Why did the WT change their stance on taking blood fractions?

by Bonnie_Clyde 20 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Bonnie_Clyde
    Bonnie_Clyde

    If memory servces me, it was about 1978 when the Questions from Readers stated that blood fractions were a conscience matter. I remember being slightly shocked, and made the statement to my husband that it seems like taking a fraction however small would be akin to giving a "pinch of incense to the emporor." I would never change my stance, or so I stated. Up until that time, I had always questioned my doctor when he was giving my children vaccines to make sure there were no blood products in them. This is what we were counselled to do. Without realizing it, I stopped asking. It didn't matter anymore.

    Not long before the WT changed their doctrine, a good friend of mine told me that her brother-in-law who was in Bethel told her that the Governing Body had a problem with the blood issue. When they travelled to foreign countries, they were required by the government to take shots to protect them against malaria and unfortunately these contained blood fractions. It was developing into a real problem.

    I'd like your opinon--do you think this could have the reason--or one of the reasons--why the doctrine was changed. Typically, the WT like to make changes only when it affects them personally. They don't care about the rank and file.

  • blondie
    blondie

    The WTS stance on vaccinations changed in 1952. The JW that condemned them for years as editor of the Golden Age/Consoliation, Clayton Woodworth died in 1951. Is there a correlation there? Plus, below the WTS did not want to fight a legal case as they had over the flag salute.

    ** w52 12/15 p. 764 Questions From Readers ***

    Is vaccination a violation of God's law forbidding the taking of blood into the system?-G. C., North Carolina.

    The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself. Each individual has to take the consequences for whatever position and action he takes toward a case of compulsory vaccination, doing so according to his own conscience and his appreciation of what is for good health and the interests of advancing God's work. And our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out.

    After consideration of the matter, it does not appear to us to be in violation of the everlasting covenant made with Noah, as set down in Genesis 9:4, nor contrary to God's related commandment at Leviticus 17:10-14. Most certainly it cannot reasonably or Scripturally be argued and proved that, by being vaccinated, the inoculated person is either eating or drinking blood and consuming it as food or receiving a blood transfusion. Vaccination does not bear any relationship to or any likeness to the intermarriage of angelic "sons of God" with the daughters of men, as described in Genesis 6:1-4. Neither can it be put in the same class as described at Leviticus 18:23, 24, which forbids the mingling of humans with animals. It has nothing to do with sex relations.

    Hence all objection to vaccination on Scriptural grounds seems to be lacking. The only proper objection that some persons could raise to it would be on the matter of the health risks involved or of keeping their blood stream clean from diseased matter coming from a foreign source, whether from an animal sore or from a human sore. Medical science, in fact, claims that vaccination actually results in building up the vitality of the blood to resist the disease against which the person is inoculated. But, of course, that is a question for each individual concerned to decide for himself and as he sees it to be Jehovah's will for him.

    We merely offer the above information on request, but can assume no responsibility for the decision and course the reader may take.

  • Bonnie_Clyde
    Bonnie_Clyde

    I would say, then, that between 1952 and 1978 the stance was it was OK to take vaccinations, it just wasn't OK to take a vaccination which contained a blood fraction. My question is, Why did the Governing Body change? My opinion is so their members wouldn't run into trouble with the government when travelling to foreign lands when required to take a vaccination that contained blood fractions.

  • Balsam
    Balsam

    More changes according to the November KM 2006. Parts of red blood cells now allowed, like packed red blood cells. The changes continue and I'm sure it is because of the lawsuits they face. Lawrence Hughes has put up a huge fight in Canada.

    Balsam

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    My opinion is so their members wouldn't run into trouble with the government when travelling to foreign lands when required to take a vaccination that contained blood fractions.

    Could be. Eventually there will be enough light on this to go beyond opinions.
    For now, we only have the current release, and best guesses.
    It was speculated on another thread that the change is to ward off lawsuits.

  • Bonnie_Clyde
    Bonnie_Clyde

    It seems like the change in 1978 was the beginning of the problem. Prior to that, the stance was: NO BLOOD - and that's it!. It seemed clear enough to me. They really complicated the issue when they started allowing fractions--even then the fractions only were allowed slowly.

    In reality, the problem began when they banned blood transfusions in the first place. They had no business trying to play God.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut
    even then the fractions only were allowed slowly

    I pictured a very thin needle, with a turtle pushing the fraction in. LOL.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Their concept is obviously absurd if blood is wrong then all its fractions are wrong it makes no sense to divide it up so thoroughly into fractions allowed and forbidden. If fractions are OK then whole blood is OK, yet they still do not allow self transfusions.

  • fullofdoubtnow
    fullofdoubtnow

    In reality, the problem began when they banned blood transfusions in the first place. They had no business trying to play God.

    That is exactly right. I guess they didn't see, when they applied this ban in the 1940's, all the problems it would eventually bring them. Obviously, the light wasn't shining so brightly when they came up with that one!

  • TD
    TD

    A Brief History of JW Policy Regarding Blood:

    February 4, 1931

    Although vaccination had been condemned as a fraudulent practice as early as 1921, here it is prohibited specifically on scriptural grounds:

    "Vaccination is a direct violation of the Everlasting Covenant that God made with Noah after the flood.....much looseness of our day along sexual lines may be traceable to the easy and continual violation of the divine commands to keep human and animal blood apart from each other. With cells of foreign blood racing through his veins a man is not normal, not himself, but lacks the poise and balance which makes for self control."

    "All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was the bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man" (G31 2/4 p. 293,294)

    April 24, 1935

    The 1931 position on vaccinations is reiterated:

    "As vaccination is a direct injection of animal matter in the blood stream vaccination is a direct violation of the law of Jehovah God." (G35 4/24 p. 465)

    December 22, 1943

    The reasoning on vaccinations is revised. Vaccinations are now condemned on the basis that they violate the divine prohibition against eating blood.

    "Under present methods of immunization, for instance, meningitis germs are injected into a horse. It is these anti-bodies in serums made from the animal's blood which immunize persons against meningitis. Other serums are obtained similarly. The divine prohibition as to eating or partaking of blood does not appear to trouble the "scientists." " (G43 12/22 p. 23)

    July 1, 1945

    Blood transfusions are identified as a being "related" to eating blood. Although the reference is somewhat oblique, this is the first official statement of position against transfusion medicine. (W45 pp. 198-201)

    December 15, 1952

    The earlier position on vaccinations is officially reversed:

    · Is vaccination a violation of God's law forbidding the taking of blood into the system?—G. C., North Carolina.

    "The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself. Each individual has to take the consequences for whatever position and action he takes toward a case of compulsory vaccination, doing so according to his own conscience and his appreciation of what is for good health and the interests of advancing God's work.....After consideration of the matter, it does not appear to us to be in violation of the everlasting covenant made with Noah, as set down in Genesis 9:4, nor contrary to God's related commandment at Leviticus 17:10-14 (W52 p. 764)

    January 8, 1954

    Gamma globulin is specifically forbidden:

    "We are told that it takes one and a third pints of whole blood to get enough of the blood protein or "fraction" known as gamma globulin for one injection. And since from the foregoing it must be admitted that such use of human blood is highly questionable, what justification can there be for the use of gamma globulin? Further, those interested in the Scriptural aspect will note that its being made of whole blood places it in the same category as blood transfusions as far as Jehovah's prohibition of taking blood into the system is concerned." (G54 1/8 p. 24)

    September 8, 1956

    Serum albumin is specifically forbidden:

    "While this physician argues for the use of certain blood fractions, particularly albumin, such also come under the Scriptural ban. In fact, these fractions are being used not only by physicians but also by food processors, and so it would be well to note the labels on such products to see if they contain any blood substances or fractions. When in doubt, it would be best to do without." (G56 9/8 p. 20)

    September 15, 1958

    A slight easing of the original position: Serums, such as the diphtheria antitoxin and fractions such as gamma globulin are now allowed as conscience permits on the basis that these 'do not nourish the body'.

    "While God did not intend for man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God's expressed will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not." (W58 p. 575)

    October 15, 1959

    Blood apart from the body must be poured out in accordance with the Mosaic Law

    Autologous transfusions are thereby prohibited. (W59 p. 640)

    January 15, 1961

    The 'misuse' of blood becomes a disfellowshiping offense. (W61 pp. 63,64)

    September 15 1961

    The 1958 position is apparently reversed. The Society states the issue in terms that preclude any and all medical uses of blood including the use of plasma proteins in serums and antitoxins:

    "The two world wars and the Korean war gave doctors ample opportunity to experiment with the therapeutic use of blood, and now the process has been developed to the point that doctors use not only whole blood and blood plasma, which is the nearly colorless liquid in which the blood cells are carried, but also red cells apart from the plasma, and the various plasma proteins as they feel the need. Is God’s law violated by such medical use of blood? Is it wrong to sustain life by infusions of blood or plasma or red cells or the various blood fractions? Yes!"

    "In view of the emphasis put on the use of blood in the medical world, new treatments involving its use are constantly being recommended. But regardless of whether it is whole blood or a blood fraction, whether it is blood taken from one's own body or that taken from someone else, whether it is administered as a transfusion or as an injection, the divine law applies. God has not given man blood to use as he might use other substances; he requires respect for the sanctity of blood." (W61 pp. 558, 559 emphasis added)

    November 1, 1961

    The Society is questioned on the reversal of the 1958 position. Referring back to the 1958 Watchtower, they again exclude vaccinations from the prohibition. However, the stance regarding gamma globulin and other plasma proteins is now very unclear.

    "As to the use of vaccines and other substances that may in some way involve the use of blood in their preparation, it should not be concluded that the Watch Tower Society endorses these and says that the practice is right and proper. However, vaccination is a virtually unavoidable practice in many segments of modern society, and the Christian may find some comfort under the circumstances in the fact that this use is not in actuality a feeding or nourishing process, which was specifically forbidden when God said that man was not to eat blood, but it is a contamination of the human system." (W61 p. 670)

    February 15, 1963

    The strong wording of the September 15, 1961 Watchtower is restated. The Society again explains their position in terms that would rule out any and all uses of blood including the use of plasma proteins in serums and antitoxins. It is unclear whether this is the result of a difference of opinion in the writing department or whether one writer was simply ignorant about plasma proteins and their uses:

    "He need only ask the doctor: "From what was the plasma taken?" "How are the red cells obtained?" "Where did you get this substance?" If the answer is "Blood," he knows what course to take, for it is not just whole blood but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle." (W63 p. 124)

    November 15, 1964

    The use of serums is again excluded from the prohibition on the same basic rationale as the 1958 explanation:

    "The Society does not endorse any of the modern medical uses of blood, such as the uses of blood in connection with inoculations. Inoculation is, however, a virtually unavoidable circumstance in some segments of society, and so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual to determine whether to submit to inoculation with a serum containing blood fractions for the purpose of building up antibodies to fight against disease. If a person did this, he may derive comfort under the circumstances from the fact that he is not directly eating blood, which is expressly forbidden in God’s Word. It is not used for food or to replace lost blood." (W64 11/15 p. 682)

    August 22, 1965

    The 1964 position is reiterated:

    "The fact that serums are prepared from blood makes them undesirable to Christians because of the Biblical law against the use of blood. However, since they do not involve the use of blood as a food to nourish the body, which the Bible directly forbids, their use is a matter that must be decided by each person according to his conscience." (G65 8/22 p. 18)

    June 1, 1974

    The 1964 position on serums is reiterated and further softened:

    "We believe that here the conscience of each Christian must decide. Some may feel that accepting such a serum does not constitute an act of disrespect for the sacredness of life and of God as the life Source, that it does not constitute a flouting of God's expressed will concerning the use of blood to feed the body." (W74 p.351)

    February 22, 1975

    The use of the clotting factors is still prohibited (G75 2/22 p. 30)

    April 8, 1972

    Hemodilution is specifically condemned:

    "Men of science are constantly developing new methods for performing surgical operations. TheJournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation, dated November 15, 1971, described a procedure for open-heart surgery that employs "severe hemodilution." Early in the operation a large quantity of blood is drawn off into a plastic blood bag. Though the bag is left connected to the patient by a tube, the removed and stored blood is no longer circulating in the patient’s system. It is replaced with a plasma volume expander, which dilutes the blood remaining in the veins and which gradually dissipates during the operative procedure. Near the conclusion of the operation the blood storage bag is elevated, and the stored blood is reinfused into the patient……..These techniques are noteworthy to Christians, since they run counter to God’s Word. The Bible shows that blood is not to be taken out of a body, stored and then later reused.

    (G72 4/8 pp. 29,30 emphasis added)

    June 15, 1978

    The position on serums is softened even further: The use of the clotting factors, RhoGAM, and other serums is now in the 'gray area' (W78 6/15 p. 31)

    June 22, 1982

    The original 1958 rationale for the allowance of some blood components is replaced. Blood components are now classified as either 'major' or 'minor.' (G82 6/22 pp. 25-27) This creates the following divisions:

    ALLOWED: Albumin, Immune globulins, serums, Factors VIII and IV and RhoGAM.

    FORBIDDEN: Red Cells, White Cells, Plasma, and Platelets.

    Intraoperative collection and hemodilution are "objectionable."

    March 22, 1983

    Hemodilution is now mentioned favorably:

    "It is with this in mind, and not just to honor the requests of Jehovah's Witnesses, that Denton Cooley [of Houston, Texas] has performed open-heart operations now for over seven years, limiting transfusions wherever possible by substituting hemodilution, diluting the patient's blood with a glucose and heparin solution. If this method has given excellent results since then . . . one wonders why it has not been extended to present-day surgery." (G83 3/22 p.16)

    May 15, 1984

    Bone marrow transplants are now a matter of conscience. (W84 5/15 p. 31)

    March 1, 1989

    The earlier positions on cell scavenging and hemodilution are reversed. These two forms of autologous transfusion are now permitted. (W89 3/1 pp. 30,31)

    June 1, 1990

    The 1982 rationale for the allowance of some blood components is replaced. Blood components are now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier. The same divisions remain. (W90 6/1 pp. 30,31)

    June 15, 2000

    The 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood components is replaced. Blood components are now classified as either "primary" or "secondary." This creates the following divisions: (W00 6/15 pp. 29-31)

    ALLOWED: Anything derived from a "primary" component including hemoglobin solutions

    FORBIDDEN: Red cells, White cells, Platelets and Whole plasma.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit