To Transfuse or Not To Transfuse

by Chris Tann 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  millie210

  There is an actual document the liason committee has now.

  The purpose of that document is to keep the courts out of it.

  So now all a parent has to do is sign that and everything proceeds.

  No judge.

  No court.

  No problem.

  I just switched computers and lost a lot of old info so I dont have my file on that form and what it is called.

  edited to add the following:

  It may be called a "Letter of Undersatanding"?

  here is a look at where it got started just quickly checking google - there is much more current info if a person wants to look for it.

  http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions/
• 

  Fisherman

  http://www.uptodate.com/contents/transfusion-transmitted-hiv-infection-and-aids
• 

  cofty

  Thanks C o f t y. Nice research. Two questions though. How do we know for sure that if an Israelite found a dead animal he didn't have to bleed it. I know the text doesn't say he must bleed it , but could that just be because the preceding verses already stated one must bleed an animal first and therefore bleeding is implied? Also, why is it impossible to bleed an animal already dead? Thanks. - Chris Tann

  Sorry I missed this question 6 months ago.

  The answer to both your questions is the same.

  It is physically impossible to bleed a dead animal. The blood congeals within minutes.

  If an Israelite found one of his animals dead and cold he had a dilemma. If he buried it he became unclean for touching a dead body. If he ate it the result was the same.

  He didn't take the life and therefore the blood has no symbolic significance.

  39 “‘If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches its carcass will be unclean till evening. 40 Anyone who eats some of its carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash their clothes, and they will be unclean till evening. - lev 11

  
  Explained in full here..
• 

  baker

  Just found out that one of the celebrities from Our Gang, Darla Hood, died from complications of a blood transfusion she received for a relatively benign surgery back in 1979 when she was 47. This was news to me today, but anyone remember if the WT used this tragedy to push their Blood doctrine back then?
• 

  stockholm_Syndrome

  What I don't understand is all JWs take in blood willingly- they eat meat that contains blood -well most do anywayz
  
  But it doesn't trouble consciences - Why ? Because it does not contain the lifeblood. The animal must be 'bled' -as if ceremonially the life has been taken and given to Jehovah.
  
  The first mention of this principle is recorded in Genesis 9:4-
  
  'Only flesh with its life - its blood- you must not eat'
  
  Then again in Deuteronomy 12:23, 24
  
  'Just be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the flesh. You must not eat it. You should pour it out on the ground like water.'
  
  So apparently...
  
  life blood (blood shed at time of slaughter) represents the life and belongs to Jehovah
  rest of blood - as in what remains in meat - is ok --as it is not lifeblood
  
  So here is the kicker....Blood donors do not give their lifeblood !! - They still live !!
  
  So we should be able to have blood transfused into us-- just like you eat the remnant blood in meat !!