TRANSPLANTS ? CANNIBALISM
Many opponents of the WTBTS have published information saying that the WTS forbade organ transplants, and the reason given was that the WTS said it was equal to cannibalism. Some that have read their reports belive that what is written is truth.
Is this true? Did the WTS forbid organ transplants and then change their mind?
The Watcthower of Novemder 15 1967 had a question from readers ? Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one?s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source??
Before looking at some of the points in the article, remember the year was 1967. Transplants were relatively knew. Doctors were still ?experimenting? with them. The first transplants were performed in 1933, but failed. Some were done in the 1940s, these also failed, In the 1940s cornea transplants were being done. In the early sixties, organ transplants were starting to work. The first successful kidney transplant was in 1954; Liver ? 1963; Pancreas ? 1966; Small Bowel - 1967 and Heart ? 1967.
There is also no direct mention of transplants in the Bible, so Bible principles need to be look at to determine what an individual Christian should do.
From a "Watching the World" snippet (remember that Watching the World articles are not from the WTS but other sources) November 8 1970 was this information?.
Fewer Heart Transplants
· The first heart transplant was performed in December of 1967. In 1968, 101 were attempted. In 1969, the number dropped to 47. In 1970, only 15 were performed up to September. Of all these, only 21 recipients are still alive. Dr. Norman E. Shumway of Stanford University said: ?The initial enthusiasm, approaching hysteria, which greeted the first clinical cardiac transplants now seems to have been replaced by a generally pessimistic outlook.?
That demonstrates the way the technology was going at that time. It has improved so much since then, but the Watchtower article was written in relative the early days of transplants. That was 1970 and the article about transplants was in 1967.
Back to the WT article in question, the area that mentioned cannibalism is reproduced bellow. Notice the second paragraph as it explains why it was considered cannibalism?.
?When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.
It is of interest to note that in its discussion of cannibalism the Encyclop?dia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Volume 3, page 199, has a section designated ?Medical cannibalism.? It points out that this is associated with the idea of obtaining strength or some medical virtue from the flesh of another human, adding: ?The most remarkable example of this practice occurs in China. Among the poor it is not uncommon for a member of the family to cut a piece of flesh from arm or leg, which is cooked and then given to a sick relative. . . . The whole superstition in China is certainly connected with the idea that the eating of the human body strengthens the eater. . . . Among savages the practice is found of giving a sick man some blood to drink drawn from the veins of a relative.? Some might argue that therapeutic practices involved in modern organ transplant operations are more scientific than such primitive treatment. Nonetheless, it is evident that men practicing medicine have not been beyond using treatments that amount to cannibalism if such have been thought justified. ?
Did the article say that a JW could not have a transplant? Part of the reason that some feel that they did, is from these paragraphs. Notice that the information is presented in question form, but not answered?.
?What should be done, though, when a Christian is asked to provide an organ for use in another person or to allow the body part of a deceased loved one to be so used? We might ask, If a Christian decided personally that he would not sustain his own life with the flesh of another imperfect human, could he conscientiously allow part of his flesh to be used in that way to sustain someone else?
When it comes to deciding what to do with one?s own body or with the body of a deceased loved one, for which a Christian is responsible, the apostle Paul?s words at Romans 12:1 should not be overlooked: ?I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.? Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration.?
The next discussion seemed to be more direct in the answer??
Our bodies are the creation of Jehovah God. (Ps. 100:3; 95:6; Job 10:8) Christians might allow apparently necessary surgery to be performed, such as to remove a diseased limb, but they do not needlessly mutilate their bodies created by Jehovah. Would allowing a body to be mutilated after death be showing respect for and appreciation of God?s creation? True, in some instances there may be legal requirements that Christians abide by, such as when the law requires a postmortem examination to determine the cause of death. (Rom. 13:1, 7; Mark 12:17) In such cases the next of kin can usually request that the organs not be removed for transplant or reuse. In this way, even though an autopsy might be required, the Christian can prevent misuse of the body of a loved one. But when such laws do not apply, the Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.?1 Pet. 3:16.
The reader here, is reminded of the fact that, Jehovah is the one that caused us to be, and, of our requirement to hold a good conscience before God. Notice that it does not say YOU MUST NOT have a transplant but, just that our conscience must be clear in front of God. That is why the next and last paragraph in the article says (italics, bold & underline mine)?.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God?s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.?Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.
Now the conclusion of the matter was, that individuals should consider what principles might apply in the matter of transplants and then make a personal decision and what ever we decide our conscience should be clear.
In the Awake of July 8 1972, the idea of transplants being ? a form of cannibalism ?
was again mentioned. The prompt in the article behind this was the apparent failure at that time of heart transplants. The article said?.
Life magazine, September 17, 1971, showed a picture on the front cover of six persons who had received heart transplants and who seemed to be well and happy at the time. But within just eight months after the picture was taken all six of these had succumbed to their body?s efforts to reject foreign tissue. The article told how ?the rejection drugs triggered bizarre acts,? and that ?their ballooning faces haunted one doctor.? The author of the article, who has written a book on the subject, Hearts, also reported that the death rate for heart transplants for the first three years was more than 85 percent. One surgeon, who transplanted twenty-two hearts, had every last one of his patients die. And while he dismissed the entire matter as ?a procedure which we tried and?for the time being?discarded,? the patients were not able to be so casual about it. And here again, it might be noted, that the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah?that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism?proved a safeguard. How so? In that it spared them much frustration, grief and anxiety, which were experienced not only by the patients and their relatives but even by many of the assisting medical personnel.
It does not say a JW could not have a transplant. Remember at this time few people survived a transplant and rejection drugs had some awful side effects
and by a JW not having a transplant saved the agony on the patient and family of seeing these side effects when few patients lived.
Now an article from "Watching the World" June 22 1972 (Notice this was published one issue BEFORE the above article ?.
Successful Heart Operation
· Andries Botes, 44, of Kroonstad, South Africa, needed a serious operation to replace a defective heart valve. One of Jehovah?s witnesses, he appealed to the heart team led by Professor C. Barnard of Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town to do the operation without using blood. Barnard is the doctor known for his heart transplants. The Sunday Times of Johannesburg tells what happened: ?He [Botes] was turned down as a patient by the Groote Schuur heart team of Professor Chris Barnard. The professor?s brother, Dr. Marius Barnard, wrote to Mr. Botes: ?In our hospital we do not believe that surgery can be done safely without blood. If you do not see your way open for an operation [using blood] we cannot help you further.?? However, Botes contacted another doctor. With what result? The Sunday Times reported in a headline: ?Pretoria surgeon does major heart op[eration] without transfusion.? It noted that an eminent surgeon, Dr. Coert Venter of the Hendrik Verwoerd General Hospital in Pretoria, ?replaced a valve in a man?s heart without a blood transfusion.? The artificial valve was inserted successfully and the patient recovered.
This would not have been printed if transplants were out right forbidden. It would appear as if up until that time heart transplants were done with blood, but now they were able to be done without blood.
Now an article from Awake March 22 1974. It is the story of a surgeon and his PERSONAL view of transplants.
Today much is also made of the transplanting of various organs?kidneys, hearts, lungs and livers. But, regarding these procedures, I am reminded of the comment that my father once made. I was home from medical school and performed a vasectomy on one of his patients who had asked to be sterilized. I was proud of my newly learned technique and asked my father what he thought of it. He replied: ?The patient is no doubt pleased, but I wonder what the Creator thinks about it.? Because of what I have reason to believe is the Creator?s view of organ transplants, I have serious reservations as to their Scriptural propriety.
That demonstrates that transplants were/are a personal decision. It is true from the way that material was presented, that some readers of these articles might conclude that they implied transplants were forbidden. However, it was never stated. Personally I see that those articles were leaning toward not having a transplant because of some of the Bible principles that were involved, but it was still clearly left up to the individual. ("use these in making personal decisions ")
The science of heart transplants was not looking good even in 1974?
?A Job for the Creator?
· Two of the world?s most famous heart surgeons recently commented on the future of transplants. Dr. Michael E. DeBakey says: ?I think the general interest as far as heart transplants is concerned has diminished greatly because of the experience that we had . . . The results were not sufficiently good to justify the effort.? Dr. Denton A. Cooley observes: ?Although we have been able to replace all the components of the heart, the only part we cannot replace is the heart muscle . . . It seems that is a job for the creator . . . That seems to be the frontier beyond which we have not been able to advance.?
In the March 15 1980 Watchtower was the following question from readers (Bold underlined italics mine)?
Questions from Readers
? Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah?s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient?s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.
Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient?s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the ?donor? is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person?s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God?s command.?Acts 15:19, 20.
Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant
My conclusion from this information is that anyone that publishes that the WTS forbade transplants is doing a disfavor to every one. First, it takes away their credibility as they are putting forward an idea that did not exist. Second for anyone that listens to such a clam are being unduly biased against JWs over a matter of conscience.
I will leave this discussion to you. I will read replies but it is unlikely I will have anything else to say on this matter.