Just to share
From Slate.com: Blood transfusions
by pixel 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Simon
This is surely telling:
Not all Jehovah’s Witnesses feel the same way about transfusion; some may opt to allow some blood products but not others, some may allow us to use certain techniques but not others. And some, when faced with the occasionally harsh and always direct discussion (and paperwork) involved in the refusal of all blood products, find that, in the end, their reservations about transfusions have left them.
The result of so many flip-flops and changing rules about what is and isn't allowed.
It would be more defendable if it was all or nothing, I could at least buy that they are attempting to follow the scripture if you interpret that it's still binding on us.
But to have so many changed versions is intollerable and shameful - people risk their lives because of rules that may not even be current anymore.
All because the WTS won't come clean and give a simple, definitive set of rules. The hospital laison committee actually often has to convince witnesses that they are allowed to have lots of blood products.
It's crazy.
-
pixel
This article might give ideas to a few...
Edit: Simon, thanks for the link's fix.
-
?evrything
Iv heard that a doc told a patient if she really wanted to abstain from blood or was she like the other half of jw's that pull him aside and tell him to give it to em if their life is on the line.
-
sir82
As mentioned - I think a lot of JWs will read this, and a lot will have a "light bulb" moment.
To me, another disconcerting item is the doctor's good-faith efforts to try t ohelp have been rebuffed.
She wants to understand, she wants to really help JWs - yet Bethel just points her to the woefully inadequate web site, and no one there will talk with her.
What a mighty witness is being given - a witness to the utter stupidity and moral ineptitude of the WTS leaders, that is.
-
sd-7
I posted a comment on there. Interesting article.
--sd-7
-
sir82
If you think about it the concept of "it's not wrong to do these things, it's just wrong for me" (the cornerstone of the author's argument) is written into the Mosaic law.
Israelites could sell unbled meat to Gentiles. Clearly it was "not wrong" for Gentiles to eat blood, it was just "wrong" for Israelites to do so.
If the WTS ever wanted to, they could spin the above argument into a 20-paragraph WT article and thousands of JW lives could be saved.
But, as we all know, the WTS doesn't give a rat's patootie about the welfare of their adherents. They are useful while they produce, useless when they can't.
A JW who dies as a martyr for the blood ban is quite valuable to the WTS, even more valuable than the work produced by the same JW when alive. Thus the issue never gets fixed.
-
BluesBrother
Interesting , There will always be those among the dubs who will try to get around the rules. Perhaps there are more than the elders would think? as senior ones among them have admitted to me.
However :
"For the truly devout among Jehovah’s Witnesses, the refusal of transfusion is not a problem; perhaps it is a divine command. In that setting, all my machinations, even on their behalf, may appear woefully inadequate, and perhaps—although meant with respect—insulting, compared with gracious acceptance. Getting out of the problem is not the point for them; it is not, perhaps, a problem to be solved."
The ones of my family who have refused blood (and recovered O K ) certainly would be in that category , of considering it an insult to be offered a way out on a technicality if "God's law was broken". They are "old school dubs" though.
-
sd-7
They are "old school dubs" though
I couldn't help being reminded of a store that sells car stuff in my area. It's called "House of Dubs". I always get a smile out of that, figuring that if the GB ever embraced 'thug life', they'd change the name of the Kingdom Hall to 'House of Dubs'...
But I digress. So true--you want to save their lives, and they see it as an insult, or an attempt to get you to 'compromise your integrity'. All because that's how the WT sets it up in their thinking. There's no way to look at it objectively--any opposing viewpoint is somehow 'soft-pedaling Bible standards' like the JW curse-word known as 'Christendom' does...
--sd-7
-
steve2
It's good to hear it from the medical practitioner's perspective. The account of the varieties of responses from Witnesses adds substance to this thoughtful presentation. It's also interesating but perhaps not surprising that the author's requests for clarification and information from Watchtower Headquarters were either not answered or woefully inadequate.
One of the biggest secrets in the medical world is the relative quiet ease with which JWs of all shades signal to their health care providers to administer blood if all else fails. Of course it's a secret. You wouldn't want the body of elders to know and surgical wards fiercely protect patient confidentiality - even from close family members.
The notion that the Witnesses speak as a united group on this vexed and inconsistently applied man-originated doctrine is a wickedly manipulative fiction. They never have applied the myriad rules in a consistent manner. Period.
I would hope that, increasingly - even if still unofficially and off the record - JWs in need of blood turn away from their fatal fear of men and towards their innate survival instinct and quietly say to their surgeon, "If all your other measures fail, it's okay to give me blood."