by sir82 28 Replies latest watchtower medical
@Island Man-the Oracle of Bethel has stated previously that artificial insemination is not acceptable because of
a verse in Leviticus about "not giv(ing) your...semen to the wife of your fellow man...
And since the "artifical" blood was derived from stem cells (living), they will say that the "life" was transferred to
the blood and therefore off limits. The ORACLE HAS SPOKEN!
They did it with organ transplants, and no lawsuits that I know of. The blood issue has been a thorn in the side of the WTBTS for a long time. It's the only thing that many people know about the b'Org. I think they will jump at the chance to make this a conscience issue.
And it will go something like this ............
"Praise Jah! The world now has synthetic blood, and it's all because of US! We fought the battles in court, we were vindicated when all those wicked people contracted HIV and hepatitis from tainted blood, and finally, the rest of the world is falling into step with our principles."
Or something like that, I'm not up to much creartive writing today. I'm sure someone else can do a better job.
t
JW reasoning is impervious to logic or facts. I lean toward the idea that they will use this as a convenient way to dump their blood problem, but you never know.
Having watched scientific progress at close range, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for this treatment to become common place. It may take years to work the bugs out of large scale production.
They did it with organ transplants, and no lawsuits that I know of. The blood issue has been a thorn in the side of the WTBTS for a long time. It's the only thing that many people know about the b'Org. I think they will jump at the chance to make this a conscience issue.
I wasn't really around to know first hand but what I have gleaned on the suggests that organ transplants were a much less contentious issue. Anyone with more first hand experience please feel free to correct me, but less people were directly affected than with blood. There was not a perception in society that not accepting an organ transplant was crazy, in fact a reasonable proportion of society would likely have felt they would not have wanted someone else's organs in them.
The other factor is that the intervening years have seen a vast increase in civil litigation. Society is far more litigious, settlement figures far higher and lawyers more willing to take on claims on a no win no fee basis than it was 20, 30 let alone 40 years ago. The increase in the numbers of Witnesses with the associated increase in the numbers of lives ruined by taking a stand the blodd issue and the numbers of embittered ex-Witnesses only raises the stakes far beyond the risks the society had 40+ years ago.
Imagine a group action against the society....
It's far easier to let technology make the whole thing a conscience matter and in 10 years time it won't even be an issue.
talesin - "They did it with organ transplants, and no lawsuits that I know of."
I'm not so sure.
I brought this up about a year ago:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/242529/1/A-connective-thread#.U1bPWNT4Cmw
I think the WTBTS will probably nod this through as a conscience matter. After all - it hasn't come from a donor - so it doesn't need to be "poured out on the ground".
They've already accepted Hemopure and similar products which come from cows blood and essentially are blood by any description. I remember an old brother who was a doctor telling me that the WTBTS were really hopeful that technology would eventually help them out of the mess of the blood doctrine , which is the last remnant of the nutty medical ideas of Rutherford and Clayton Woodworth.
Nah. Just the fact that the blood is made from embryonic stem cells would probably raise the abortion issue--or else it would be argued that an 'unnatural' process was used to make the blood in the first place, showing a 'lack of regard for the sanctity of life' or what have you. They'd also argue that since it becomes blood, it is therefore life and not to be taken in, the same as any other blood from a human. This wouldn't change anything.
--sd-7
I think they will have a long, rambling questions from readers about it, in which they will equivocate, and finally say it is up to a person's conscience.
I mean, this one advance might bring the Watchtower out of the iron age practice of sacrificing children.
Is the GB THAT stupid that they would parse words about artificial blood???
Konceptual and Vidiot,
I would be surprised if they could be sued about this, as it still comes down to 'personal choice'. Although the elders are there to pressure the R&F in the hospital, it is still the person themselves or their legal guardian who makes the decision. Look at those crazy people who don't believe in doctors at all - is it Christian Scientists? I think so ... they have an even more extreme policy, yet, it is legal. The government needs to stop protecting religion, and we need to tax them!
Vidiot, that wsa an interesting read, and I see your reasoning. I think this issue is different from the CSA one, because the elders are not breaking any laws or covering up crimes. But that is not based on knowledge of law, just my opinion.
And it's interesting, I don't know anyone who died from refusing a blood transfusion, but yes, I did know a man who died less than a year before they changed the rules. He needed a kidney transplant, and refused it because at the time, the Society TM deemed it cannibalism. We also had a poster whose wife died 6 months before the rule was changed, his name is Gary and he no longer posts. So it may have been more common than you realize. At the time, kidney transplants were already common and relatively safe (like bypass surgery is now).
:)
t
Hi talesin,
I certainly accept your first hand experience of this. Vidiot's link is also interesting reading. I guess the one thing we can agree on is that the society will continue to allow as many things as possible on a conscience basis without ever officially stopping the no blood rule.
