Blood taking...is it a disfellowshipping offence or up to conscience.

by Gill 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  LittleToe

  On a more general note, and after stumbling through Quotes website, I just had a sudden thought concerning this article:

  *** Watchtower 1982 June 15 p.31 Questions from Readers ***

  Questions from Readers

  ? Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood?

  It would not be contrary to God's Word to permit the medical withdrawal and disposal of some blood. But to do this through the use of leeches would conflict with what the Bible says.

  [?]

  However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible's indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body.

  Surely that would preclude the use of blood drawn off for tests...
• 

  Mary

  What a load of shit..........there is no one on earth today more concerned about "eating blood" than Orthodox Jews and we all know that they go to great lengths to make sure they don't eat meat with any blood in it. All of their meats must be kosher and they must be well done......none of this "medium well" or "rare".

  Yet even the most fanatical Ultra Orthodox Jew does not equate taking a blood transfusion to save human life, the same or even close, to eating the blood of a dead animal. These guys study, disect and question the bible like no one else does, yet they've never come to the conclusion that these two things are the same. Oh, I forgot. Since they don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, that means that they've been brain dead for the past 2,000 years and they "no longer have Jehovah's spirit upon them."

  As for the Society's statement that they don't DF someone for taking blood, but that the person DA's themselves, is another load of shit. Unless a person writes a letter stating that they WANT to be DA'd, it's still happening at the instigation of the Watch Tower Society. Who do they think they're fooling?

  It should be interesting to see how much longer the Borg can hold out on this. The blood issue is like the 1914 doctrine. It's theoretically full of holes that you can poke a stick through if you care to look close enough, which of course, most of the Collective won't do.
• 

  rebel8

  Blondie

  I respectfully disagree with your statement that blood factors have been a matter of conscience since 1974.

  Perhaps there is a misunderstanding of what the term ?blood fractions? means. Do I have it right that, when you say ?blood factors?, you are referring only to serums and vaccines prepared from blood?

  There are many other products that are ?blood factors? that have been disallowed by the JWs for much longer than the ?70s. For example, Factor VIII is a product made from extracts of human blood. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3372 There are several other blood fraction products that come to mind as well.

  In 1975, my mother was baptized and was directed to not allow me to be treated with Factor VIII. It was never presented as a matter of conscience to us?not in 1975, and not ever, even to this day, according to my mom. I came close to death many times because of this doctrine.
• 

  Raphael

  If the WTBTS is trying ti indictae that DA and DF are viewed differently, they are in serious denial....makes me angy!...oops I forgot, it's called theocratic war strategy
• 

  blondie

  I respectfully disagree with your statement that blood factors have been a matter of conscience since 1974.

  I said that some products made with parts of blood (not the 4 major components) were allowed and were a conscience matter. I hope you read the Question From Readers that I posted above. This information was reaffirmed by the WTS in 1990 as a conscience matter. In the 1974 QFR above these are some pertinent excerpts.

  Some Christians, though, have been urged on occasion to accept a serum injection prepared from a small quantity of a blood fraction.

  What, then, of the use of a serum containing only a minute fraction of blood and employed to supply an auxiliary defense against some infection and not employed to perform the life-sustaining function that blood normally carries out?

  But what if a person has recently been exposed to a disease or has definitely contracted diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies or some other disease? Before his body has time to produce the needed antibodies, he might become seriously ill. So doctors have devised a way of providing immediately the antibodies that would help one to resist the disease?s assault. Serums or antitoxins are used. These are obtained from the blood of humans or animals that have already developed the antibodies for fighting the disease. Usually the blood is processed and the blood fraction (gamma globulin) containing the antibodies is separated and made into a serum. When this is injected into the patient it gives him temporary passive immunity. This is temporary, for the antibodies do not become a permanent part of his blood; when these pass out of his body he is no longer immune to the disease. It can thus be seen that serums (unlike vaccines) contain a blood fraction, though minute.

  We believe that here the conscience of each Christian must decide.

  I think this shows that in 1974 the blood fraction, gamma globulin, was considered a conscience matter.

  Perhaps I am missing your point, Rebel8.

  Love Blondie
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  I think that even the elders get a little turned around on this subject individually.

  When I was in the hospital bleeding to death and refusing a blood transfusion, I remember two 'brothers' getting into a heated debate over which one was and was not allowed. Finally, my doctor asked to see the paper that had the 'allowed' products listed on it. I remember him sewing furiously (I was conscious at the time), and reading the bags of stuff that the nurses would bring him. He'd say yes or no depending on what they were able to put in front of him.

  Came oh-so-close to biting it that night. I remember nervously reading my hospital bill, which I had to show the elders, to prove that my doctor had not slipped in something not allowed so that I would be unclean (the elders words, not mine).

  My doctor was a hero that night, the elders acted like they were at a prize fight or something. Morons.

  Jean
• 

  LittleToe

  Jean:
  And fortunately you're still here to tell the tale
  It probably didn't help that the poor doctor had to waste time and thought processes in a stress situation, rather than simply give you the best care available, though.

  When the clock is ticking, it's just asking for trouble...

  Glad you're still with us
• 

  TD

  Rebel8,

  Your's sounds like an interesting (albeit unpleasant) experience As you and your mother found out, Factor VIII was an exception to earlier positions on fractions and was still catagorically forbidden in JW literature as late as 1975. (Awake! 02/22/1975 p. 30)

  It was not until 1978 that it became "officially" acceptable to Witnesses. (The Watchtower 06/15/1978 pp. 29-31)

  I'm curious, did your mother's information come from local elders or did it come from the WTB&TS? If it was the latter, were there letters exchanged?

  Tom
• 

  undercover

  I ask this because I have just come away from a heated discussion with my parents and they insist that taking blood or blood products has always been a matter of conscience and no one has EVER been disfellowshipped for taking blood.

  They say that a question was raised at the service meeting over the new blood card/documents whether taking blood fractions was breaking Gods law and the presiding Overseer J.H said that taking blood has always been a conscience matter and never was anyone disfellowshipped for it.

  Bullshit. It's a DAing offense since 2000. Before it was a DFing offence. As has already been noted, DAing, DFing, it's all the same. DFing is formal punishment for breaking (god's) law. DAing is showing by your actions that you no longer consider yourself a follower of (god's) law.

  It it has always been a matter of consciend then why the hospital liasons? Why all the fights with courts to keep blood from children? Why all the bad press about JWs not taking blood? If it was a conscience matter, 90%+ of JWs, when push came to shove, would take the blood and fake repentance later. If it was a conscience matter and you were dying, hell yea, people would take blood.

  If this is a new tactic by the WTS to slowly inculcate in their followers that the blood doctrine was always a conscience matter this is indeed a dastardly thing to do. To deny people blood all these years and now to slowly back away from it and pretend that it never was a punishable offence in inexcusable.
• 

  eyeslice

  Gill,

  This whole subject has been one that the WTB&TS has deliberately made cloudy. For legal reasons, they will say accepting a blood transfusion is a personal choice and not one imposed by the society. But this is because the society does not want to (1) accept any responsibility for the subsequent out come (i.e. they don't want to be sued if someone dies) and (2) they don't want to appear to be a dogmatic sect (they have had problems in Europe over personal liberty issues).

  The reality is though, it was a disfellowshipping offense - the elders' manual lists 'failure to abstain from blood' (exact quote) as a reason for forming a Judicial Committee, hence the possibility for disfellowshipping. However, as other posters have pointed out this is now seen as dissassociation on the part of the one accepting blood but this amounts to the same.

  Eyeslice