The latest on blood

by PrincessCynic 59 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  BluesBrother

  Some while back I attended a Saturday night special meet at the K H.. (My wife wanted to go) The British HLC had been enjoying a weekend seminar at the place and they put this on for the flock . It was really interesting. I will not forget the Bethel-Heavy in charge having behind him the chart of what may be accepted and what not...He said with great gravitas that "THE GOVERNING BODY have decided that these above the line may not be accepted" So there we had it. It was the doctrine of men pure and simple. One either followed another man's conscience or got thrown out of the Borganization !

  I have seen also an encouragement to accept all that may be accepted and to influence the consciences of the flock. According to press reports of the tragedy of Emma Gough who died locally, the HLC tried hard to get them to try using fractions in the hope that it would work....

  Re TD's question about other things that are made from blood, the reason we accepted them was because we were not told that they were made from blood....To the old-time J W, taking blood is abhorrent, like eating excrement. The WT have tried the analogy of a forced transfusion being like a rape. So the older ones just stick to what they always believed - "blood is wrong and I won't have it!"
• 

  TD

  Hey Bobcat,

  It has been since 2000 (I think) when "company" policy changed and this required actually having to think these things thru.

  Blood fractions were first allowed in 1958, when post exposure vaccines and antitoxins conataining serum albumin and immune globulins were declared to be 'matters of conscience.'

  In the 54 years since then, I really don't think JW's as a group ever realized or thought about it much. (In line with what Blues Brother says above)
• 

  Bobcat

  TD:

  Blood fractions were first allowed in 1958, when post exposure vaccines and antitoxins conatainging serum albumin and immune globulins were declared to be 'matters of conscience.'

  That's interesting. I guess that all passed over my head. All I knew was that blood was verboten. Of course, in defense of my ignorance, the Society speaks out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they steadfastly maintain that blood is 'clearly prohibited' by the Bible. It's easy to miss the fine print, especially if one's relative good health casues the issues to not be forced on him/her.

  In case I missed something, weren't there changes made around 2000 with regard to fractions? It was around (or shortly after) 2000 that other (non-blood) related events started bringing me out of my WT influenced stupor. But it was also since 2000 that the things I mentioned about blood (in my other post) started happening. And so all these events were slowly putting me into a thinking/analyzing frame of mind.

  It is possible that during the 80s or 90s I got a vaccine or two. I don't exactly remember getting one, but it's possible. If I did, I evidently didn't view it as any sort of issue. As I mentioned, my family and I were blessed with very good health during those years. And it was a good thing because we were often on a month-to-month budget. We were always one health disaster away from going broke.

  Take Care
• 

  rip van winkle

  A rose by any other name...

  A fraction or derivative comes from whole blood. Where is the whole blood coming from? Donors. But as jws we are not permitted to give our own blood to then have a fraction of it used in surgery. Fractions began from whole blood. So how is this not hypocrisy.

  Furthermore-

  A fraction by any other name...
• 

  TD

  That's interesting. I guess that all passed over my head. All I knew was that blood was verboten. Of course, in defense of my ignorance, the Society speaks out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand they steadfastly maintain that blood is 'clearly prohibited' by the Bible. It's easy to miss the fine print, especially if one's relative good health casues the issues to not be forced on him/her.

  I understand completely. They use arguments that are unconditional in defense of a 'prohibition' that is clearly conditional. It makes no sense and it's no wonder that people come to the conclusion that any and all uses of blood are wrong. They're only taking the argument to it's logical conclusion

  In case I missed something, weren't there changes made around 2000 with regard to fractions? It was around (or shortly after) 2000 that other (non-blood) related events started bringing me out of my WT influenced stupor. But it was also since 2000 that the things I mentioned about blood (in my other post) started happening. And so all these events were slowly putting me into a thinking/analyzing frame of mind.

  There's been four separate rationales over the years for the allowance of blood fractions. Each time the scope of acceptable preparations and procedures has been enlarged. Prior to the year 2000, the only fractions that were allowed were those that crossed the placental barrier from mother to child during pregnancy. It was an argument of natural consequence. In 2000 this was broadened to include fractions of all 'primary components' which included the hemoglobin based oxygen carriers that were nearing the point of clinical trial at the time.
• 

  wasblind

  Hello TD

  can you list the four rationales for me . besides the two you mentioned I can only think of one other

  1) Natural consequence

  2) Fractions from Primary componets

  3) ?????

  4) " Bible does not comment on these ( fractions ) " August Awake 2006 page 12
• 

  james_woods

  Well, technically, I think we could say that blood sausage is a blood "derivitave" - so is that OK now too?
• 

  wasblind

  Does anyone know of any witnesses who were on Dialysis during the 80's and 90's ?????

  At the time the Reasoning from the scriptures book was distributed

  this wasn't supposed to be allowed.

  " Therefore the eating of blood is equated to idolitry and fornication, things we should not want to do"_____Reasoning book page 71

  " any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten" _____Reasoning book page 71

  2008

  "Am I aware that refusing all medical procedures involving the use of my own blood means that I would not accept a blood test, Hemodialysis, or a heart-lung bypass machine?"_________Keep yourselves in Gods love book page 217

  2008

  " If my conscience permits me to accept a blood fraction, what are the medical risks ? what alternate therapies are available ?_________Keep yourselves in God's love book page 217

  I wonder if a householder knew the JW's could not treat kidney failure according to the reasoning book

  How many died needlessly for a procedure they can now have " If their conscience permits"

  .
• 

  TD

  can you list the four rationales for me . besides the two you mentioned I can only think of one other

  (1) In September of 1958 "fractions" such as the diphtheria antitoxin were allowed on the basis that they 'do not nourish the body'.
  
  (2) In June of 1982, blood was divided into "major" and "minor" components, with the major ones forbidden and the minor ones allowed. The only basis for this distinction ever offered was raw percentage of blood volume
  
  (3) In June of 1990, blood was divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier.
  
  (4) In June of 2000, blood was divided into "primary" and "secondary" components, with the primary ones forbidden and the secondary ones allowed. This distinction reflects the way blood products are package and transported, although that has not actually been stated.
• 

  kurtbethel

  What is the scripture that supports the idea that fractions are acceptable?

  If it can be cited, it might apply to other things. For instance, fondling someone to the result of a happy ending might be considered a fornication fraction, and therefore a conscience matter.