Hello deddaisy,
I can relate to JW who refused blood in that article. At 18 years of age, after almost fatally injured after getting hit by a car on my bicycle and rushed to the hospital emergency room, I was interviewed by a nurse (who was also a Catholic nun). She asked me to tell her WHY I refused a blood transfusion, so that she would know it was me and not the Jehovah's Witnesses coercing me. I remember quoting various scriptures like the one in the book of Acts that comes to mind. At the time, I believed the interpretation of these scriptures that forbade the transfusion of blood. Convinced in my sincerity, the nurse placed a clipboard with a release form above my head. As I started to pass out of consciousness, I remember reaching up and signing the release form.
Today? I will admit that I was mistaken in accepting the Watchtower Society's interpretation of the scriptures in Acts and other parts of the Bible used to buttress their teachings against blood transfusions (see http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml for specific information).
I have learned over the years that unlike food that is digested, blood is an internal organ, like the skin is an organ. Skin can be transplanted in small grafts, just like the liver can be transplanted in small segments.
BLOOD can also be transplanted in small "grafts" to save a life. The Bible emphasized that blood is sacred because it represents LIFE.
Would the Watchtower Society refuse to allow a burn victim massive skin grafts to live? Would they forbade organ transplants? Then why have they singled out a certain organ and refused to allow a portion of it to be transplanted to save a life?
The reason is clear. They never realized until recently that blood is like skin in that it is an organ. Like skin gets grafted in small amounts from donors or laboratory cultures, blood can get grafted from one compatible body to the next. Skin is not "eaten" by the body that receives it, and neither is blood.
The scriptures specifically forbade the eating of blood, because that is cannibalism just like the eating of other body organs. Like other modern medical technologies the Bible is silent about organ transplants to SAVE LIFE. However, the Bible sets a precedent by saying that blood represents life. How could one acknowledge this truth, if one refuses to allow compatible blood to get transfused and transplanted in order to save theirs or another's life?
The scriptures that condemned eating or idolatrous sacrifice with blood is why entire Christian families were willing to die in the Roman Gladiator arenas. They refused to accept the Romans' temptation of eating blood sausage in exchange for their freedom. The issue was not eating per se, but it was a challenge to the death of FAITH IN GOD and the renouncing of principles relating to the respect for the sanctity of life.
The real sin the GB has committed is not in sharing their interpretation on blood and allowing the consciences of each person to accept or reject that interpretation. Rather, the real sin was in their coercing people to reject a blood transfusion and possibly die by threatening to disfellowship them.
It's remarkable to consider that the difference between that 21 year old in the article and myself at the age of 18, was that although we both rejected a blood transfusion, that person died whereas I lived.
Derrick
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.
-- William Blake (Auguries of Innocence)
