there is no printing error. The correct term is indeed "allogeneic." From Webster's: i nvolving, derived from, or being individuals of the same species that are sufficiently unlike genetically to interact antigenically
There you go. That was the definition I was looking for. As Drwatson says the outcome is the same but they do not have the excuse of a 'printing error'.
Thanks for the correction
Steve
