Blood = Organ Transplant Awake! '99

by waiting 45 Replies latest jw friends

  • waiting

    I think this thought makes a good point of the above Awake!

    At the time I wondered it if was another way of slipping in something, blood transfusions being a organ transplant, in order to sooner or later do away with the current policy on blood transfusions.

    Two further reasons that I could think of for the Society to allow this "pro-organ transplant" thinking to be in their article:

    1 They didn't start the doctor's quote with ... In other words, the Writing Depart. didn't "edit" as closely as they normally do. The Writing Department made a mistake.

    2 Some critics, including R. Watters, has shown several different examples of where the WTBTS Writing Department has done "creative editing" to a person's words - thereby changing completly the point of the original quote. And Watters has published the quoted person's letter to the WTBTS showing anger and threats of legal action if the WTBTS ever quoted them again.

    Perhaps the WTBTS thinks the sheep are so sleepy that they wouldn't understand the impact of this Catch 22 quote?

    I think this years NO Blood Card renewal meeting in January will be interesting. I would suspect that the Society will have to issue cards with new wording, and will end up having to give more information on the reasons why.

    Hopefully, the sleepy sheep will ask questions.


    Edited by - waiting on 25 August 2000 3:44:18

  • waiting

    I can't believe I found this on a search so easily - THANKS SIMON!!!!
    (as opposed to what I said to you when I reached 25 posts today when I was trying to respond to you on getting more posts per day.....)

    This is a great article showing that even the WTBTS will print authorities who say that "blood is an organ" and should be viewed as an organ transplant.


  • Maximus

    I'm weary today, so I'll leave it to someone else to write more or look up the recent URLs on articles written by me and by Marvin Shilmer. I posted here the gross distortion of Professor Gorman in the 10/15/00 Watchtower QFR who said pouring out of blood was a hunting ritual, etc.

    Is the "abstain ... from blood" as ban on transfusion based on Scripture or is it for medical reasons? The Society cannot make up its mind in its completely inconsistent policy. If the ban is absolute, that would mean nary a fraction could be used--and they have okayed fractions for thirty some years.

    If is about nourishment, consider this: Give a patient all the transfused blood s/he needs, but withhold FOOD or real nutrients and the person DIES. An infusion of packed red cells to save a bleeding child's life is not the same as providing her with food or nourishment!

    And on and on.

    Suffice it to say there is a heated battle going on internally over this issue.


  • waiting

    Howdy Max,

    Sorry for your weary to the bone feeling today. I brought this up because of a recent conversation pertaining to blood.

    We've had so many good threads, it's hard to keep up with them. Perhaps we could use a Thread Directory of some sort rather than a wide open search?


  • hawkaw


    I remember this article in a google group on the witnesses. I have it in my files somewhere.

    I remember when searching for the actual article I found out where the good Doctor resided but then other issues came up and I quit following up on the quotes.

    Give me a while and I will look into this wonderful piece.

    I have been working on a big one for the board but it is very time consuming. Once done, I will go into this puppy.

    If I remember, you can actually read the WTS blood pamphlet and they also describe a doctor saying a blood transfusion is a "tissue" transplant. As Lee Elder taught me, how in one day in the 1970s can a kidney tissue transplant and blood tissue transplant be banned and in the 1990s a kidney tissue transplant is allowed as a matter of conscience issue and a blood tissue transplant is still banned.

    This is one of the reasons why in today's Watchtower's you see the Watchtower using the words "take in" or "sustain" instead of the word "eating". For example you must not be "taking in" blood etc. is a classic that you can read in the June 15, 2000 WT QFR.

    hawk (I gotta go to bed)

  • orbison

    about 15 yrs ago my daughter had bone tumors,,,,they , dtrs, wanted to do bone transplant,,course we went directly to elders,,,,then bound volumes,,,,it was a conscience thing,,,,with glee we quickly allowed it,,,some conscience,,,

  • hawkaw


    Having reviewed your information that I received via Email this morning, I will make mention of this fact or something similar found in the blood pamphlet to a certain special someone.


  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Good Morning waiting:

    I agree that there are so many interesting posts, its getting more difficult all the time to keep up and to organize all that I'm saving.

    Thanks for "resurrecting" your post from last year on the 1999 Awake statement. I must have missed reading that point last year when the mags were still being brought to me regularly. I don't have it now but a friend ordered the WTS's most recent CD ROM which goes up to 1999 or 2000 so I'll be able to print it out from there.

    That reference to "blood transfusion is nothing more than an organ transplant" really is a curious statement for the WTS to put in its mags. A slip-up or a slip-in? Interesting....and I'd like to find that letter you refered to written by one of the men who the WTS misrepresented in quoting. I'm going to look if R.Watters still has it posted on his site.

    Hello Maximus:

    Here are the URLs to the posts you mentioned in your reply last night.

    "Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit" posted by Maximus
    Watchtower 10/15/00 Questions from Readers misquoting "Professor Frank Gorman,

    and "Tertullian & June 15/00 WT on Blood" thread posted by hawkaw - dealing with Tertullian and the writings of Eusebius on Biblis

    I've saved those threads for the wealth of info I've been gathering on this gross misuse of power the WTS has wielded over its trusting and non-questioning sheep.

    To tell its followers that God directs them to tell us his word means this and that in the bible is bad enough when they twist something to their liking, but to deliberately misrepresent someone else's words to make it appear to back up their statements is beyond decency. To blatantly continue to uphold something costing human lives is beyond forgiveness. Should we forgive them if they do make the big "new light" change? I don't know how to and I've never even been personally affected by their restrictions on blood transfusions. How much more difficult must it be for those directly affected by the loss of a loved one?

    I'm following these topics closely that you, hawkaw, and Marvin Shilmer are bringing to our attention and even though it is difficult to keep up and also to research the suggested reading material hawkaw has so kindly provided when I had questions, I'm still plodding along.

    Many thanks to you all!

  • blondie

    Here's a longer history of quotes. I guess JWs are not reading their magazines are just skim over the difficult parts.

    *** g99 8/22 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.”

    *** g90 10/22 9 Gift of Life or Kiss of Death? ***
    As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: “A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. . . . I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions.”

    *** g74 3/22 21 My Life as a Surgeon ***
    Blood transfusion is now recognized as a dangerous procedure—as hazardous as any other organ transplant.

    *** g73 6/8 15 Blood Transfusions-a Biological "Sin" ***
    In an interview with a member of the Awake! staff, Dr. Bailey made the following interesting observations:
    Blood is a liquid organ. When it is blood from another person, its administration involves the many problems of biological rejection, which have in the long run defeated the transplanting of the heart and other organs.
    “Since the blood cells are normally destroyed in sixty days and the liquid content ‘turnover’ is even more rapid, a blood transfusion is a temporary or a transient transplant of a liquid organ. Indeed, this is undoubtedly the reason for its general acceptance at a time when organ transplantation is considered experimental.

    *** g72 7/8 28 "Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood" ***
    Noting other benefits from using dextran rather than blood, these authorities went on to say: “Certain serious diseases may be transmitted via blood. There have been so many such cases recently that one at least should not take unnecessary risks. Moreover, a blood transfusion is to be regarded as any other transplantation, for example, of kidney or other tissue. ‘Foreign’ blood also alarms the body’s antibodies, although the consequences may not be as obvious as when a kidney is rejected.”—Dagbladet, April 22, 1971.

    *** g72 7/8 28 "Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood" ***
    Yes, blood is a tissue, just as the heart and the kidneys are tissue. Because it is a “liquid tissue” this fact is not generally appreciated. Immunological forces, placed in the body by the Creator to protect it, oppose any foreign tissue and raise up antibodies to fight against it. That is why the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived.

    When transplants were forbidden)
    *** w67 12/1 720 By Man's Way or by God's Way-Which? ***
    5 In a further argument for transfusion, it is claimed that what is transfused is merely a vehicle to convey food directly to the human body, and that the body does not feed on the vehicle itself. We therefore ask the question: After the transfused vehicular blood has released its oxygen and food elements to the body tissues of the patient, is this vehicular blood extracted from the patient’s body and transfused back into the body of the blood donor? This would be quite embarrassing and impossible, especially where the blood donor or donors are not known or if the blood has been taken from a newly dead cadaver. So the transfused vehicular material is left in the patient’s body. What then? Well, in the course of the years during which the human body renews itself into a new body, this vehicular blood is used or consumed by the patient’s body, the same as any other transplant of an organ (This is no longer considered correct…cells are not absorbed…thus the need for rejection preventitive medication). In what way, then, does this outworking of things differ essentially from feeding on the transfused blood? The results are the same: the patient’s body does sustain itself by transfused stuff.

  • waiting


    I had nooooooo idea that this correct idea that blood is a "liquid organ" hence a blood transfusion is like a kidney transplant....

    has been slipping into the WTBTS' writing for 25 years!

    Almost as long as I've been a jw - and I honestly never read it with any type of comprehension such as "hey.........."

    Perhaps I was a genuine, typical, jw......"duh."

    Hey Had Enough!

    Thanks for the clicks - I wonder if a "directory" of some sort could become part of this forum. Of course, most of us think the threads we start should be a directory of sorts, now don't we?

    But there are some really important, informative discussions going on. Another one worth keeping with the blood info is the "Pliney" one started by Hawkaw, but I don't have the click right now.

    I'm soooooo late for work - but this is soooooo interesting!


Share this