Here's something to consider. The Gorman quotation about pouring out blood being a symbol of reverence for life sounds great--until you read the next sentence and find out the author says it was merely a "hunting ritual enjoined on the Israelites." His entire book is an argument AGAINST the kind of view the Society takes.
What the GB does is come to a policy position--consensus. THEN they look for any quotation that MIGHT LOOK LIKE it supports their case. They have misquoted Tertullian, Pliny, Eusebius and conflated passages regularly when it comes to blood.
A urologist may indeed have been quoted as saying blood is an organ transplant. Was he speaking about whole blood transfusion? That is rarely needed today. What was the context?
Bet your bottom dollar that he was not speaking about withholding packed red cells from a bleeding child because of risks of bad blood! Nor was he speaking of withholding platelets from a kid dying of cancer! Neither of these could be called an organ transplant.
Were the next comments about the dangers of transplants about blood, or were they conflated to make it appear that blood was being spoken of?
If one person expresses his OPINION in print somewhere, does that make it accurate? This is how the Society fools you. I watch it on this board. Someone quotes a minor functionary IN PRINT who disagrees with a whole host of world-class experts and somehow what HE says is now authority to be argued with or agreed with. What I delight to see here is persons using their own thinking capacity and breaking free of the Watchtower-think shackles.
Blood as a liquid organ? Use your own powers of reasoning. Blood is a vehicle for hundreds of extremely complex entities including nutrients and even hormones. When you have a blood test, did you lose part of your blood organ? Waiting picks up on something. The publications REGULARLY slip in things they want to reinforce, whether out of context or not. "Liquid organ." What a nice ring to it!
Do the best surgeons use techniques that prevent loss of blood? Of course! Many of them resent some physicians advertising themselves as "bloodless surgeons." But please note, these are for MEDICAL reasons in managing their patients, not for any SCRIPTURAL reasons.
You don't think Denton Cooley would use blood when he had too? Awake! asks "Gift of Life or Kiss of Death?" Then quotes Cooley. Picture this surgeon with a ruptured ruptured aorta while doing a bypass. "Ooops! Sorry, big fella, can't give you blood; that would be the KISS OF DEATH." Aannkkhh!
You can find similar quotations about the risks of anesthesia! Does the Watchtower write about this? Being put to sleep is a "dangerous procedure," for heaven's sake! Do you avoid it because it is? You avoid it until you HAVE to have it, perhaps to save your life.
Would aspirin be approved by the FDA today, because of its very real risk of internal bleeding? Come on Watchtower, think about WHAT is being written, not the words!
The Governing Body now is reduced to relying on MEDICAL concerns and distorted quotations from scholars such as Gorman.
I don't want to spend time at it but just ask yourself this question.
If "abstain ... from blood" is an absolute command, why is it acceptable to take ANY fractionated part? If you can take hemoglobin fractionated from cow's blood, is that in any way, shape or form recognizing an absolute ban in a command to "abstain ... from blood"? If gallons of donated blood can be "misused" but a portion taken by Witness hemophiliacs to save their life, how is that an absolute ban?
Today you can DONATE blood if it is used to provide acceptable fractions! Yes, you read me correctly. They just don't tell you about it!
Mark my words: They KNOW there is no absolute ban on blood. The policy has been changing under your nose and will continue to change.
What kills me is that they are doing it glacial speed so as not "to harm the spirituality of the brothers with further disillusionment" like the "generation" teaching. In the meantime, kids die. Their picture on Awake! magazine is not much of a reward.
I've stated it elsewhere and I will state it again here: It is extremely important for the Legal Department to have conflicting stuff in the publications. Organ transplant, not a transplant. Take this, not that. Individual vs. weak conscience vs. whatever. The fuzzier the better, because if a church parishioner is confused about church policy, that means the policy is individualistic and not communal. That mitigates, protects against liability! And what it's all about today, is preservation of the organization.
I wonder if Witnesses 50 years from now will argue that it is a myth that JWs did not take blood transfusions?
Hawk, I am profoundly grateful for some immense contributions you have made that will only later come fully to light.
For those interested in transfusion medicine, I suggest an entity of high caliber such as the laboratory consortium of Stanford, University of California and University of Southern California. Be sure to visit all pages at
http://upcmd.com/transfusion_medicine/transfusion_practice/
Maximus