Which still begs the question...when does any use of blood become a misuse?
Honestly.......
When the WTS says it does!
Foresight hasn't historically been a WTS strong point.
Blood Question
by TD 13 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
jwfacts
I love your thinking - but you are going into more depth than the policy makers hope for. The blood policy does not make sense and is getting dumbed down each time it changes (ie can use blood fractions but cannot donate blood). If you raised such an issue with elders the response would be to examine your motive, rather than the letter of the law.
Not blood related, but a case in point. The elders told me if I did not stop associating with a certain disfellowshipped friend I would be disfellowshipped myself. I asked where in the Bible is association with such a person a disfellowshipping offense. They admitted nowhere, but by going against their warnings I am committing loose conduct. I objected that loose conduct is sexual so they showed me in the insight book that loose conduct is questioning the elders. If a person was to labour a point regarding blood policy they would quickly run the risk of being labelled apostate or engaging in loose conduct instead.
From the time that they allowed blood to be used in any manner it can no longer ever make consistent sense because you will always get the blurring of whether the sin is the consumption of blood, or the failure to pour it out onto the ground. Since the Watchtower allows both of those Old Testament prohibitions to be broken (blood does not need to be poured out as it can be collected and broken into fractions and it can be consumed as fractions), their resultant blood policy is automatically pointless.
-
pirata
It's vague because the current blood policy doesn't make any sense to many. My significant other got a headache when we were reviewing the latest instructions on allowable fractsion/surgeries in our family study and trying to make logical sense of them.
The current emphasis is on "Does the fraction being used represent the life (of the being it came from)? Does my decision show respect for life?" Strangely enough, no consideration is given to whether or not the life of the donor was actually lost in that process.
Whole blood or red cells, white cells, plasma or platelet transfusions are disallowed since these are considered big enough "chunks" to be seen as representing the life.
Smaller components are a "conscience matter" because some smaller components pass from mother to fetus in the womb (and God wouldn't break his own law). If you break down components small enough you end up with "vitamins, minerals", which would not be viewed as blood.
It's kind of like saying you wouldn't eat feces, but then you pick out some chunks of corn and eat them because they by themselves would no longer be considered the feces. And that's okay because some fractions of your feces pass through your intestines to your body.
Hemoglobin, a fraction of red blood cells, is allowed, but it is officially discouraged since it distributes oxygen, and thus could be viewed to still represent the life-giving portion of the blood. This is a bit contradictory since the reason you'd be taking blood fractions in the first place is to save your life.
Thus the (local) "medical directive" now has multiple-choice options, ranging from "I don't accept any fractions" to "I don't accept any minor fractions except...", and you're also allowed to write "see below" and then put "I accept all minor fractions" or "I accept all minor fractions except..." if you really want to. Most witnesses I know choose the last option since it allows the widest range of medical treatment.
In the end it really doesn't matter for the common witness if the reasoning behind it makes logical sense. You're just glad that someone has made rules that you can follow in order to "stay in God's favor".
-
Marvin Shilmer
TD,
The November 2006 Kingdom Ministry article How Do I View Blood Fractions and Medical Procedures Involving My Own Blood? says the following in its opening paragraph:
“Thus, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or the four primary components of blood—namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. They also do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion.”
Based on the above the only point of “sin” I see is the point at which blood is donated or stored “for transfusion” or, in the case of allogeneic blood, the point at which the transfusion occurs. But the donation or storage of blood would have to be for transfusion of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma for the sin to occur by donation or storage.
But I am compelled to add that a 1997 Watchtower article stands in conflict with my comments above. The article talks about storing cord blood for future use. Essentially the article says it is wrong. But cord blood is not used for transfusion of whole blood, red cells, white cells or platelets. My guess is the 2000 Watchtower article on blood changes what is presented in the 1997 Watchtower. I will have to look in to this.
Marvin Shilmer