It appears that prior to c. 1952 the Watchtower was against all medical treatment. It was then they announced that medical treatment would be a matter of conscience -- with the exception of the use of blood. Is that a fair conclusion?
Fats
Blood transfusions just a leftover?
by Fatfreek 8 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
ithinkisee
For the most part that is true. I agree with those on the board who suggest they might have gotten rid of blood transfusion ban completely if it wasn't for us apostates being so vocal about their hypocrisy ... heheh.
-ithinkisee
-
Buster
Not too long ago I read a book that suggested that the 1950s drive on the blood issue was due to Franz' need for an issue - something to invigorate or distract the sheep. The date-setting debacles were too recent, WWII was no issue, and the society had no issue of urgency.
I find the idea unprovable, but interesting.
-
DannyBloem
For the most part that is true. I agree with those on the board who suggest they might have gotten rid of blood transfusion ban completely if it wasn't for us apostates being so vocal about their hypocrisy ... heheh.
Don't agree at all here. I think you are overrating the influence of the apostacy. They really do not care what we say.
probably they just believe that the bible says it is like that. Or some of the old members. Maybe some need to die first.... then things can change. -
greendawn
Rutherford was dead against medical science because he believed it had pagan and satanic roots, that's how backward and ignorant he was. Up to the time he died in 1942 even innoculations were banned.
As for the blood issue I also heard it was made to create martyrs for the faith so as to give an appearence of special holiness to the world. -
Leolaia
Rutherford's personal "doctor" in San Diego was a chiropractor.
The blood transfusion ban is definitely a holdover from the earlier prejudice against medicine (with pretty much the same justification as the ban on vaccinations, namely abstaining from blood), yet it wasn't a simple matter of declaring in 1952 that all medical practices were okay except for transfusions. For instance, they started an organ transplant ban in the 1960s, which they retained through the 1970s.
-
Ticker
I personally believe if they could drop this doctrine without legal and numerical repercussions they would, they have painted themselves into a corner on this policy. It will be interesting in future years to see how they will dodge this one if they do indeed drop this teaching.
Ticker
-
Fatfreek
...yet it wasn't a simple matter of declaring in 1952 that all medical practices were okay except for transfusions. For instance, they started an organ transplant ban in the 1960s, which they retained through the 1970s.
Actually, they couldn't ban organ transplants then since they didn't begin till 1954 (if the following December article is correct):
"Thursday, Dec. 23, will be the 50th anniversary of the first successful organ transplant, a kidney transplant from a living donor performed in Boston in 1954. Mr. Phillips and a small number of other long-term survivors attest to how well organ transplants can work in the best cases."
That same article mentions a tidbit that I was not aware of, but it makes sense -- that blood transfusions are also transplants.
"The very first transplants were blood transfusions, procedures that became much safer after the discovery of blood groups in 1900. In 1905, doctors performed the first corneal transplant, and then moved on to solid organs."
Fats
-
BluesBrother
I would take issue with Fat Freak regarding the Witnesses being against all medical treatment prior to 1952. It is just before my time, but my family were assciated from the early 1950's and I have never heard this .
The Watchrower may have been more suspicious of the medical profession in those days, but never against it in the way that Christian Scientists are.
The cdrom only goes back so far , but this was printed WT.1951 p267/26825
From these Scriptural facts we rightly conclude that, when we fall sick or certain ailments come on us with age, we may turn to natural methods of cure, or medical remedies. We may resort to doctors of whatever school seems to us to be the best. We may go to sanatoria or to hospitals or have a surgical operation. Such curative methods are not barred to a Christian of faith. We need not delay the proper treatment or care of ourselves by praying and waiting upon miraculous divine healing. It would be wrong to pray and wait for an answer to such a prayer. Why? First, because such healing is not for believers themselves and, second, because such gift of healing by the holy spirit has passed away. To apply to faith healers would do us a spiritual injury, because these carry on their profession, not by power of God’s spirit, but by the Deceiver’s power. Their teachings and works prove they do so. If they understood the Scriptures they would not be in that business.