The Watchtower Society actually WANTS witnesses to take blood.

by Sapphy 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Sapphy

  Shocking? Hear me out.

  Acts 15v29 "blah blah blah... Abstain from blood"

  For years the millions of Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide have been fed stories of "brave witnesses" who "fought to stay true to their convictions" by refusing blood transfusion. These stories, presented to us as good examples of faith, demonstrated how the society wanted their followers to behave in the event of doctors wishing to use blood transfusions as part of medical treatment. Often using graphically violent and excessively emotive language we were given to understand we must fight with all our strength to not 'defy' the Bible's law on blood.

  Just using a short excerpt from the 1994 Awake 22nd May: The article "Youths Who Have Power Beyond What is Normal" gives several experiences of young people who resisted blood transfusions, even if is caused or contributed to their death. The section I will quote from is about a 12 year old girl called Lisa. Lisa was suffering from acute myeloid leukemia. The doctors wanted to treat her using blood tranfusions as part of her therapy but had to go to court since she and her parents refused. I have bolded the emotive language. "One of the questions put to her was how the forced midnight transfusion made her feel. She explained that it made her feel like a dog being used for an experiment, that she felt she was being raped, and that being a minor made some people think they could do anything to her. She hated seeing someone else’s blood going into her, wondering if she would get AIDS or hepatitis or some other infectious disease from it. And chiefly, she was concerned about what Jehovah would think of her breaking his law against taking someone else’s blood into her body. She said if it ever happened again, she “would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood.”

  Does this sound like a normal well balanced 12 year old who hasn't been 'educated' by an extreme religion? This language about 'rape and ripping out the IV' was standard fayre and often refered to in my JW experience.

  However in the year 2000, new light was recieved, and witnesses were now allowed to take blood fractions. Whole blood and the 'four primary components (red cells, white cells, plasma and platelets' were still forbidden, just about anything else was deemed a matter for the individual Christian. This position has, unsurprisingly, proved confusing to JWs. Many Hospital Liaision Committee Elders report recieving phone calls at night from other local elders or patients with conversations starting "are we allowed to accept...?"

  Today many JWs, old school and other, opt to 'stay on the safe side' (which is anything but!) and refuse everything blood related.

  Parallel to this, here in the UK there has been a few high profile cases where people have died as a direct consequence of refusing whole blood. The 'biggest' case was that of 22 year old Emma Gough who bled to death after giving birth to twins.

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

  These cases give the society terrible publicity. Just read the comments under today's article in the national newspaper "The Independent" about a young man who recently weakened and died from sickle cell anaemia.

  http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/lawyer-tells-of-agonising-scenes-as-doctors-forced-to-let-a-jehovahs-witness-who-wanted-to-live-die-7879674.html

  Randy (Dogpatch) has done some excellent work documenting how HLC elders try to get JWs to accept fractions. He is also looking for anyone disfellowshipped recently due to accepting a blood transfusion. I am unaware of anyone so far.

  The current position seems to be, and this is only my opinion, that the society would love to drop the 'no blood' rule, or make it entirely a conscience matter, but is reluctant to do so since this would leave it wide open for more law suits from bereaved relatives! So it is trying to manage the situation by speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. For the general JW population"abstain from blood", for elders "don't DF, just privately reprove", for the HLC "make 'em take everything but whole blood".

  The benefits to the society are limited exposure to lawsuits & repentant JWs with a guilty conscience will do anything for the society.

  What do you think? Is the society moving towards a 'don't ask, don't tell' position on blood?

  TLDR: The society would prefer a live repentant witness beholden to the organisation forever by a guilty conscience than another dead martyr due to continuing adverse publicity.

  What do you think?
• 

  elderelite

  Blood is already quasi dont ask dont tell....... Its not even a df offense, its a disasociation matter. Not a small differance. Also elders were told notmto chase and see if someone takes blood, only to deal with it if it becomes known. This is one of the biggest blights on the organization and one that will be extremly difficult for them to ever change
• 

  wallsofjericho

  FRACTIONS ARE POINTLESS! they are used in therapy and as medicine. People NEED components (RBC,WBC, Plasma, Platelets)

  Fractions have been a conscience decision for decades just nobody knew about it.

  the only reason the fraction issue got so much publicity was for liability reasons. I initally hoped that the fraction thing was a stepping stone to allowing blood as a conscience but I no longer feel this way.

  Fractions are a consience matter, components and whole are not. I don't see this changing as an official policy. the only thing I see is the loopholes getting bigger and easier for JW's to use blood components without elder's digging shit up.

  but as an official WTS policy? unless the governments force it upon them, blood components and whole blood will remain a DA offense
• 

  Anti-Cult

  test post

  Characteristics of A Destructive Group

  While not all groups exhibit all these traits, destructive groups will have many of these
  characteristics and attitudes:

  Authoritarian hierarchal control;

  Black and white thinking: either or, we they, us them;

  Centralized power structure;

  Child abuse and neglect;

  Competition with other members or with outsiders;

  Conflicting opinions viewed as moral assaults and disloyalty;

  Control of information within group environment;

  Criticism of group, system or leaders is discouraged;

  Different beliefs or ideas are perceived as threatening;

  Discrimination (economic, emotional and psychological): race, gender, age, religion, politics;

  Effusive praise and flattery for leaders;

  Enemy making, a common enemy outside the group: other business groups, other religions, other countries, other life
  styles, other races;

  Fear (or feelings of guilt) about the prospect of leaving the group;

  Feelings of superiority and exclusiveness;

  Gender-based abuse in any form;

  Group becomes like a family and is more important than individual's family and outside friends;

  Group has the "truth" (the answers) others don't;

  Group (system) mission is more important than the individual;

  Group's doctrine repeated over and over, lots of repetitious lectures and meetings;

  Group leader(s) are looked to for answers involving personal choices in life;

  Labeling: Dissenting members, other groups, and different belief systems are given negative labels/names;

  Large pay and power gaps between members and leaders;

  Loaded language: the group has its own clichs, jargon and slogans that become simplistic explanations for complex
  situations;

  Missionary consciousness: converting others to group ideology, product, beliefs, trying to persuade others to be like
  "us";

  Need leader(s) permission for everything;

  Overuse of plural pronouns: we, us, they, them;

  Peer pressure: non group ideas receive icy silence, ridicule, or condemnation;

  Propaganda used to persuade members and internalize group ideas;

  Public humiliation or embarrassment in any form;

  Public sharings, testimonials, confession, witnessing;

  Scapegoating within or outside the group;

  Secrecy between members or between different levels of a group's structure;

  Selfishness is putting yourself above the group;

  Strict dress codes, everyone looks alike;

  Suppressing legitimate feelings when they do not fit the group's mind set;

  The need to be like leaders or like others in the group;

  There is always something to do, excessive business;

  There is a group explanation for everything;

  Thought control: there are "good" and "bad" thoughts;

  Unquestioning obedience to authority.

  Emotional and Psychological Aftereffects from Membership in a Destructive Group:

  Note: Aftereffects will vary depending on the specific type of group and the length of time spent in the group.

  Feelings of guilt, shame, and self-blaming;

  Difficulty making decisions and simple choices. Excessive doubt;

  Short term memory loss;

  Anxiety and panic attacks;

  Depression and anger;

  Loneliness and feelings of detachment and isolation from others;

  Loss of self-esteem;

  Lack of self-confidence;

  Difficulty concentrating and focusing attention;

  Inability to think critically and "uncritical passivity;"

  Posttraumatic Stress:
  Flashbacks including images, thoughts, and perceptions.
  Recurrent nightmares or distressing dreams.
  Efforts to avoid places or people that arouse memories of the group.
  Significant diminished interest in important activities.
  Sense of a foreshortened or non-existent future.
  Irritability and angry outbursts.

  Hyper critical of others, other ideas, other philosophies, other life styles;

  Loss of a sense of self and identity;

  Difficult or impossible to stop mental or other group ritualistic practices;

  Feelings of emptiness and loss of a unique mission in life;

  Disassociative episodes, floating, feeling spaced out;

  Afraid to join other groups or make commitments;

  Difficulty forming a new value system or philosophy toward life;

  Nervous tics--often induced by meditative techniques used in the group;

  Fear of the group;

  Estrangement (also while in the group) from family and former friends;

  Difficulty making and expressing opinions.
• 

  compound complex

  "After the Judge's death, as World War II was ending and persecution against the Witnesses began declining, along with the attendant drop in news-media publicity, Hayden C. Covington told the author [of THE FOUR PRESIDENTS] that Fred Franz saw the prohibition against blood transfusions as a way to accomplish two things: to continue to publicize the religion, and to create an uproar in the community. This reaction would convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."

  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.

  THE FOUR PRESIDENTS OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES), Edmond C. Gruss, Editor, pp.74, 75, 231

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/126825/1/Persecution-Wanes-Banning-Blood-Garners-Publicity
• 

  tornapart

  We're allowed blood fractions but not the 4 major components, yet plasma is 92% water, red blood cells are simply haemoglobin with a membrane, white blood cells are found in mother's milk and clotting agents are taken from platelets. Does this mean shortly the 4 major components will soon be allowed? Then if those 4 components are allowed won't it make sense to allow whole blood. I find the whole stance on blood totally mystifying!!
• 

  wasblind

  Does anyone know if blood is fractionated when goin' back into the body it has been taken out of durin' Hemodialysis,

  if not, that's the same as whole blood bein' " infused /transfused / transfered

  Does a CELL SAVER separate the blood into fractions before bein' infused /transfused / transfered , call it what you like

  It seems the only ones who are allowed infusion / transfusion or the transfer of whole blood are those on Hemodialysis

  So why should others in need of whole blood die?????? it should be a conscience choice, just like Hemodialysis

  has now been allowed as a conscience choice

  .
• 

  ldrnomo

  The blood policy was the reason I was able to escape the Wathtower's talons. When the new policy came out in 2000 I became troubled each year I filled out my blood card. When I was confronted by the body of elder's of which I was one, I told them I believed that anything to do with blood should be a conscience matter. They did not like my attitude and told me I was running ahead of Jehvoah. At the time they asked me if I would take a blood transfusion, I wish I had told them it was none of their f*ckin business. But I told them that If it meant losing my entire family through disfellowshipping that I would rather die anyway.

  I remember thinking at the time, "they're stuck, they can't change the policy to all things involving blood transfusions being a conscience matter, they would be sued by so many and would lose so many". I agree that this is still the case. I'm sure the GB is praying for a synthetic blood that will do the trick, (science and technology will have to save their ass) and when that happens and it wil, they will take the credit for it because they will say because of them the medical community came up with synthetic blood. So in the meantime, they surely want their rank and file to take any fraction they can. However they've done such a good job of using propaganda that many of the un-educated and ignorant rank and file will continue to die needlessly for refusing any kind of blood product.

  Even the fact they have made fractions a conscience matter is brilliant on their part because they then put the onus of the decision on the person and take the responsibility of the situation off of them.

  This all took place for me in 2007, at the time I had to meet with all of the other elders and the CO when I asked all of them, "where do all of these blood fractions come from" they all stared at me and now one answered, I had to repeat the question several time before one spoke up and said, "the blood supply"

  My point was if blood is so damned sacred why would they allow it to be handeled, seperated into parts and givin out to people.

  They're scoundrals all of them.
• 

  wasblind

  " My point was if blood is so damned sacred why would they allow it to be handeled "

  Let's see what the WTS say 'bout that

  " Perhaps you recall that God told our first parents, Adam and Eve, that they could eat from every tree in the garden in Eden except one, but they disobeyed, ate that forbidden fruit.

  After the flood of Noah's day God again set out one prohibition for mankind. this time it involved blood."________Reasoning from the Scriptures book page 75

  The WTS points out Blood is prohibited just like the forbidden fruit

  Genesis 3:3 Eve understood that" 'you must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it

  Was the Bible talkin' bout transfusions regardin' the forbidden fruit and /or blood

  Nope, it was talkin' bout EATING OF THEM not transfusions
• 

  wasblind

  In case your wonderin' where I get the word "INFUSED" from

  "Cell salvage captures and returns blood lost during surgery. Blood is recovered from a wound or a body cavity, washed or filtered, and then reinfused into the patient."________Keep yourselves in God's love book page 216

  which is the same as

  Loss of blood due to an accident, and your blood loss is recovered through the transfer of infused blood by means of a transfusion

  Same ole thang, don't matter if it's your blood or donated, once it out of the body it has to be put back in

  .