a "bloody" question - components vs. fractions

by inbetween 13 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  inbetween

  the official WT rule on blood is, whole blood and the four primary components are forbidden, fractions from those are conscience matter.

  now its clear, that the medical world only uses the term fractions.

  its also clear, that there is no direct bibilical reason for dividing blood into permitted components and forbidden fractions.

  However, there is one argument of apologists, that has at least some value, if the premisse is true:

  The problem with components is, that when they are extracted, they still contain small amounts of all other components, so they still resemble whole blood, only the percentage is different.

  An example to illustrate (simplified):

  whole blood: 30% red blood cells, 30% platelets, 30% plasma, 10% white cells.(I know its different in reality, just for arguments sake)

  after extraction, lets say red blood cells, they consist now of: 90% red cells, 4% platelets, 4% plasma, 2% white cells.

  so we see, the actual percenetage of each components varies after extraction, but still is there, therefore even a primary component as the red cell still contains ALL of bloods parts, therefore still somehow is whole blood.

  my question: is the premisse, that one component(either red, white cell, plasma, platelets) after seperation still contain parts of the other 3 components ?

  If the answer is yes, we know at least some reason for this WT stance.

  However it raises other questions:

  1) Why was this reason never published in the literature ?

  2) What if there is a method to extarct a clean (100%) component ? Would it then be allowed ?

  3) Anytime we eat meat, we also eat blood. WT says, this does not matter, because if the meat was proplerly bled, there is no reason to go to extremes. Would this principle not apply to seperating blood components ?

  Your input is very welcome...thx
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  Most Witnesses will accept the use of cardio-pulmonary bypass, dialysis, intra-operative blood salvage, and re-infusion. As modern science advances and more treatments become available, many members will no doubt find it difficult to work it all out and are likely to find themselves trying to do so when they are ill.

  To add to the confusion is the situation that has developed in Bulgaria. With the increase in attention to human rights there is growing concern regarding the Watchtower Society’s ban on blood transfusions. Few Witnesses are aware of the 1998 case between the Watchtower Society and the Bulgarian government. To settle the case, they signed a legally binding document giving Witnesses freedom of choice regarding blood transfusions. In the statement that follows the applicant is the Watchtower Society:

  “The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.” (Applicant No 28626/95)

  Are the Witnesses abiding by this Bulgarian undertaking or covertly undermining the promised freedom of choice? Will this ruling become worldwide or will the Witnesses in Bulgaria be treated differently to the others?

  The Bible sets out many principles to guide those who wish to live as Christians. Does the Watchtower Society have the right to make its opinion into law?

  They have not always ruled that blood transfusions are wrong. At one time, the Society ruled that vaccinations and organ transplants were wrong but later changed their mind. Recently the Society informed all elders that those members who accepted a blood transfusion were not to be automatically disfellowshipped. This change of policy was not made known to the ordinary members. This change may well have been the result of pressure to conform to the legal requirements of The Human Rights Act.

  Until recently the Society had insisted that the use of all blood parts such as red or white cells including hemoglobin, plasma and platelets were also banned. To accept any such treatments was the same as having a transfusion. This ruling was based on the Biblical admonition to “abstain from blood.” Now they have decided that some of these blood parts can be used!

  Members in the USA are expected to fill in a “Durable Power of Attorney” and distribute this legal document to friends, relatives and their doctor so that in the case of an accident, the hospital would know that they were not to give the injured person a blood transfusion.

  On 1 December 2000, elders in the USA were informed in writing by the Society that in line with articles appearing in both 15 June 2000 and 15 October 2000 Watchtower magazines, the DPA forms had been amended to allow members to accept the previously forbidden fractionated blood parts.

  Using the name Lee Elder, the founder of AJWRB, a group that has been set up to determine the feelings of Witnesses regarding the ban on blood, stated the following:

  “ Even more significant is this further comment from the Watchtower Society: “only a small percentage of the brothers have filled out the Society’s DPA form.” This recent statement from the Watchtower Society is very important in that it shows that level of commitment to the Watchtower Society policy is very small. If a Jehovah's Witness is unconscious and exsanguinating and no DPA can be presented, I believe a very strong argument exists that the person is not committed to the Watchtower Society policy. Especially in light of this recent disclosure by the Watchtower Society, which reveals dwindling support for its partial blood policy. It is also noteworthy that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of disfellowshiping Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood or the blood products that are still forbidden; the Watchtower Society has never informed the general membership of the change. Only the congregation elders have been informed to date.” (www.ajwrb.org)

  One elder, writing under the pseudonym Mr Shilmer, to avoid disciplinary action has asked the Watchtower’s head office to justify this turn-around and clarify the position. A copy of his letter was sent to The Regional Ethics Council in Portland USA. A reply was received from Dr. Osamu Muramoto, which reads in part:

  “I appreciate Mr. Shilmer’s comment as an active Witness elder. Compared with Mr. Bartlett's letter, the opinions of Mr.Shilmer and Mr. Elder testify how diverse the views are on this issue among Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Mr. Shilmer raised the question of partial abstinence from blood, I would like to add one example to show how the new WTS blood policy is NOT abstaining from blood.

  As I stated in this paper, and as clearly stated in the new version of the Durable Power of Attorney form printed by the WTS and distributed to the JWs in the United States last week, the new policy allows JWs to accept “all fractions” of “any primary component.” The WTS has emphasized in its literature that those "fractions" are "small” and therefore acceptable.

  When I ask JWs why those "fractions" are acceptable, most would reply, “because they are tiny fractions.” Under this new policy, the most important “fraction” JWs are now permitted to accept is hemoglobin-based blood substitutes, which had been prohibited until recently. How “small” is hemoglobin as a fraction of the blood? Let me quote a simple sentence from a college- level anatomy textbook: “Discounting its water content, an erythrocyte [red blood cells, which WTS determined unacceptable] is over 97% hemoglobin, the molecule that binds to and transports respiratory gasses.” (Reference 1. Marieb E. Human anatomy and physiology. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA:Addison Wesley Longman Inc; 1998:630)

  “If God commands to abstain from red blood cells, as the WTS teaches, why does the WTS also teach that accepting 97% of what God prohibits does not violate God's command?” (US spelling)

  As the Society have changed their mind on so many other verses of scripture, and applied the scriptures on this matter in so many different ways, perhaps they will change their mind on this issue completely. If they do, it will be of no comfort to the relatives of those who have died as a result of their ruling.

  More critically for the Society, these changes further undermine their claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit to dispense accurate knowledge which they insist the members eternal lives depend upon. By making the Bible’s comments on the use of animal blood into a law regarding the life-saving use of human blood, have they carried out their “duty of care” towards the present lives of their members?

  The above is taken from a book called: Opening the door to Jehovah's Witnesses. For a limited time a free download is availble. If you are interested, go to Lulu.com and paste of type into the search box number: 5456415
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Inbetween,

  When blood is separated for clinical usage it is possible to find trace amounts of each constituent you mention in the various end products. But I underscore trace amount. You’d need a microscope to find these constituents in some blood products ready for transfusion. For example, in a unit of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) you’d need considerable time under light microscopy to find the isolated erythrocyte, but there are a few present—very few.

  There is a reason why Watchtower has never leveraged this information to underpin distinctions made by its blood doctrine. The reason is that the same presence of trace constituents is also true for blood products that Watchtower let’s Witnesses accept. A good example is the products known as cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant.

  Cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant are the result of a thermo-mechanical fractionation of plasma. The result of this process is to separate a select globulin rich plasma solution from a select globulin poor plasma solution. The rich solution is termed cryoprecipitate and the poor solution is termed cryosupernatant. The cryoprecipitate is about 1-2% of the original volume of plasma. The cryosupernatant is the left-over 98-99% of the original volume of plasma. Together these to products represent the sum total of plasma, and Witnesses can and do accept both these products.

  In relation to your question, here is the clincher: There is nothing in plasma that is not also in cryoprecipitate, and there is nothing in plasma that is not also in cryosupernatant.

  Hence, if plasma were unacceptable because trace amounts of other blood constituents were present then cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant would unacceptable on the same basis. But the blood products known as cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant are not unacceptable under Watchtower’s blood doctrine.

  Accordingly, the premise you cite that Watchtower apologists attempt to leverage is counterproductive to their purpose.

  Marvin Shilmer

  marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  Room 215

  It's obvious that any extraction of acceptable blood components requires storing and processing whole blood; how does the Society rationalize this to the Bibical command to "pour out the blood"? And what happens to a JW who donates his blood exclusively to be processed into acceptable fractions?
• 

  TheListener

  Yes, the "pouring out the blood" rule is one of the main reasons dubs can't accept autologous transfusions.
• 

  inbetween

  thanks for all the answers:

  Marvin shilmer:

  you said:

  Cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant are the result of a thermo-mechanical fractionation of plasma. The result of this process is to separate a select globulin rich plasma solution from a select globulin poor plasma solution. The rich solution is termed cryoprecipitate and the poor solution is termed cryosupernatant. The cryoprecipitate is about 1-2% of the original volume of plasma. The cryosupernatant is the left-over 98-99% of the original volume of plasma. Together these to products represent the sum total of plasma, and Witnesses can and do accept both these products.

  May i ask a technical question to this:

  When plasma, which is "contaminated" by traces of other components, will be fractioned in Cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant what happens with those traces ? Do they disappear during this process or are they still somehow in those seperated solutions of Plasma ?

  thx
• 

  JeffT

  The WTBS' position on blood fractions and components (major and/or minor) has no basis in reality as understood by modern medicine. They are trying to parse differences in things that can't be divided. I have no doubt that this is being driven by lawsuits and probably some common sense questions.

  As pointed out above the scriptural requirement is to pour out the blood, why is OK to process a zillion units of blood into one dose of clotting factor?
• 

  Iron Head
• 

  Sapphy

  The simple answer is the society's position on blood is not coherent and is not logical.

  It is impossible to 'make a defence to anyone who asks' about this policy.

  But if you're an organisation that has taught 5 different meanings of the word 'generation' I guess logical coherency is not high on your doctrinal checklist.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Inbetween,

  You ask:

  “When plasma, which is "contaminated" by traces of other components, will be fractioned in Cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant what happens with those traces? Do they disappear during this process or are they still somehow in those separated solutions of Plasma?”

  The answer:

  As I said before, there is nothing in plasma that is not also in cryoprecipitate, and there is nothing in plasma that is not also in cryosupernatant.

  To be more specific, if the plasma has microscopic amounts of erythrocytes then when that plasma is processed to render cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant those erythrocytes will be found distributed in that cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant.

  Marvin Shilmer