Reform on blood issue?!?! (page 2)

NOLAW

'Theocratic Warfare'! Otherwise we wouldn't have the regular annual 'no-blood' service meeting and reminder to fill our no-blood cards.

ex360shipper

There would at least be a letter to all bodies of elders if this were true and we would find out very quickly.

Viola and jw facts are exactly right. Its a huge and INCORRECT leap to say that because its not a df offense its not a da offense. In fact the bulgaria situation is why its DA and not DF. The new ks refers spefically to a blood transfusion as a DA offense. A JC still forms and makes the exact sale determination of repentance or not. It is a hypocritical move on the wtb&s to portray it as DA'ing and claim its just not a DF since the differance is immeterial. The same as voting is not allowed to be used in official correspondance as a reason to DF, rather "non netural" activities is to be used, strickly as legal shield.

But for a fact taking blood or, as the say, any of its four main componants is a DA offense which is identical to a DF offense.

This is not intended to bash the op, but this is not new nor does not represent a change of any sort in the wt stand on the medical use of blood. It represents a changeade in the early 2000's in semantics only. AJWRB is the victium of wishful thinking

Larsinger58

Deciding to refuse any kind of medical treatment I support. For whatever reason. What irks some out there, though, in the medical field especially, is the WTS rules about using your own blood (autologous transfusion)! That is, you can't extract your own blood while on iron pills and save it for yourself for a future operation in which you know you will benefit from the extra blood. I can't think of any valid reason for that. The WTS claims if the blood leaves your body then it belongs to God and you can re-transfuse it.

Ironically, they ignore the fact that the Bible clearly says if you're with an unbeliever to eat whatever you want. Not eating has to do with weak consciences and so the command to "abstain" from blood was in the context of the congregation, which was heavily Jewish. It was out of respect for them that a general rule was made to "abstain." But as clear from other scriptures, if you're buying meat in the meat market, you are to make no inquiry about it, or as noted, if you're in the home of an unbliever, then chow down all you want to since no weak consciences are a factor. Certainly the WTS is not so profoundly stupid not to realize if you can eat blood in the home of an unbeliever that forbidding the eating of blood is no sin for the mature Christian.

It's a simple of matter of seeing that in one place it says "abstain" and in another place eat all you want. But what is the context for this apparent contradiction? The context is in what company you are in while eating. If you're eating with other Christians then abstain since they might have a sensitive conscience and emotions based on years of abstaining. But away from that setting there is no restriction at all. In fact, the Bible says that "nothing" you take into your body can defile you; only what comes out of the mouth which is out of the heart.

So the WTS is just wrong and I hate to see all the suffering. So glad I'm out.

LS

Shawn10538

Anybody know of a single case where someone was disassociated for taking a blood transfusion? I'm calling their bluff. The Watchtower is blufing. They will not disassociate, disfellowship or anything else. It is an empty threat. And by informing JWs that it is an empty threat and there has never been a single case I have ever heard of where a JW was df'd or da'd, this will help them accept a blood transfusion and may save a life.

If you wait until the Society actually prints it to tell their members that all is safe, then you will miss an opportunity to save lives. The Factor VIII case in '78 shows a precedent that can reasonably be pointed to as an example of how the WT works.

jwfacts

Anybody know of a single case where someone was disassociated for taking a blood transfusion?

That is a very interesting question, and it would be good to find out maybe by some faders taking the opportunity to test this.

wha happened?

I think one of the posters here did

Refriedtruth

ex360shipper said-"There would at least be a letter to all bodies of elders if this were true and we would find out very quickly."
Not necessarily a letter would be evidentiary possibly used against them they would utilize the word of mouth grapevine and phone calls.
Every move the Watchtower makes is examined,decided and scrutinized on the basis of,liability of potential lawsuits.Their scapegoat that they tell followers, is that this is because of 'sue happy' apostates.
The lawyers run the show since the early 1990's the WBTS only cares about their ego and their money.Thousands of deaths for blood transfusion confusion is in Jehovah's hands.
Always blame Jehovah and apostates as fall guys.

Wishididntknow

Would be interested to see if anyone here was DA'd for taking blood?

No Room For George

This is semantics to a degree, however there is some validity to the opening post. I don't have my KM book handy, or the notes from the KM School from a couple winters back, but the wording on investigating wrongdoing as it pertains to blood transfusions is to me at least, very obviously worded so as to be a loophole. Disassociation voluntarily as a result of consenting to a blood transfusion is only to be the case for the brother/sister in question, if they lack remorse for their action/inaction. For instance, the first investigate situation I dealt with after getting appointed was related to a sister who had multiple surgeries that required blood transfusions. An older brother who's one of the HLC's heavyweights in this area, suggested it would be good experience for me to tag along with him in investigating the matter.

He explained to me beforehand, that we were to ascertain whether blood was adminstered with the sister's consent, or even someone elses in the family, such as her brother specifically. He also schooled me that even if either did give consent to the transfusion done, we need to verify remorse for their action, and if that's the case, provide some counsel and move on. That was directly in harmony with what's in the KM book, and what was relayed at the KM School for Elders. Well we met with both the sister in question, and her brother, both together, and also seperately to ensure that their stories jibed, which in fact was the case. We reported it to the rest of the body, and moved on. Case closed, and forgotten.

Granted, what's on paper as far as policy & procedure as directed from the WT, is subject to interpretation by individual congregations, as some elder bodies are liberal and mercy leaning, while others might be ultra conservative and have a tendency to lean towards punishment with a misguided zeal for keeping the congregation clean. So what happened in our case my not be how it always plays out.

edit post: I don't believe for a second that this policy will ever be rescinded. I know Randy suggested that after Darth Smalley and Fred Rusk croak, that it's very possible the policy will be rescinded, but I can't help but think that the WT would leave itself open to lawsuits.

Reform on blood issue?!?!