blood policy in the papers

by ballistic 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ballistic

  This was printed in June 2000 as far as I can make out. What do you make of it?

  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.html?in_review_id=290588&in_review_text_id=235269

  Witnesses to accept blood swaps

  by Patrick Sawer
  Jehovah's Witnesses have abandoned one of the central canons of their faith and allowed followers to accept blood transfusions.

  Leaders of the sect have told its six million members they will no longer face excommunication if they accept a transfusion under life-or-death conditions.

  The decision, made at a secret meeting of the movement's 12-member world governing body at its New York headquarters, is being described as its biggest climbdown since sect's prediction of the end of the world failed to materialise in 1975.

  Jehovah's Witness leaders described the change as a "slight adjustment". It follows years of negative publicity about followers of the movement, including children, who have died or come close to death because of their refusal to accept a transfusion.

  Only last week, Brent Bond, a Witness from Nottingham, renounced his faith seconds before he lost consciousness so he could receive a lifesaving blood transfusion after losing five pints in a machete attack.

  In January, Beverly Matthews, 33, of Stockton, died after refusing an emergency transfusion. Letters have been sent to lead-ers of the sect throughout Britain, where there are 130,000 Witnesses, instructing them no longer to expel members who accept blood.

  Jehovah's Witnesses have until now interpreted certain passages in the Bible as meaning they cannot accept any form of transfusion of blood, which they regard as a gift from God.

  Geoffrey Unwin, a former Witness who now writes on religion, predicted a backlash from members who had been excommunicated over the issue. He said he knew of at least two who were considering legal action.

  Email this article to a friend

  © Associated Newspapers Ltd., 14 June 2000
  Terms and Conditions
  This Is London
• 

  radar

  Ballistic

  I know Geoff Unwin quite well.

  He's been involved in various newspaper articles, including the Guardian Newspaper report on the Blood issue last year.

  The article is written in such a way as to "Stir up" the (great)crowd.
  Good to see that he is still trying to raise public awareness on these issues.
• 

  ballistic

  But is this Officially the official policy. I could accept a blood transfusion or refuse to hold a blood card and not be disfellowshipped?

  What about where one witness is un-concious and the next of kin (who is also a J-W) has to make the decision as in my fathers case?
• 

  radar

  Ballistic
  ______________________________________________________________________I could accept a blood transfusion or refuse to hold a blood card and not be disfellowshipped?

  ______________________________________________________________________
  If you listen to the Watchtower Press propaganda machine, then officialy no you would not.

  But you know and I know that in the real Watchtower world, there are all sorts of pressures that are not apparent to the world outside, that would punish those JWs that accept blood therepy.

  In your father's case, if he is prepared to be viewed within the congregation as having a moments "weakness" as regards Blood transfusion and (appear)to repent for the(faithless) course afterwards, then with all probability no official action would be taken.

  The official Watchtower policy is that nothing has changed with regard to the blood issue.
  Yet in fact there have been many changes over recent years with regard to their blood policy.
• 

  Solace

  If this is true, "officially changed".
  The society usually announces changes in the watchtower.
  Has anyone seen it? I wonder what my J.W. family will do when they realize my grandfather refused a transfusion and died for nothing. Why am I thinking they will somehow accept it but at the same time probably hope that I will not find out about it.
• 

  Lee Elder

  Though widely unknown to the average JW, members are no longer disfellowshipped
  for unrepentently accepting a blood transfusion. Rather, they are viewed as having
  unilaterally "disassociated" themselves from the congreation. I have a letter addressed
  to HLC committees that bears this out.

  Lee
• 

  Matty

  Lee - Yes, that is how I understand it from what I know – it’s true that no official announcements have been made to the R&F.

  Any witness that accepts a blood transfusion is automatically registered as disassociated rather than disfellowshipped. The difference? No Judicial Committee need be involved – basically because it’s an open and shut case that does not need further discussion - the person involved has made their decision. Of course this is unless they are subsequently “repentant”, then they will be re-associated.

  Any further inside info would be appreciated.
• 

  Nemesis

  The same story is at the BBC site here:
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/newsid_790000/790967.stm
• 

  ballistic

  Can I just say this is really important to me. More so than anything I have posted here ever.
  On the night my father lay dying in hospital, the elders prayed with my mother. They made sure she made the "right" decision for him not to have blood. He died from blood loss.
  In all honesty, we cannot say to this day, whether he would have any "quality" of life or not with the injuries which were sustained, but as you know, quality of life is not something considered by law when it comes to allowing a person to die.
  So what has changed?
  Would the elder now sit down with the relative and say, "well it's your choice, your conscience?"
• 

  radar

  Ballistic

  ______________________________________________________________________Would the elder now sit down with the relative and say, "well it's your choice, your conscience?"
  ______________________________________________________________________
  What as changed is:
  The official Watchtower Policy now shifts responsibility and possible liable action against them by stating " They do not Dissfellowship those who accept blood"
  So, the Watchtower makes itself look benevolent,legal and just to the world (and to most JWS)

  Yet we know that a person who as dissassociated themselves from the congregation is viewed in the same light as one who as been dissfellowshiped( possibly worse)

  So in answer to your question, the elder probably would not see it as a choice of conscience to be offered because in his eyes the person would be dissassociating himself from Jehovah's organisation consequently losing out on eternal life.

  The Watchtower's legal machine is just playing games with people's lives.
  The more newspaper articles (like the one you found) the better because hopefully, it will lead to more people (JWs)asking questions of their Watchtower mentors.