So, a couple months ago (I didn't want to post this when it happened, just in case Mr. Wade suspended my noblood.org forum account. Maybe he frequents this site.) I posted on noblood.org's forum a question that was along the lines of "Why have there been changes in the acceptability of JW's blood doctrine over the years?" Mr. Wade posted on the forum that he was not aware of any doctrinal changes (No, I didn't PDF that! Wish I would have!). Then, I responded with a light list of references (e.g. - w00 0/0 p. 0) that proved what he said was not true.
This is what I got as a private message from Mr Wade:
Heads up ShellShock
This is your only warning.
Your posts reflected a
disingenuous approach.
Though we at times
discuss what health care
choices are or are not
open to Jehovah's
Witnesses WE DO NOT
discuss the religious merits
of their choices. WE DO
NOT discuss how they
arrived to their choices. As
I said in my first
response...hemodilition is
a matter of personal
choice for Jehovah's
Witnesses. That's all we
need to know.
If you would like to know
the background and
reasoning of such current
beliefs please take it up
with Jehovah's Witnesses
in your area.
Me:
Mr. Wade,
If you glance at my initial post, I had a sincere question. I recognize that procedures involving blood, such as hemodilution & fractionation, have changed over the years. Since it seems that the moderators on this website have an abundance of knowledge regarding blood fractions/procedures involving one's own blood, I was hoping to better understand whether doctrinal changes had occured due to changes in the production/content of blood fractions or changes in procedures using one's own blood. May I remind you that your first reply to my post stated that there had been no changes in Jehovah's Witnesses doctrines. I was simply providing you with some references. I felt offended when you stated "This is your only warning. Your posts reflected a disingenuous approach".
Mr. Wade
Disingenuous - withholding or not taking account of known information; giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity; not genuinely sincere.
Why didn't you just say what was on your mind in your first post? Your posting of an old Watchtower excerpt in a follow up post certainly shows that you knew exactly what you were up to.
You did the same basic thing with the question about transplants:
"Can you provide some type of reference for this statement?"
"Can you please explain the reasons behind your statement that the 11/15 1967 WT article said organ transplant "maybe cannibalism"?
This crosses the line from medical to religious. Though you did not start this thread (we have closed the thread and are communication with the person that started the thread) you obviously wanted to steer the discussion. Pnutts rightly gave you the current position which is exactly all we need to know in order to treat the JW population.
Today's posts came after you were told that this sort of thing would not allowed here.
I have been involved with the website since its inception. We have had hundreds of people come here with negative things to say about Jehovah's Witnesses. Some have admitted to being ex-Jehovah's Witnesses. They did not want to discuss the health care choices of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to understand how to treat them while respecting those choices. They were hear to debate and expose and to damage the reputation of the JW leadership. I am not saying you are one of those people, but I am saying you have wandered into an area of discussion that is not allowed.
We are actually trying to do some good here. Please respect that. Participating in a Forum is like participating in a group discussion. You must behave or you will be asked to leave. We have put you in 'moderation only' status. That means you can continue to participate but your comments and questions must be cleared by one of our moderators before allowed to go public.
Here's a response to your original post. You do not have auto-notification so probably did not read this before we shut down the discussion. I did add an extra paragraph...
"Apparently, things have changed since 1972. Is that your point? I will speak to the principle of change. However this is not a forum for religious discussion. What I mean by that is Catholics, Muslims, Atheists and everyone else may believe what they want. The task of healthcare providers is to treat them with respect.
Now to the question of changing viewpoint. With increased knowledge comes increased understanding. Increased understanding is like turning on a brighter light. When we shine a brighter light on something we may see the need to revise our viewpoint. For example, when I entered health care we were still using the 10/30 measurement as a transfusion guideline. Meaning when the patients hemoglobin reached 10 and the hematocrit reached 30 blood was transfused. With increased understanding, that guideline was changed. It took humility on the part of many physician's to admit they needed to change. But change they did. Apparently the Jehovah's Witness leadership has undergone something similar regarding hemodilution. How they arrive at their health care choices is their personal business.
By the way, you rightly used the word 'doctrine' in your original post. The definition of doctrine is 'a body of ideas, particularly in religion, taught to people as truthful or correct'. Doctrine is not law. Doctrine is current understanding. The 10/30 rule was part of a 'transfusion doctrine'. Physician's adjusted their point of view as the light of understanding tolerance of anemia got brighter.
Within the past twenty years knowledge of what crosses the placental barrier has grown. We now now that the blood fractions albumin and bilirubin is exchanged between mother and fetus. Is it wrong for Jehovah's Witnesses to use that new knowledge to adjust their viewpoint of blood fractions? I would think it wrong if they did not!
When one takes a leadership position such as the one taken by physician's they must use current understanding as their guide or put another way they must hold to current doctrine until such time as increased knowledge clearly indicates the need to adjust."
Me:
Mr. Wade,
Why did you not simply post this information in the first place? The placental barrier topic gives me much insight concerning why the fractions doctrine was changed. Instead, you jumped to the conclusion that I was being disingenuous, which offended me greatly.
And, just for the record, you are admitting in this message that the doctrine did indeed change at some point. Why did you state otherwise in the forum? Are you being disingenuous?
Take care.
Mr. Wade
If I was not clear in my intent I apologize.
Mr. Wade
So lets put our cards on the table. Why did you bring references from old Watchtowers to the site? Where did you get those? What is your intent here? What point are you wishing to make?
Me:
I question your motives in asking these questions since I believe you already know the answers. For example, why would you ask where I got certain Watchtower references? Searching the keywords "hemophiliac" or "blood fraction" in the Watchtower CD-ROM will pull up every article in the last half century that addresses those issues. I believe you already know this fact. Also, I have already expressed my intent here via my first post. Perhaps you should read that post again. I am not trying to make a point. Rather, I was trying to better understand why doctrine related to medical procedures has changed over the years.
Mr. Wade:
OK. Good. Just keep it clinical and all is well.
END DISCUSSION
While I do not have the post where he stated that there had been no changes to the blood doctrine, I do have PDFs showing that my post used to be in the forum. And, I have PDFs of all the coorespondence between himself and I.
Why am I posting this?
I was shocked at Mr. Wade's communication to me. I did not post something "apostate". I posed a question.