(I'm sorry I originally posted this topic in the Friends forum... I don't know how to delete the one there. ) 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