WTS to go back on medical use of blood fractions?

by Mark 18 Replies latest jw friends

Mark

In my opinion, there is definitely a new trend in the way the WTS
deals with the medical use of blood fractions.
The most recent publication on this topic (e.g. W06/15/2004), and the newly
released blood document (dpa-E), which will be distributed during this week?s
service meeting, are written in a way that clearly discourages the use of fractions
of the so-called ?four primary components? of blood. Let me illustrate my claim.
First, as I think Blondie already pointed out in one of her weekly commentaries,
the W06/15/2004, especially in pp. 23-24, presented the use of blood fractions in
a clearly negative light. For example, whereas those considering use of blood
fractions were encouraged to spend time weighing in on the potentially bad
consequences of their actions, in particular with regard to ?stumbling? others,
no such encoragement was given to those who refuse blood fractions. The
discussion of 1 Cor. 8: 12 in paragraph 13 also appeared to imply that refusing
blood fractions was evidence of being spiritually ?strong? (or at least this is how
many witnesses I know personally understood this paragraph). The WTS knows
full well that the witnesses will invariably pick up these subtle messages and
give them the force of law, so a biased presentation of the issues is often
enough for their purposes.
The newly released blood document (dpa-E) is fundamentally different from
the old one in the way witnesses can express their wishes regarding the medical
use of blood fractions. The new blood document reads as follows:
?3. Regarding minor fractions of blood: [initial those that apply]
(a) I REFUSE ALL
(b) I REFUSE ALL EXCEPT:
(c) I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will
have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my health-care agent
in case of my incapacity.? (from dpa-E 11/04)
Compare this to the old document (from dpa-E 1/01):
?(5) Medical products [initial one of the three choices below]
(a) I refuse all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(b) I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(c) I want to qualify either 5a or 5b, and my instructions about this are as follows: ??
The long-winded language used by the WTS in phrasing option (3c) speaks for
itself (notice also the deft use of capitalization in the first two options only).
The net effect of this change is that witnesses no longer have the ability to
express in a simple way that they wish to accept all blood fractions. The term
'minor blood fraction' is also problematic, because what the WTS considers 'minor'
may in reality be 'major' for just about everyone else, as we all know. For example,
can hemoglobin be considered a 'minor' blood fraction?
This week's service meeting concludes with a
10 min. part entitled 'The
Role of Conscience'. This talk is based on W06/15, 2004, pp. 23-24, and is
designed to reinforce the idea that one should think twice about accepting
blood fractions. Witnesses are intellectually lazy. They would rather initial the
REFUSE ALL option and deal with the consequences, than investigate other
options or face a physician that may challenge their beliefs.
Is this the beginning of yet another doctrinal flip-flop? Will the WTS go back on
the medical use of blood fractions? The WTS may be experiencing tension from
opposing factions within the highest levels of the organization, and this back- and-
forth may simply be the result of the GB's latest compromise in a never ending
balancing act.
So, what do you think?
Mark
eyeslice

The whole issue is a farce.
Rather than spending countless hours reviewing the minutia of their petty rules, they would be better off getting some WTB&TS theologians to look at the whole doctrine from scratch.
Oops, I forgot. They tried the 'back to basics' approach once a while back and it ended up in one of the Governing Body being disfellowshipped.
Eyeslice
AK - Jeff

Mark -
I do not agree with your end-case here. I think the WTS is going the opposite way with this. They have with that same 6-15 magazine now allowed another fraction that was not allowed before - fractions from Red Bllod Cells - there is only one - hemoglobin which makes up 97% of that 'component' -. This has gotten perilously close to whole blood - the closest they have ever been.
the entire trend over the past 20 years has been a more liberal view of blood. The entire issue with them revolves around the idea of protecting the organization from lawsuits. The move towards allowing more conscience and less law is where I think they are going with this - and then the eventual lawsuit issue will be mute since all witnesses are making their own choices here - without really giving up control
You are certainly right that they are trying to lean witness consciences a certain way - they always have done that. They would prob like all witnesses to follow the leanings - and reject blood in all forms - but mostly only care if the you do not sue them!
My projection is that they will eventually still keep use of blood transfusions wrong - a sin - but will remove the punishment for this action - somehow. How is the only question to me.
Just My Opinion
Jeff
Mary

Rather than spending countless hours reviewing the minutia of their petty rules, they would be better off getting some WTB&TS theologians to look at the whole doctrine from scratch.

I find it interesting that even the most Orthodox Jew will accept a blood transfusion if it means saving their life. No one dissects the Old Testament more carefully and thoroughly than this group, yet not one of them have ever equated eating the blood of a dead animal, with a human blood transfusion. The WTB&TS claims that by refusing a blood transfusion, you're "showing respect for life" which is utterly stupid when you think about it. If you refuse medical treatment in order to preserve life, then how the hell is that "showing respect for life???"
The Governing Body members don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to the blood issue. This stupid, insane doctrine that was dreamed up decades ago men to had no clear understanding of the scriptures or medical practices, yet they still stubbornly cling to this doctrine because they know full well that they'll have their asses sued off if they suddenly let this become a "conscience matter".
TweetieBird

I will find out on Thursday nite. At the meeting yesterday, they said to be sure and be at meeting Thursday night as new blood information to be distributed. They did not use the term blood card, can't remember exactly what they said as I tend not to pay attention. I will let you know. TB
jws
The phrasing is entirely biased:

a) I REFUSE ALL
(b) I REFUSE ALL EXCEPT:
(c) I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will have to be discussed with me if I am conscious or with my health-care agent in case of my incapacity.? (from dpa-E 11/04)
Compare this to the old document (from dpa-E 1/01):
?(5) Medical products [initial one of the three choices below]
(a) I refuse all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(b) I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood.
(c) I want to qualify either 5a or 5b, and my instructions about this are as follows: ??

The new choice B, refuse all except... requires the JW to know which components they might be willing to accept. I will bet that the average JW does not know a complete list and can therefore only list the possibilities they know about. It should have read "ACCEPT ALL EXCEPT:". If the JW does not know the choices, they cannot fill in ones they will not accept and therefore will accept all.
And the dpa-E had a choice that said accept all. This is becoming more restrictive.
They probably want everybody to show up for this meeting so they can all fill in the form together. I get the feeling that's what happened to my dad. Somebody said circle choice A and he did, not knowing he had an older form and his list was in the reverse order.
metatron

In the Byzantine, Kremlinesque world of the Watchtower, you may be witnessing the
effect of different factions fighting over the issue. Take college, for example. After various
Witnesses find out that Bethel was quietly sending people to college, the Hypocrites in Charge
state that it's OK to go to college if you pioneer. Meanwhile, this doesn't sit well with the
Pharisees who run the Service Dept. They then try to contradict this 'allowance' in Circuit
Assembly parts against college.
Thus it may be with blood - since the KM is directly related to the Service Dept, they may
attempt to drag their feet on blood, while others ( those who may have some shred
of conscience left - and fearful lawyers) wish the issue would go away.
Again, the BIGGEST change here is the editing out of the chapter that dealt with blood
when they issued the "Worship" book , that took the place of the "United in Worship"
book. If you present that to most Witnesses, they are left speechless.
metatron
M.J.

I agree with Jeff. Hemoglobin is the most critical and essential portion of the blood. If any portion of the blood represents life, hemoglobin is it. It carries "breath" from the lungs to the brain and to the rest of the body. This is the primary, #1, life sustaining component of blood. This can not be reasonably written off as a "minor fraction". Since they have officially clarified the use of human and animal hemoglobin transfusion products as a conscience matter, I think they are being extra careful not to call too much attention to this very significant development. They're downplaying it and naysaying. Perhaps they are trying to discourage JWs from rushing to accept this stuff in droves, which would be all over the papers. Ultimately, these new hemoglobin products look promising to be the salvation for the WTS, as long as they can avoid bad press over it.
AK - Jeff

Again, the BIGGEST change here is the editing out of the chapter that dealt with blood
when they issued the "Worship" book , that took the place of the "United in Worship"
book. If you present that to most Witnesses, they are left speechless.

Metatron - this is most interesting to me. I never read the 'worship' book, although I was still in technically when it was released. Is it basically a replacement for the United in Worship? and the chapter dealing with blood was edited - hmmmmmm! How interesting!! Are both these on the cd-rom ?- I would like to make that comparison. Thanks
Jeff
Axelspeed

Yes Jeff. The Worship book is really a replacement for the United in Worship book, though it was never officially put that way that I know of. The wording is changed throughout, but it is essentially the same book. You can pretty much see this if you make a brief paragraph by paragraph comparison. The newer book omits 3 chapters though that were previously contained in the older United in Worship book, including chapter 20, Life and Blood - Do You Treat Them as Sacred?
For a Table of Contents chapter by chapter comparison go to this link and scroll to the bottom of the page.
http://quotes.watchtower.ca/mini_tru.htm

WTS to go back on medical use of blood fractions?

Share this