I am not a JW. In a paper that I'm writing, I use an example of an adult JW who refuses to consent to a blood transfusion. I claimed that if the courts/doctors ignored the JW's wishes and gave him the transfusion anyway, no JW would say that this JW had sinned or that he would suffer any spiritually adverse consequences. The referees of the journal I sent my paper to claimed that I had misunderstood JW theology and many JW's would fear damnation if given a blood transfusion involuntarily. Are they right? What do JW's believe? Do they think that God would "hold it against me" if I were given a blood transfusion involuntarily? Don't JW's believe that sin has to be voluntary? So it's a sin to agree to have a blood transfusion, but not a sin to be forced to have one-- just as it's a sin to fornicate, but not a sin to be raped? Does anyone know of any "official" JW publications that address this question. I've checked the Watchtower web site and found nothing that touches on this specific question.
JW's and blood transfusions
by danny49 5 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AllAlongTheWatchtower
Very good question. I'm not a JW either, but I am interested to see what the others have to say. My wife is studying with them, speaking for myself, if the situation ever comes up, I fully intend to do my best to speak to the doctors about overriding this disastrous doctrine. This of course might cause some problems with my wife, but I'd rather have an angry alive wife, than a happy dead one. I've heard that the JW's will send elders or other representatives to the hospital to make sure the blood issue is enforced according to their beliefs...all I have to say about that is, they better be prepared to deal with an angry 6' 230 pound husband.
-
greendawn
I don't think it would matter to them but in practice as soon as the jw local elders hear that a jw may be given blood due to accident or other reasons they will promptly turn up at the hospital to interfere with a transfuson so it has to be done quickly and against the individual's wishes expressed on the medical card that s/he carries.
-
Elsewhere
First you must understand that JWs are very legalistic in how they view doctrine and scripture.
First of all. For the purpose of avoiding lawsuits the Watchtower Society does not "disfellowship" (Reject and shun) members who accept blood products. This is so that they cannot be sued for trying to manipulate a person's medical care through threats of punishment. Instead they say that the person "disassociated himself from the congregation by his actions". The result of being disfellowshipped or disassociated is exactly the same, the person is severely shunned by all JWs including family. The first is an action taken by the congregation, the second is an action taken by an individual person.
I have a CD ROM of many of the Watchtower's publications and my search resulted in no published stand on how to treat a JW who is forced to accept a blood transfusion.
This leaves me with the only option of telling you what I know from being a JW for most of my life. My observation of situations where a person was forcibly given blood products (or the Dr. tried to) was that the person was viewed as a victim and held in very high esteem as a person who has suffered persecution and "held faithful". JWs actual view such a forced transfusion as a form of rape**
** "She considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape." -- Watchtower 1991 6/15 p. 17
Here is an article for you to review:
***
Watchtower 1991 6/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***Questions
From Readers·
How strenuously should a Christian resist a blood transfusion that has been ordered or authorized by a court?Each situation is unique, so there is no all-inclusive rule on this. Christians are known for respectfully ‘paying back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,’ obeying the laws of the secular government. Yet, they realize that their overriding obligation is to render "God’s things to God," not violating his law.—Mark 12:17.
Romans 13:1-7 discusses the relationship of Christians to the governmental "superior authorities." Such governments have the authority to enact laws or to issue directions, usually to promote the general welfare of the populace. And governments ‘bear the sword’ to enforce their laws and ‘to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad according to their laws.’ Being subject to the superior authorities, Christians desire to obey laws and court decrees, but this subjection must be relative. If a Christian is asked to submit to something that would be a violation of God’s higher law, the divine law comes first; it takes precedence.
Some modern laws that are basically good may be misapplied to authorize the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian. In this case Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."—Acts 5:29.
Jehovah commanded the Israelites: "Be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh." (Deuteronomy 12:23) A Jewish Bible translation of 1917 reads: "Only be stedfast in not eating the blood." And Isaac Leeser rendered the verse: "Only be firm so as not to eat the blood." Does that sound as if God’s servants were to be casual or passive about upholding his law?
With good reason Christians have been absolutely determined to obey God, even if a government directed them otherwise. Professor Robert L. Wilken writes: "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the governing of the cities." (The Christians as the Romans Saw Them) Refusal could mean being branded lawbreakers or being condemned to the Roman arena.
Christians today must also be steadfast, firmly resolved not to violate divine law, even if that puts them in some jeopardy as to secular governments. The highest law of the universe—God’s law—requires that Christians abstain from blood, just as they are commanded to avoid fornication (sexual immorality). The Bible calls these prohibitions "necessary things." (Acts 15:19-21, 28, 29) Such divine law is not to be taken lightly, as something to be obeyed only if it is convenient or presents no problems. God’s law must be obeyed!
We can appreciate, then, why the young Christian mentioned on page 17 told a court that "she considered a transfusion an invasion of her body and compared it to rape." Would any Christian woman, young or old, passively submit to rape, even if there were a legal grant that the fornication by sexual assault be carried out?
Similarly, the 12-year-old quoted on the same page left no doubt that ‘she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed.’ She was firmly resolved to obey the divine law.
Jesus withdrew from the area when a crowd wanted to make him king. Similarly, if a court-authorized transfusion seemed likely, a Christian might choose to avoid being accessible for such a violation of God’s law. (Matthew 10:16; John 6:15) At the same time, a Christian should wisely seek alternative medical treatment, thus making a genuine effort to maintain life and to regain full health.
If a Christian did put forth very strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God’s law on blood, authorities might consider him a lawbreaker or make him liable to prosecution. If punishment did result, the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness. (Compare 1 Peter 2:18-20.) But in most cases, Christians have avoided transfusions and with competent medical care have recovered, so that no lasting legal problems resulted. And most important, they have maintained their integrity to their Divine Life-Giver and Judge.
-
in a new york bethel minute
i was raised a JW and have witnessed other JW's being forced to either accept a blood transfusion, or to allow their children to receive a blood transfusion. from what i have seen and heard, they do not punish the person(s) involved and there is no ostricism by others in the congregation towards that person.
bethel minute
-
Elsewhere
I thought I should add some additional information. In that article it compares being forced to accept a transfusion with being raped. I also need to remind you of their legalistic view of matters.
A JW will be “viewed as having disassociated himself” if a Judicial Committee (An internal religious court) finds that an individual did not sufficiently resist the transfusion. The same even applies to rape. If the Judicial Committee finds that a woman did not sufficiently fight off her rapist she will be found to have committee fornication and will be disfellowshipped and shunned. (http://quotes.watchtower.ca/rape_is_fornication.htm)