I still am certain that JWs will not get DAd or DFd for taking blood. And we should shout it from the mountain tops that the Watchtower is just making empty threats to its people. The prospect of getting DAd for taking blood is what causes the FEAR in JWs when they are laying on a gouney bleeding to death. As exJWs we must fight this fear. We must root out the fear mechanism so that JWs can make medical choices in a neutral emotional environment where fear does not cost them their lives. if JWs were REALLY allowed to make a choice based on their own free conscience, then we would see more JWs taking blood. On the other hand if the Watchtower were actually committed to sever contact with all who take a blood transfusion, we would see a body count, and a MASS of disaffected, disassociated JWs all over the internet, on this forum and any other JW forum, who have been kicked out over this issue. Where are these people? Still no affirmative proof that anyone has been DAd or DFd for this.
Blood transfusion DF/DA
by allyouneedislove 22 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Shawn10538,
I wholly agree it is the prospect of expulsion that keeps most Witnesses from accepting blood products on Watchtower’s “unacceptable” list (i.e., whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma).
On the issue of “body count”:
It is unrealistic (and probably fallacious) to compare numbers expelled for conduct such as fornication against the act of accepting blood transfusion as though there should be some resemblance of values if Watchtower’s policy it to expel for taking blood.
1. Fornication is an ever present potential whereas blood transfusion is not. In your lifetime you’ll have far more opportunities for fornication than need for blood transfusion. This alone relegates the overall number expelled for accepting blood transfusion compared to, for instance, fornication.
2. Fornication is not an act the knowledge of which is protected by doctor-patient privilege. A doctor who informs you accepted blood is generally subject to severe penalty under law. A woman or man who tattles to your friends that they had sex with you is not generally subject to severe penalty under law. And folks like to talk to their friends about who they’re getting it on with. Again this tends to relegate the overall number expelled for accepting blood transfusion compared to fornication.
3. Transfusion of blood products on Watchtower’s “unacceptable” list is more often than not associated with predictable events, such as elective surgery. Getting it on with the guy/gal next door tends to be a spontaneous affair, not to mention emotional. By virtue of structure one occasion is more controllable than the other. Said another way, a patient electing to have a surgery has a sanitized setting to arrange for confidential blood transfusion if they wish it. A guy or gal hot-to-trot with an equally willing companion does not tend to have a clinical/sanitized discussion beforehand about strict confidentiality. They tend to throw better sense to the wind and just get it on. The relevantly dissimilar structure of these acts again relegates the number expelled for accepting blood transfusion compared to fornication.
4. Then we have W-factor-A (Watchtower factor A). This organization has overseen a demolition of its original blood doctrine from one where Witnesses could accept nothing whatsoever from blood to one where Witnesses can accept everything from blood (so long as it is sufficiently fractionated beforehand). This has further reduced the number of Witnesses who’d otherwise be confronted with accepting the “unacceptable”. Again we have a factor that relegates the number expelled for accepting blood transfusion.
5. Then we have W-factor-B (Watchtower factor B). Watchtower has a long-standing policy that practically begs local elders not to expel members for accepting blood transfusion if the choice has been made one time to accept the “unacceptable” and the individual is “repentant”. [1-2] In the case of fornication, often it is the case that claims of repentance can be challenged based on testimony of whoever was the partner. To put it bluntly, John could weep and moan repentance all he wanted to the elders, but if Jane testified that she and John talked about how they’d handle it if elders discovered their indiscretion then John’s weeping and moaning probably would not help him. He’d be disfellowshipped. But rarely if ever is there such countering testimony in cases of accepting “unacceptable” blood products. The blood can’t talk, and the doctor is not likely to either. Again we have a factor that relegates the number expelled for accepting blood transfusion.
Lack of “body count” is not a very good premise supporting a conclusion that Watchtower no longer exercises a policy that would effectively expel Witnesses for accepting blood products on its “unacceptable” list.
Please do not take my comments wrongly. They are intended to strengthen bases for conclusions you draw and not in any way to diminish the good end you strive for.
I notice you raised no question about my earlier post on transfusion of white blood cells. Have you found this information or would you like me to gather references for you?
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
________________
References:
1. “If the taking of a blood transfusion is the first offense of a dedicated, baptized Christian due to his immaturity or lack of Christian stability and he sees the error of his action and grieves and repents over it and begs divine forgiveness and forgiveness of God’s congregation on earth, then mercy should be extended to him and he need not be disfellowshiped.”—Watchtower, January 15, 1961, p. 64.
2. “If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.”—Watchtower letter to all HLC committees, June 16, 2000.
-
JWOP
I think it's interesting that in the "Pay Attention" book, blood tranfusion was a disfellowshipping offense, in the new "Shepherd the Flock" book it is viewed as a disassociation, and in Bulgaria it is totally okay to do (at least, on paper).
-
Band on the Run
The problem I see is that "weasal words" allows them discretion. One person, yes. Another, no. One would think they would start slowly not mentioning blood b/c it annoys peope more than any other issue. The scriptural basis is a joke. I don't see where it is so central to their theology.
Law has a standard that administrative agencies must have due process- they cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
So a savvy, better educated Witness uses the "weasal words" to seek a safe harbor from censure. A less sophisticated person will only see the WT lit that it is beyond redemption. Is this fairness? What would Jesus do? If blood transfusions are wrong, they are wrong. HOw does one prove intent? Imagine someone at a JC saying "sorry, oops, I forgot about the blood doctrine. Pesky thing to remember. I should have died first. Have mercy on me. I am sorry" with a mock smile. That person is safe.
I've mentioned many times that the family was crawling with Bethelites. All very angry about what they saw at Bethel but unable to walk away. Knowing the right person at Bethel or just knowing how to grease the system is the difference, not repentance. Besides, why not repent later and live now. It is not as though 1975 is tooling along anymore.
The more simple (in a good sense) and sincere you are, the more you get screwed. I would love to see an Ombudsman for rank and file at Bethel. Notice no phone calls. Prob. only referred to existing legal letters.
Pharisees in the bad sense.
-
Marvin Shilmer
Band on the Run wrote:
“The scriptural basis is a joke.”
And isn’t that the absolute truth!
Can you imagine the look on elders' eyes when you’re called forward to answer for accepting transfusion of plasma and then saying,
“I fully realize the doctors, nurses and the average person would naturally and quite logically think I had accepted transfusion of plasma. But technically, under Watchtower doctrine, I did not actually accept plasma. Rather, I accepted plasma products known as cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate. I fully realize that these two products are the complete and sum total of plasma. But Watchtower’s doctrine treats these as fractions of plasma and not as plasma. So what is your point?”
How do you think local elders would respond to that?
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
_________________
See: Plasma, Cryoprecipitate and Cryosupernatant available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/plasma-cryoprecipitate-and.html
-
Shawn10538
Marvin said, " In your lifetime you’ll have far more opportunities for fornication than need for blood transfusion."
Thanks for the compliment Marvin! I hope you're right! :)
-
Azazel
Well i gave my first blood donation today so i hope they dont DF me.......oh yeah thats right im already DF so i dont give a shit what they think.
Az
-
Phizzy
Well done Az ! may you get to give many more, it is great to be able to actually do something that is truly of benefit to others.
Thanks Marvin for your clear explanation of the WT's latest position, which boils down to that, in reality, the "No Blood" doctrine is no more, but they have reversed out of it with nobody noticing so as not to be sued by surviving family members who have lost loved ones in the past due to their previous teachings on this.
They truly are despicable.
-
Chariklo
I still am certain that JWs will not get DAd or DFd for taking blood.
I've been told of several occasions where even though it happened in a life and death situaiton, a JW who accepted blood was disfellowshipped. It's happened within my local congregation more than once.
-
allyouneedislove
So, with what happened in Bulgaria...
Is there chance that the Bulgarian government will realize what really happens when one takes blood?