Transfusing blood is NOT eating blood

by Rufus T. Firefly 16 Replies latest jw friends

  • Rufus T. Firefly
    Rufus T. Firefly

    Watchtower’s official view:

    “You also ask why one can be disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions. While both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment . In this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body. It is this aspect of taking in blood, that is, to provide nourishment that links blood transfusions with the Biblical prohibition . Note that "Questions From Readers" of the July 1, 1975, issue of The Watchtower stated: " The Bible specifically forbids the taking of blood to nourish the body .-Gen 9:4; Lev. 17:1-14; Acts 15:28, 29." The motive or reason for taking a serum is significantly different. It is not to feed the body, as would be the case if there was an eating of whole blood (or a major component thereof) by mouth or by having it transfused intravenously. Rather, the antibodies that have been separated out are administered for the purpose of immunizing the body against a certain disease. While blood fractions in certain situations can be lifesaving, they do not operate to feed and nourish the body and in this way sustain life but, rather, utilize other mechanisms.” [From March 23, 1998 letter from Watchtower Bible & Tract Society to R. Jensen.]

    Another view:

    “A major question, then, is whether it can be demonstrated that the transfusing of blood is an “eating” of blood as the Watch Tower organization claims. There is, in reality, no sound basis for such claim. There are, of course, medical methods of “intravenous feeding” whereby specially prepared liquids containing nutrients, such as glucose, are introduced into the veins and provide nourishment. However, as medical authorities know, and as the Watch Tower Society has at times acknowledged, a blood transfusion is NOT intravenous feeding; it is actually a TRANSPLANTATION (of a fluid TISSUE), not an infusion of a nutrient. In a kidney transplantation, the kidney is NOT eaten as some food by the new body it enters. It remains a kidney with the same form and function. The same is true of blood. It is not eaten as food when “transplanted” into another body. It remains the same fluid tissue, with the same form and function. The body cells cannot possibly utilize such transplanted blood as food. To do this the blood would first have to PASS THROUGH THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM, be broken up and prepared so that the body cells could absorb it—thus it would have to be actually and literally EATEN to allow it to serve as FOOD.” [From IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, pages 297 & 298, by Raymond Franz.]

  • This is my tigersuit
    This is my tigersuit

    thanks for the post! Ray Franz kicked ass!

  • steve2
    steve2

    Thanks Rufus. The special website on this doctrine would be of great interest to you.

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    The other important factor to look at is the source of WT's argument that a transfusion constitutes the "eating" of blood. W 4-15-85, p.13, quotes WT's source: Frenchman Denys...of the 17th century!

    WT cannot find a single modern authority to support its view, so it does the classic WT move of finding any source from any century, no matter the level of ignorance of that century, as validation of the legitimacy of its stance.

  • nonjwspouse
    nonjwspouse

    life sustaining = Jesus taught as the most important over man made rules

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    To this very day Watchtower persists in teaching its utter nonsense that transfusing blood is eating blood. Take a look at what Watchtower says in its 2014 convention release: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2014/07/transfusion-eating-is-still-canard.html

    Ironically, the very fraction ("serum") Watchtower spoke of in its response to the R. Jensen letters is demonstrated to be a blood fraction which transfusion of actually does offer parenteral nutrition. But Watchtower never lets whopping details like this stand it the way of what it wants to tell folks. See: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/10/watchtowers-expert-on-blood-transfusion.html

    Watchtower assertion about Denys is wholly wrong. Denys never said what Watchtower alleges he said. See: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/02/academic-deception-or-incompetence.html

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    Isn`t the official Watchtower veiw that blood should be poured out on the ground , and not used at all for any purpose ?

    A jehovahs witness would be hurled before a judicial committee if he used blood and bone fertilizer on his garden.( which is literally poured out on the ground )

    They seem to completely ignore the fact that blood fractions are prosessed from stored blood donated by people { jews catholics atheists etc.} who they claim are being under satans control .

    smiddy

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Smiddy, are you telling me that JW's are muddle-headed hypocrites ?

  • AndDontCallMeShirley
    AndDontCallMeShirley

    smiddy: They seem to completely ignore the fact that blood fractions are prosessed from stored blood donated by people

    To add to WT's idiocy, it approves the use of someone else's stored blood for fractions but still bans a JW from storing their own blood for future use!!

    Logically, wouldn't it be safer to you use your own blood for an upcoming surgery/procedure than someone else's? As is usual for WT, their absurd policies actually expose a JW to even more danger than they'd normally be subjected to had WT just stayed out of it.

  • EdenOne
    EdenOne

    Welcome back, Marvin

    Eden

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit