41 Questions Regarding the Watch Tower Societies Ban on Life-Saving Blood Transfusions
Value of human life
(From What Does The Bible Really Teach)The Bible makes it clear that God values human life. He created us (Rev 4:11), he sustains us,(Acts17:28), He punished Cain for murdering Abel (Gen 4:9-11), and He forbid murder (Deut 5:17).
1) Given the high value our Creator places on human life, how certain should we be before accepting human teachings that say we should sacrifice our life?
2) If a verse is used to say we should sacrifice our life, should that verse have no other possible explanation? If there are other possible reasonable interpretations, how do you decide which is the correct meaning?
3) Should we sacrifice our life if a verse has other reasonable meanings that don't require the sacrifice of our life?
4) If a teaching says we are to sacrifice our life which is sacred, shouldn't it be the most convincing, clear-cut, and glaringly obviously scripturally correct teaching?
5) Given the high value our Creator places on human life, do you think he would be pleased if we sacrificed ourselves against His will? Even if we thought we were obeying him?
The Scriptural Basis for Prohibiting Life-Saving Blood Transfusions
Don't Eat Blood
Genesis 9:4
Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.
Leviticus 3:17
"It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all."
Deuteronomy 12:16
Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water.
From these verses it is clear that there is an old Testament prohibition against eating blood. Which is to say, that by eating blood we invoke the wrath of God?
6) Nothing God does is arbitrary, without reason. All God commands is for our benefit. Why do you think God created this commandment? How is it beneficial?
7) Why doesn't anybody talk about the prohibition against eating fat? We are no longer under the Mosaic law, but it says until times indefinite?
What Defiles a Person?
Matthew 15:11 says that it is "Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man" what a man eats does not defile him, but rather in verse 18 it is "out of the heart" that defiles him.
And Mark 17:15
15
There is nothing from outside a man that passes into him that can defile him; but the things that issue forth out of a man are the things that defile a man.8) So here we see that the physical act of eating blood does not defile a person, it is rather some internal flaw of human desire. Is it simply a flaw where man does not want to obey some arbitrary law of God? Or again, there is a reason why eating blood is prohibited?
Possible Explanations for the Ban on Eating Blood
Genesis 9:5
5
And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man.WT June 15, 2004 (paragraph 6)
You can see from this declaration to the whole human family that God views a man's blood as standing for his life. The Creator gives the person life, and no one should take that life, represented by blood. If, like Cain, someone does commit murder, the Creator has the right to "ask back" the murderer's life.
Here the WT reasons that blood is sacred is because it represents life, which is a gift from God.
9) If blood is sacred because it is a symbol of life, doesn't that mean that life is actually what is important? Are symbols more important than what they symbolize? Are WE what matters to Jehovah, or are we mere vessels for His sacred fluid? A wedding ring is sacred because it represents the marriage. Should a person sacrifice their marriage to save their wedding ring? If you don’t think this analogy is valid, explain why?
In all the examples where the Bible states that eating blood is prohibited, it is either talking about an animal that is killed for food or sacrifice for the atonement of sins. In all these cases an animal died.
10) Doesn't that suggest that the reason the blood is sacred is because it "stands" as a symbol of the life that was lost- it is sacred because something DIED? If not, why do you think it is sacred?
11) In the case of sacrifice for the atonement of sins, was it the blood that brought the atonement or was it the death of the animal (or Christ) that brought the atonement? Explain?
So whenever a person took the life of an animal, they were to drain the blood and not drink it because the blood represents the life and not theirs to take without God's permission.
Genesis 9:3
Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU.
What if they found an animal that had died?
Leviticus 17:13-115
13
"`As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. 14 For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: "YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off." 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.So if you kill an animal you have to drain the blood. If you find an animal that is already deadl you can eat it with the blood and you just have to perform a ceremonial washing.
12) Why is it ok to eat an unbled animal that is found? Doesn’t this show that the purpose of the command to not eat blood is REALLY about showing proper respect for a life you have taken?
13) In the case of a blood transfusion a person does not die. Doesn't that mean that the prohibition against "eating" blood doesn't apply since nobody died to provide that blood? If not, why?
You may recall Matthew 12:1-7. In that account Christ warned against using unnecessarily strict interpretations of the law as a demonstration of our faith. Rather he pointed out that "7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, `I want mercy, and not sacrifice,' YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones"
And in the similar case of Christ healing on the Sabbath.
Luke 6:9
Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful to do good on the sabbath rather than to do evil, to save life rather than to destroy it?"
14) Is it an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the law to take a prohibition against eating the blood of killed and sacrificed animals and applying it to a prohibition against life saving medical procedure? Is that interpretation merciful? Do you think it is sacrifice?
Abstain from blood
Acts 15:19-20
19
Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.Acts 15:28-29
28
For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"Here the language seems to be stricter than that of the OT prohibitions. Here rather than prohibiting the eating of blood, the congregation is told to "abstain". To abstain completely would seem to include life saving blood transfusion.
15) Why do you suppose the apostles would create a stricter and more complete prohibition?
The word "abstain" only makes sense if used with an infinitive verb form. For instance how do you abstain from a car? You can abstain from driving a car. It does make sense to use the word "abstain" without the verb if the context makes it very clear what verb is being implied. If I said, "abstain from junkfood", it would be obvious that I meant to abstain from eating junkfood.
16) In the early congregation, what verb associated with blood would be so obvious to the first century reader, that Luke didn't feel he needed to include it?
17) If the use of "abstain" in this verse is going to be interpreted in the strictest, most absolute way, shouldn’t any uses of the word "abstain" in the Bible be interpreted just as strictly and absolutely?
Use of the Word "Abstain" in Other Verses
Fornication:
The verses also single out fornication as something to abstain from.
18) Since the prohibition against blood is expected to be obeyed even to the point of sacrificing ones life, shouldn't the prohibition against fornication be just as absolute? So what about the case where a woman's life is threatened to force her to submit to rape? Should the woman die rather than have sex with someone she isn't married to? What do you think?
Awake 1986 Sept 22 (page 28)
The Bible does support the thought that a woman attacked by a rapist should scream and resist. True, the woman has to respond according to her assessment of the danger to her life, and we believe that is covered in the advice given in the box on page 23 (May 22, 1986). It should be kept in mind that submitting to rape gives no guarantee that the victim will not be beaten or killed afterward. See the article "They Resisted Rapists" in our issue of February 22, 1984.—ED.
19) Why do you think God directs his organization to allow a woman to submit to sex with someone she is not married to under the threat of death, but not allow a person to receive a life saving medical procedure? Do you think that since the use of the word "abstain" in the context of forced fornication isn’t interpreted in the strictest possible sense, then maybe it shouldn’t be interpreted in the strictest possible sense in relation to life saving medical procedures? If not, why?
Things Sacrificed to Idols:
The verses stating that we should abstain from blood also single out things sacrificed to idols. But here Paul says it is ok to eat things sacrificed to idols, except where it will offend or stumble another believer.
1 Corinthians 10:25-30
25
Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; 26 for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." 27If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience.28 But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. 29 "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? 30 If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks?20) Why do you think that the command to abstain from blood is so absolute that it is to be applied to refusing a life saving medical procedure, yet another command to abstain from things sacrificed from idols is said to be ok in another section of the Bible. Do you think that since the use of the word "abstain" in relation to things sacrificed to idols is not interpreted in the strictest possible sense, then maybe it shouldn’t be interpreted in the strictest possible sense in relation to life saving medical procedures? If not, why?
The context of the prohibitions in Acts 15 is important to understand. The reason these issues came about is because there was a lot of division between the Jewish Christians who had spent a life observing the law, and the Greek Christians who spent a life surrounded by idolatry and debauchery.
Acts 15:1-2
1
And certain men came down from Ju·de´a and began to teach the brothers: "Unless YOU get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU cannot be saved." 2 But when there had occurred no little dissension and disputing by Paul and Bar´na·bas with them, they arranged for Paul and Bar´na·bas and some others of them to go up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute.21) Do you think that since the prohibition against things sacrificed to idols was clearly a measure to keep peace in the congregation rather than because it was forbidden, that perhaps the command to abstain from blood might not be so completely binding that it applies to refusal of life saving medical treatment?
So does the command to abstain from eating blood apply to blood transfusions?
Bible Teach chapter 13, paragraph 13, page 130
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
22) If a doctor told us to abstain from meat, would that also include refusing a life saving organ transplant?
23) If taking something physically into our bodies is the same as eating it, doesn't that mean a person who gets an organ transplant is a cannibal?
24) True it is not the organization that said "abstain from blood", it is the Bible. But do you agree that it was the organization that took that command to abstain from eating blood and used it to justify a ban on blood transfusions? Do you think the verses that are used to teach that we should sacrifice our life have other reasonable interpretations that don’t require sacrifice? Do you think the teaching that says we should sacrifice our lives is the most convincing, clear-cut, and glaringly obviously scripturally correct teaching?
Trust Jehovah’s Arrangement
At this point it could be argued that a person should trust in Jehovah’s spirit-directed organization to provide the correct interpretations of questionable verses. In that way, even if there is a reasonable alternative interpretation to the verses used to require the sacrifice of our lives, we could trust that the WT teaching is correct one before God. Has the WT always provided the correct interpretations of verses when considering whether or not we should sacrifice ourselves?
Organ Transplants Forbidden:
Watchtower 1967 November 15 pp.702-4 Questions 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?—W. L., U.S.A.
[…]
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people.
[…]
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…
[…]
Awake! 1968 June 8 p.21
There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism…
Organ Transplants Allowed
:Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31 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.
[…]
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.
Here the WT appeared to ban and then lift the ban on organ transplants. Apparently there were no written statement that makes taking a transplant an offense that rates disfellowshipping. On the other hand, there is some unknown number of people who followed this teaching, which is apparently now known to be incorrect before God, to there deaths. (I have included some quotes form WT publications on vaccinations that would parallel the questions below on organ transplants)
25) Do you think the JW were directed by Jehovah’s spirit to provide this incorrect teaching?
a) If so, why do you think he would do that? When Jehovah explicitly commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he sent an angel to stop him. Gen 22:9-12. Why didn’t Jehovah act in the same manner when he directed the JW to provide this incorrect teaching?
26) Or do you think the JW were not directed Jehovah’s spirit to provide this incorrect teaching?
If so, since you think they provided an incorrect teaching without God’s spirit, doesn’t that mean they are equally capable today of providing a teaching on blood that is both incorrect and without the direction of God’s spirit?
Why do you think Jehovah allowed his organization to make a mistake that was so costly and embarrassing to those who love him?
Since he let his organization make this mistake, could he let them make a similar mistake in interpreting the scripture the application and meaning of the word "abstain" in relation to blood?
27) Given this past error, do you think it is legitimate to assume that the WT must have the right interpretation of the command to "abstain from blood" according to God’s will, because they are God’s spirit directed organization?
Medical Realities: (Taken from Chapter 9 of In Search of Christian Freedom by Ray Franz)
Note: The following material up through question 37 are from what could be considered apostate sources
Forbidden blood components and practices
Whole blood
Plasma – Major Component
White blood cells (leukocytes) – Major Component
Red blood cells – Major Component
Platelets – Major Component
Storing patient's own blood for subsequent transfusion
Permitted blood components and practices
Subcomponents of those elements listed in the previous column, specifically:
Immunoglobins
Hemophiliac preparations (Factor VIII and IX)
Diversion of patient's blood through heart-lung machine, and other diversion where the "extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted {2}
28) What is the scriptural basis guiding or giving the authority to decide what parts of blood are/are not forbidden, what parts are major/minor?
29) If the word abstain in relation to blood is meant to be taken as the most strict interpretation, to the point of refusing a life saving medical treatment, how does it make sense to then say it is ok to take components of blood?
30) Given this inconsistency in interpreting the word "abstain" as it pertains to blood, is it fair to question whether the WT is guided by God’s spirit when they provided the interpretation of "abstain" as meaning we should refuse life saving medical treatment? Is Jehovah ever inconsistent?
Plasma:
Plasma composes about 55 percent of the volume of blood. Yet plasma is actually up to 93 percent simple water. The principal components of the remaining 7 percent are albumin, globulins (of which the immunoglobulins are the most essential parts), fibrinogen and coagulation factors (used in hemophiliac preparations). These are components the organization lists as allowable to its members. The plasma is forbidden yet its principal components are permissible provided they are introduced into the body separately.
This seems to be the same as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately.
31) How does it make sense to say a major component is forbidden as a whole, but if divided up into subcomponents, it can all be taken?
32) Given this inconsistency in deciding what is acceptable, do you think it is legitimate to assume that the WT must have the right interpretation of the command to "abstain from blood" according to God’s will, because they are God’s spirit directed organization?
White Blood Cells:
Leukocytes, often called "white blood cells," are also prohibited. In reality the term "white blood cells" is rather misleading. This is because most leukocytes in a person’s body actually exist outside the blood system. One’s body contains about 2 to 3 kilos of leukocytes and only about 2-3 percent of this is in the blood system. The other 97-98 percent is spread throughout the body tissue, forming its defense (or immune) system.
This means that if a person got an organ transplant, which is allowed, they would receive far more foreign leukocytes, which are not allowed, than if they received an equivalent volume of whole blood.
Human milk contains leukocytes, more leukocytes, in fact, than found in a comparable amount of blood. Blood contains about 4,000 to 11,000 leukocytes per cubic millimeter, while a mother’s milk during the first few months of lactation may contain up to 50,000 leukocytes per cubic millimeter. That is up to five to twelve times more than the amount in blood.
So when a mother breast feeds her baby, the baby will be drinking far more of a forbidden component, than if she were to directly receive an equivalent amount of whole blood.
33) Do you think it is consistent to allow high volume of a forbidden component to be taken into the body orally or by an organ transplant, yet have that same component be forbidden for transfusion?
34) Given that the current policy on blood contains this inconsistency in allowing leukocytes to be taken into the body one way, but not another, is it fair to question whether the WT must have the right interpretation of the command to "abstain from blood" according to God’s will, because they are God’s spirit directed organization?
Storing Blood:
WT 2000 10/15 Questions From Readers page 30-31
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law
A patient is not allowed to store their own blood for future use because blood is supposed to be poured out. However use of components requires taking blood transfusions of people and storing for separation into its components. Storing blood for use in components is allowed.
35) Do you think it is consistent to allow components which are sometimes derived from large quantities of stored blood, yet not allow a person to store their own blood for use in a life saving medical procedure? If so, please explain.
36) Given that the current policy on blood contains this inconsistency in allowing components derived from stored blood, but forbidding a person to store their own blood for future use, is it fair to question whether or not the WT must have the right interpretation of the command to "abstain from blood" according to God’s will, because they are God’s spirit directed organization?
Hemopure):
From AJWRB.ORG (I was not able to find this article. The local HLC should be able to verify if Hemopure is an allowed treatment)
According to a September 24, 2000 article in the Sacramento Bee, a patient was recently transfused with Hemopure®, a highly purified oxygen-carrying hemoglobin solution made from fractionated bovine (cow) blood and manufactured by Biopure Corporation.
Dorsey Griffith, a medical writer for the Bee, states that Gregory Brown, a representative from the Jehovah's Witnesses Hospital Liaison Committee, approved the use of the oxygen-carrying solution that was transfused into the patient, Jose Orduño.
From Wikipedia - developed by
Biopure (BPUR), is an oxygen-therapeutic based on chemically stabilized bovinehemoglobin. It has been developed for potential use in humans as a substitute for blood, which can be in short supply, carries a risk of being used improperly, may cause reactions, or may carry infection. Hemopure has been approved for human use and commercial sale in South Africa since April 10, 2001, a first and only for this product class.
37) Do you think it contradictory that the society has such a strict interpretation of the word "abstain", yet it allows the use of a product that is derived from cow’s blood?
Don’t run ahead of Jehovah’s arrangement
At this point, I could imagine even if a person thought the scriptural basis for the claim that we should refuse blood in the context of a life saving medical treatment had other reasonable alternatives, or if a person acknowledged the WT’s past problems accurately interpreting such scriptures, or even if they acknowledged that the current policies are logically flawed, they could still maintain this line of reasoning:
"Even if the JW are wrong in their interpretation, they are God's organization. God would still expect me to follow His arrangement and obey His organization. We all die. But only those who submit to His arrangement can expect a hope of resurrection."
Because Saul was Jehovah's "anointed" king, and David was to replace him, David did not take it upon himself to raise his hand against Saul and become blood guilty by causing Saul's death. He Waited On Jehovah and in time, Saul was killed, and David became King. 1 Samuel 24:5-6 and 26:8-9.
On the other hand Saul wanted David’s death. David did not obey Jehovah’s anointed and submit to his execution as directed by Jehovah’s organization.
38) If we are to obey those God anoints even in error or to our own deaths, why didn’t God punish or become angry with David for his disobedience?
Exodus 32:1-4 describes the golden calf incident. Aaron -- in Moses' absence -- was the "visible organization" of that time. Aaron built the calf, erected the altar, and called for a worship service at a specific time and place. So "God's organization" of that time called for something that God himself would not approve of.
This is just a single example in the Old Testament. The books of Judges, Chronicles, and Kings recount how time and again Jehovah’s anointed people, kings, and religious leaders – his organization - again and again fell into disobedience and idolatry.
When Jesus arrived on the scene, the Jewish religious leaders represented Jehovah’s earthly organization. However, their many rules were condemned by Jesus himself as "teachings of men." Jesus never once admonished the people to submit to these men. In fact, he rebuked these men in the strongest of terms for adding restrictions and strict interpretations of the law that went far beyond the law’s intent. Matthew 12:1-7, Matthew 23:13-33.
39) In all these cases, would the people that obeyed the organization be acceptable to God, even though they were doing what was wrong? What was important in these cases, following the "right" course, or following the direction of God's visible organization?
40) Is there any instance in the scriptures where God has EVER given this sort of authority to men over other men? Has God EVER expected men to obey a human He chose as His special servant even when they acted outside His authority? When they acted in error? Against the conscience of the people His special servant is given authority over? Or to the point of sacrificing themselves or their children?
41) Given the high value our creator places on human life, do you think He would be pleased if you followed the instructions of another person and sacrificed your life when that was not His will?