Would there be a backlash if the Blood Ban was lifted?

by Gill 49 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Gill

  Would there be a backlash from current JWs if the blood transfusion ban was lifted and made completely a conscience matter?

  I suspect, that only those who had lost a close relative would be bothered. The others would just be relieved that they didn't have to worry about this traumatic issue anymore and they would carry on as ususal.

  So, what is it, except for fear of legal action, that is stopping the ban being lifted? Is money all they care about and the fear of losing the many 'blood trials' that would follow? Do they fear 'manslaughter charges?'

  I can think of several JWs who died unnecessarily, but can't imagine their relatives taking any action against the WT society.
• 

  compound complex

  Hey Gill!

  Having just reread your comments from January in the thread "Persecution Wanes/Banning Blood Garners Publicity," naturally I was thinking of you. I'm happy you posted this question.
  If you care to review the textual content from Jerry Bergman and Edmond Gruss in that thread, you'll recall that pressure WAS put upon Freddy and he backed off on serums, the clotting factors re: hemophilia, etc. They created a situation wittingly but a voracious monster unwittingly. Rhetorically, is it true, as stated in THE FOUR PRESIDENTS, that the GB would like the taking of blood to be a conscience matter and have ALL the blame for this blunder be laid at the feet of Freddy and Clay???
  I read your story with great interest and sorrow for all that you have had to suffer. I hope that now you are finding peace.

  Love,

  CoCo
• 

  Hortensia

  Don't you think that more JWs would be really angry? It has been such a fundamental test of faith since they first thought of it - so much suffering due to the blood policy. I just think it would make a lot of people angry - not relief at "new light" but anger at the years of unnecessary suffering.

  But, maybe not.
• 

  looking_glass

  There totally would be because of the number of deaths that have occurred because of the no blood policy. But in real time, I find it hard to accept that they would ever do it because it gives them something to fight about and keeps them: 1) in the public eye; 2) allows them to continue to be self righteous over something; 3) allows them to continue to be martyrs.
• 

  garybuss

  You wrote: "Would there be a backlash from current JWs if the blood transfusion ban was lifted and made completely a conscience matter?"
  
  If they printed the change in the Watchtower magazine, Witnesses wouldn't even know about the change.
  
  We're still finding long time Witnesses who don't know the "generation" belief changed or that Witnesses are allowed to take blood intra-operative, and all blood fractions anytime.
  
  I say, if you want to keep a secret from a Jehovah's Witness, put it in the Watchtower magazine.
  
  People are cheap to the Watch Tower. Any Witnesses who leave for any reason are just seen as harvest siftings. I'd think the Society has more at risk by NOT allowing blood treatment than they do by changing it. Allowing blood treatment without sanctions, would minimize risk. I'm surprised they haven't made the change already.
  
  
• 

  Scully

  If blood transfusions were suddenly turned into a Conscience Matter™, I'm sure there would be a few JWs who would raise their eyebrows over it. There are people who suffered close calls - getting to death's door - due to a staunch refusal to accept blood transfusions.

  The ones who would be the most grieved, imo, are those who needlessly allowed their children to die for lack of blood transfusions. I know a few people whose children have died because they did not have blood, and despite believing it was the right choice at the time, they are guilt ridden anyway, questioning whether they made the right decision and knowing that not "everything in their power" was done to help their child.
• 

  5go

  Yes and no, depends on the person.
• 

  sass_my_frass

  The organisation knows that it can't admit that they're wrong about this due to the risk of liability. They will continue to be vague and pretend that it's entirely a conscience matter, knowing that the average JW schmo is now so convinced that blood is useless and high-risk therapy anyway that they still won't use it. If they reverse their stance, every ex-JW who has lost a relative due to the blood issue will sue.
• 

  choosing life

  I feel that there should be a backlash. Then I think about how they changed the ban on organ transplants and I didn't hear of any lawsuits about the ones who died because of that.

  I remember a question from readers that quoted an older lady who had lost her eyesight because she refused to get cornea transplants. She supposedly was not bitter, but was so glad that she didn't run ahead of the organization and suffer spiritually. Everlasting life was worth the loss of her sight. The truth was that everlasting life had nothing to do with transplants.

  It is going to take monetary loss through lawsuits before the borg decides to get "new light" on the blood issue, I am afraid.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  High ranked news article with pro/con arguments

  http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=34304&sc=89 (here load into browser)

  Death of Jehovah's Witness brother prompts pro-transfusion petition
  The Daily News, Canada - Jun 3, 2007
  A former Jehovah's Witness, whose brother died after refusing blood transfusions, has collected 5000 names on a petition which calls for doctors to be ...