by Mickey mouse 57 Replies latest watchtower medical
If there is New Light on blood, Bethel needs to make it known to all congregations as quickly as possible.
To bring it out slowly, including waiting until this summer, could make the Watchtower liable both in a criminal court (negligent manslaughter) and civil court (breach of duty). If the policy has officially changed, then Bethel needs to spend a week, e-mailing, letter announcing, etc. to the congregations. Any misinformed JW's death would be on the hands of the Watchtower.
Skeeter
I really doubt that they will do any kind of an about-face on the blood issue. Every time JW's are mentioned in the newspaper, magazine articles, or TV the first thing they are identified as is 'the religion whose adherents refuse blood transfusions'. If all of a sudden they changed it to an official matter of conscience, the fallout would be disastrous and they would lose the elite persecution complex they so enjoy. The touting of using the legal system for freedom of religion is way too dear to them to jeopardize that perceived standing.
I have said for years that the Watchtower could get away from the blood issue if they were really clever. Here's how:
Over a period of a year, they run a whole lot of articles about willing service and being a joyful volunteer. They could extend this to begging for elders and stuff.
Anyhow, they emphasize the part about being willing, of freely offering yourself without compulsion. Then, refering to this 'new light', they dump all monitoring and judicial action about blood. It can't be compelled - but they never admit that the whole thing was bullsh*t. A few zealots still kill themselves, but everything else normalizes.
metatron
According to Jerry Bergman, author of BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: A HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF THE RELIGIOUS, BIBLICAL, AND MEDICAL OBJECTIONS, 1994, p. 5:
"The blood issue has brought witnesses more publicity than any other issue in the last twenty years."
"The ban on blood transfusions was an effort to solidify the Knorr administration." [Knorr initially objected to the weird scriptural interpretation justifying the abstaining from blood; he understood the scriptures to be in reference to animal blood only. Nevertheless, he went along with the ban.]
"Key Watchtower officers held a view of distrust toward the medical profession."
"Some high level Watchtower official naively reasoned that, if eating blood was wrong, blood transfusions were also wrong because they are 'intravenous' feeding as opposed to extravenous feeding, or normal eating."
While Rutherford swallowed some irrational rantings by Franz and Woodworth over the beginnings of the blood issue, he would not allow publication of FWF's "special knowledge" as "new light" in THE WATCHTOWER. The two mischief makers kept things stirred up and began convincing others, including Knorr. The author was told that now that "King Saul" [FWF] is dead, the leadership would like blood transfusions to be a matter of conscience and lay the blame for all the suffering at the feet of Franz and Woodworth.
Does tacit approval on the part of the Governing Body constitute blood-guilt?
THE FOUR PRESIDENTS OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES), Edmond C. Gruss, Editor, pp.74, 75, 231
I believe this day will come - not sure when exactly. The blood doctrine has been more and more liberal and at the same time a maze of confusing reasonings as to why this fraction is right and this component wrong, why this procedure is a sin and this other acceptable. The confusion means the Society has to always be involved blessing this blood practice and condemning others under penalty of disfellowshipping. Their involvement legally implicates them in ways that certain lawsuits have attempted to prove. Even if the Society has been victorious in the courts there is always a possibility that they could lose which would open the doors wide open for other lawsuits. Even at winning it is with the cost of these high-profile, emotionally charged cases creating bad publicity for the Witnesses.
An answer would to make it all a conscience matter. If they did so I don't think you will see them say it is OK to take blood. As I see it, they likely handle it much like the "oral sex" debacle. Say they can't police it and leave it to the person. If they wanted to keep the blood doctrine and mitigate legal responsibility they could instruct publishers with questions to ask their local body of elders. The elders would have hand written notes in the Elder's books maintaining the ban. Any legal problems would fall to the local body of elders and not the Society proper.
As a side point, my dad having gone through numerous no-blood surgeries professes the Watchtower to be the Truth because of their teachings on blood. I wonder what his reaction might be to such "new light".
I don't think they'll make it a conscience matter.
What I expect is that they will keep it a sin but will soften the punishment so that one is rarely, if ever, DFd for it anymore. It will become one of those "loose conduct" versus "fornication" things.
Also, I don't expect a WT study devoted to it. It will either be a couple paragraphs at most in a mag, a KM article, or even something as simple as a GB letter to the elders.
New medical evidence and research will continue to be released and show stats on how many JW's die (eg Netherlands research 1983-2006). They will be forced to change their stance for legal reasons - but it will be a subtle change so witlesses will argue - it hasn't changed. This will result in a field day by the press though - because officially it will have. When the GB still apply it on the quiet by making it a conscience thing (which of course they will) - the press will have them for still enforcing it the first time another dub dies on the operating table.
Well lets hope they do change the policy and save some lives - thousands once living could still be alive.
Is there anything stopping JW's from altering the wording on the medical directive to state they their stance on non-blood medical management is as a direct result of the the teachings from the GB?
MMXIV
The blood issue is one of interpretation of scripture and since ALL JW's have their own bible and ALL can interpret them ( freewill), if a JW chooses to NOT have a BT then the WT is NOT liable for anything.
Persoanlly, I want the WT to change their non-blodd policy and the sooner the better, we are talking people's lives here, a priority if ever there was one.
I hope its one of thise new light things:
In the past we have advocated no-blood because Scripture was against it, but as the new light came to us and as science was able to perfect and clean up the blood operations, we saw blood fractions in a new light and now, that New Light from Jehovah has seen fit to reveal to us that now, FINALLY, modern medicine has caught up with the Bible and now, it is sfae for our brothers and sisters to, if it is a life depending situation, receive a blood trsnafusion, It is obvious that in the past medicine was not up to par and it was far safer to abstain, but now it falls on the individual brother and sister to decide for themselves, isn't Jehovha wonderful ?!
Is there anything stopping JW's from altering the wording on the medical directive to state they their stance on non-blood medical management is as a direct result of the the teachings from the GB?
There are no more "Medical Directive" cards, at least in the US. The standard is a pre-printed Durable Power of Attorney, with a few "fill-in-the-blank" options regarding end of life decisions and blood fractions you are willing to take.
My understanding is that you can cross out and/or alter any text you wish from the pre-printed form, so long as it is initialed and notarized (a fact not publicized by the WTS for obvious reasons).
Of course, it would be much better to just write up your own DPA. There are software programs that can do it for you, or you can pay a small fee to a lawyer to do so.
Like with previous blogs predicting WTS new light on this subject, I will remain skeptical until I see the actual "new light" in print.
If, in the unlikely case, they do make this totally a "matter of consciense" - there might well be far more negative reaction by the witness rank & file than there was to the repeated stumbling on the "generation". This is too obvious to not make a big reaction.
I think the WTS just has too many chips into the "no blood transfusions" hand to fold it up now.
