I'm Still Torn About the Blood Issue

by palmtree67 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  wantstoleave

  Frank mentioned good Jw's not sucking their finger if they pricked it and blood came out..lol, I am one of those. Well, dad told us when we were small we weren't allowed to do it because it was ingesting blood, so we didn't. To this day I can't bring myself to do it...lol
• 

  Frank75

  WTL

  We were told the same too. It wasn't my parents idea but my dad told me that it was mentioned in an assembly part.

  It is hard to reconcile that orthodox mentality of the 60's and 70's with the modern position. As a youth I can recall having difficulty with Hemophiliac exemption as well as the Hep C vaccine which originally required infected donated blood.

  Scully's point is spot on as well. It takes massive amounts of donor blood to produce the fractions for JW's. But they are not permitted to donate? That is sick.

  Which reminds me of another inconsistency is that White blood cells are still taboo even in small quantities, but yet Liver transplants are ok even though the liver itself carries a large quantity of white blood cells into its new host, a sort of transfusion byproduct of a transplant.

  So X-Dubs who are still caught up in this nonsense are the equivalent of 1st Century Jews who became Xtians but still limited themselves to walking less than 1200 cubits on Sabbath...what the heck is a cubit in metric?

  Frank75
• 

  TD

  Do you think the GB might have introduced the idea of fractions because they KNOW the whole abstaining from blood thing is a BS doctrine??

  IMO, that question can't be answered from the perspective of the blood policy today. The allowance of fractions started in 1958. Post exposure gamma globulin based vaccines were allowed on the basis that they "Did not nourish the body."

  The idea that blood nourished the body like food was based on a misconception about blood that was common in the 19th century. If you've ever read H.G. Wells 1898 novel, War of the Worlds for example, you're probably familiar with how Wells speculated on how highly evolved race might sustain itself:

  "Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead they took the fresh living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins."

  It was that exact same misconception about blood that started this whole mess. The original argument against transfusion was that it nourished the body in a manner indistinguishable from intravenous feeding. At the time, the New World Translation did not even use the word, "Abstain" at Acts 15:29. (In keeping with its hyper-literal style, the phrase, apechesthai...tou hematos was not translated for its idiomatic content; it was literally translated as, To keep yourselves free...from blood")

  That idea was first expressed in The Watchtower in 1944. The statements got progressively stronger until they reached the point of an outright condemnation of transfusion in 1949. This wacky idea started an instant outcry in the Witness community from those who knew better, (e.g. Doctors, nurses, even veterinarians.) but it was decades before the leadership would even tacitly concede that the orignal objection to transfusion medicine was incorrect.

  During those years, the use of plasma proteins became ubiquitous in medicine to the point where it becane virtually impossible to live in modern society without accepting a blood fraction in one form or another from time to time. What happens if you step on a rusty nail? If there is any doubt whatsoever whether you are current with your tetanus booster, your doctor will give you a post exposure vaccine just to be safe. What is in the post exposure vaccine? It contains tetanus immune globulin, a blood protein and smaller amounts of albumin, another blood protein used as an excipient.

  This scenario is repeated in many contexts. What happens if you are bitten by a poisonous snake or spider? What happens if you are exposed to hepatitus? What happens if you are bitten by a stray dog and the animal is never caught? What happens if you need to travel to some distant locale? In each case, the answer is some preparation containing one or more blood fractions.

  What happens when your children start school? Innoculations against many common diseases are mandatory in most developed countries. Examples would include MMR II, MUMPSVAX, ATTENUVAX and MURAVAX II by Merck & Co. The growth mediums for these vaccines (e.g. Medium 199, MEM, etc) typically contain both human albumin and fetal bovine serum. Additionally the vaccines themselves contain human albumin as an adjuvant or excipient. Other examples of this include VARIVAX and VAQTA, also by Merck & Co., EOLARIX, INFANRIX, and GLAXO by SmithKline Beecham, PENTACEL by Aventis Pasteur, and Connaught Laboratories IPV just to name a few.

  This was the pickle the JW parent organization found themselves in during the late 1960's and early 70's. For reasons we can only speculate on, they wanted to hold onto the doctrine, but at the same time they needed to maintain the loopholes that were necessary for day to day life. (If there was a point where they may have realized the whole doctrine was in error, this would have been it.)

  However the original objection to transfusion was wrong, and consequently the rationale for the allowance of fractions, if taken to its logical conclusion would have brought the whole doctrine crashing down. (i.e. If blood components and fractions that did not actually nourish the body were okay, then everything should have been allowed.)

  Therefore the JW organization reinvented both their objections to transfusion as well as their rationale for the allowance of certain parts of blood. The argument against transfusion morphed into the current grammatical misconstruction vis a vis "Abstain" (Which even some XJW's still seem to accept for some strange reason) and blood was arbitrarily categorized in ways where certain parts could be deemed, "Matters of conscience."

  Over the years, there have actually been four separate rationales offered for the acceptance of blood components:

  1. In September of 1958, fractions were allowed on the basis that they did not nourish the body

  2. In June of 1982, blood was divided into 'major' and 'minor' components. The 'major' ones were forbidden and the 'minor' ones were allowed.

  3. In June of 1990, fractions were allowed based on whether the crossed the placental barrier during pregnancy.

  4. In June of 2000, blood was divided into 'primary' and 'secondary' components. The 'primary' ones were forbidden and the 'secondary' ones were allowed.

  I think those in the JW organization that accept the blood doctrine are, "True believers" (And that is not a compliment) but I don't think the original decision to allow fractions was made hypocritically. That decision was not made recently, it was made over 50 years ago and at the time, if you were handicapped by mistaken ideas about what blood actually did in the body, it did made a certain sense.
• 

  palmtree67

  Thank you, TD.

  That puts the original decision to ban blood transfusions into a better historical perspective for me.

  Much appreciated,
• 

  SixofNine

  "Shear off your uncut hair and throw [it] away, and upon the bare hills raise a dirge, for Jehovah has rejected and will desert the generation with which he is furious. 'For the sons of Judah have done what is bad in my eyes,' is the utterance of Jehovah. 'They have set their disgusting things in the house upon which my name has been called, in order to defile it. And they built the high places of To'pheth, which is in the valley of Hin'nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart." ~ Jeremiah 7:29-31

  This made me realize that God was not interested in human sacrifice - it was something that had not come up into his heart - and for those people who practiced human sacrifice, there was but a single outcome: they would suffer God's fury and rejection. It made me realize that the WTS was as far removed from God as possible, by way of this one practice of requiring followers to sacrifice themselves, their spouses, and their children for lack of blood transfusions.

  And then think of Jesus words: 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice"
• 

  Heaven

  And you're right, Shamus - it's a belief I grew up with, so it feels comfortable for me.

  Hmmm. My reaction was the opposite to yours Palmtree. Perhaps it was the way in which my mother described it when I was a teen. She was angry and screwed her face up and said "Doctors just like to get in there and mess around!" This had quite an impact on me but not the way she wanted it to. I never agreed with their blood policy. In my youth, it was strictly forbidden... absolutely NO BLOOD was allowed. I am lucky I never needed it or I'd probably not be here today.

  ATJ siad: He shook his head, turned red and said "Thats the best we can do for them." It was clear that he was upset that anyone would turn down blood fraction medicine.

  My father still believes in the strictly No Blood Policy. He will not accept fractions. Older people cannot accept these kinds of changes. These criminals in Brooklyn have done a nice job screwing with peoples' lives. I will NEVER become a JW!
• 

  willyloman

  What alltimejeff reported about his HLC experience lines up exactly with my own frequent discussions with a HLC elder who ran a "bloodless" hospital program. One of the things he told me was that 98% of the pre-surgery dub patients he saw had absolutely no idea what the Society's actual position was on blood use. When he explained the many options, nearly every one of them okayed the use of whatever the WTS did not specifically condemn. They were told that the Society was leaving these matters up to their "conscience."

  Obviously, if the dubs had to ask how much wiggle room they had and willingly followed the course of medical management outlined by this elder (with no medical credentials), it begs the question: Whose conscience was being followed?

  What scully said nails the coffin shut on any scriptural rationale on blood transfusions.

  And td is right that Ray Franz hits it on the head in his essay on blood.

  My own story:

  Just months after I attended my last meeting I required some serious surgery. Consulting with the surgeon before hand, he explained that loss of blood was a concern with the procedure and that he didn't really like to use blood unless absolutely necessary so in this instance he advised storing my own blood for emergency use.

  I was probably still a little conflicted on the blood issue at that time (five years ago) but this seemed logical to me, and I couldn't see any reason not to put my own blood back into my body after it sat in the refrigerator for several days. So I agreed. I never had any regrets. The sky did not fall. I was not plagued with guilt, even for a minute. I recovered beautifully.

  When faced with a major decision in life, always consult the experts.
• 

  TD

  My father still believes in the strictly No Blood Policy. He will not accept fractions.

  I know older JW's (70's and up) that believe that. It only upsets them to point out that technically they have accepted fractions at a number of points in their life without even realizing it.
• 

  justindavid

  This is a couple things I wrote up while studying about the blood issue. Especially on the quote from Tertullian.

  Watchtower 2004 - 6/15 - Be Guided by the Living God

  8 How did the early Christians understand and act on God’s guidance about blood? Recall Clarke’s comment: “Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins.” History confirms that the early Christians treated the matter seriously. Tertullian wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.” Yes, despite threats of death, Christians would not consume blood. God’s guidance was that important to them.

  9 Some may imagine that the governing body simply meant that Christians were not to eat or drink blood directly nor to eat unbled meat or food mixed with blood. Granted, that was the first import of God’s command to Noah. And the apostolic decree did tell Christians to ‘keep themselves from things strangled,’ meat with blood left in it. (Genesis 9:3, 4; Acts 21:25) However, the early Christians knew that more was involved. Sometimes blood was taken in for medical reasons. Tertullian noted that in an effort to cure epilepsy, some pagans consumed fresh blood. And there may have been other uses of blood to treat disease or supposedly improve health. Hence, for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for “medical” reasons. They maintained that stand even if it put their life at risk.

  I found 2 other translations of what was quoted.

  Translation 1:
  As for feeding upon blood and tragic dishes of that kind, read whether it is not somewhere related (it is in Herodotus 25, I think) that certain nations have appointed the tasting of blood, drawn from the arms of both parties, for the ratification of a treaty. Some such tasting there was, too, under Catiline. They say also that among certain Scythian tribes a dead person is eaten by his own relatives. I am going far afield. To-day, at home, blood from an incised thigh, caught in a shield and given to her own worshippers, seals those dedicated to Bellona. What about those, too, who for the cure of epilepsy at the gladiatorial show in the arena drink with greedy thirst the fresh blood flowing from the throats of the criminals?

  Translation 2:

  Those, too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows fresh from the wound, and then rush off'to whom do they belong?

  There was also NO mention of "threats of death", as the WT states, if Christians wouldn't consume blood. It only says this: "Lastly, among the tests applied to the Christians you present to them sausage-skins filled with blood, simply because you are quite certain that it is unlawful for them, and you wish through it to inveigle them into error."
• 

  watson

  "Blood"

  Just tagging, thank you.