Serious discussion of blood doctrine

by Lee Elder 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Lee Elder

  The January 6, 2001 issue of the British Medical Journal published
  an article detailing recent changes in the Watchtower Society's blood
  policy.

  The article has led to a lively and fascinating discussion of the
  blood doctrine by many Jehovah's Witnesses including elders, H.L.C.
  members, physicians and academics.

  Most witnesses will find that these discussions touch on aspects of the policy that they have not previously considered, especially from
  the standpoint of bioethics. Very thought provoking and definitely
  worth the time to read in my view.

  Here is the link to the article: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7277/37

  Best regards,

  Lee
• 

  Thirdson

  Hi Lee,

  I sent the BMJ URL to several of my UK based JW relatives.

  The reply from my oldest brother, a serving elder, and my reply to him is found at this link on this site if you are interested.

  --> http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3159&site=3

  Regards,

  THirdson

  'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'

  Edited by - Thirdson on 11 March 2001 23:6:44
• 

  zev

  i'm doing research on this....can either one or anyone here tell me exactly what article the "change" was made in?

  if it was very recent, i wont have it on my 99 cd rom, though i may have it in print.

  thanks

  __

  zev

  Sitting on the Wrong Side of the Fence Class
• 

  Thirdson

  Zev,

  Try Watchtower June 15, 2000.

  There is a reprint of the article on this link too.

  --> http://www.jwfiles.com/blood-WT6-15-00.htm

  Thirdson

  'To avoid criticism, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing'
• 

  somebody

  zev,

  This may be of help as part of your research too.

  http://ajwrb.org/basics/breaking.shtml

  It exposes what the society says to the public, and then what kind of letters they send out to elders ( for only them to read ) of all congregations after they said what they did to the media. No explaination was ever published for the rank and file JWs that I know of.

  peace,
  somebody
• 

  TR

  Lee,

  This is a stupid question, but here goes;

  If a JW gets a transfusion, but wants to remain an active JW, he is not disassociating himself is he? I know that the congregation is told that he automatically DA's himself, but if he doesn't formally DA himself, is he really DA'd? The article quoted says DAing is initiated by the JW himself, not the congregation. This seems rediculous for the WTS to plays with words and peoples lives. So, what else is new, eh?

  TR
• 

  expatbrit

  TR:

  Isn't this automatic disassociation thing silly?

  What they're doing is forcing a disassociation upon someone. Isn't that exactly the same as disfellowshipping?

  Daft.

  Expatbrit.
• 

  somebody

  here is what I understand the WBTS as saying in the press release dated July 14, 2000. ....

  If a JW accepts a blood transfusion against his/her will, ( as in if the one in life-saving need is a minor and it goes to court to save the child's life ) then there is no sin committed. So the matter is dropped.

  If an adult accepts a blood transfusion, AND THEN LATER REGRETS it, then this would be A SERIOUS MATTER. From there, a judical committee will be formed to judge the recipients heart to judge if it was a " moment of weakness" or not. Note that if the a person feels like they've committed a sin ( ie...against what the WBTS considers "serious , or gross sins), regretting it later does NOT count for repentance by any means. Instead, it becomes a SERIOUS MATTER to be investigated and judged.

  Absolutely NOTHING about accepting fractions of blood was never mentioned or explained in the press release to the media! It's no wonder at all that the WBTS has to constantly hid what they say to the media from the rank and file. To make it alll even worse, they actaully attempt to cover their asses by sending letters to congregations for "elders only" to read.

  Does anyone have the episode of ER: Real life trauma ( or something like that) from this past year that showed the older JW couple who got in the terrible auto accident, on tape? I did watch it, but I didn't know ahead of time what it was going to show, or I would have taped it.

  peace,
  somebody
• 

  Lee Elder

  The disassociation procedure now being quietly used in connection with
  blood use is pretty unclear.

  Firstly, I don't believe that even a majority of elders understand
  the procedure which works something like this:

  1. The elders become aware that a cong. member has accepted whole blood or a forbidden blood component.

  2. A judicial committee is formed to investigate the charges and determine if they are true.

  3. If they are true the committee assesses whether or not the person is repentant.

  4. An announcement is made to the congregation that
  a. a matter involving so and so has been handled (if it
  is widely known about)and the person has been reproved, adjusted, etc.
  b. The person has DA themselves.

  The other option here is to handle the matter privately assuming the
  person is "repentent" and no one knows.

  If the person who accepts blood or a forbidden component is turned in
  by a JW healthcare worker we have a real can of worms. There is a post
  to BMJ regarding a situation where this happened recently. There is potential for civil and criminal penalties.

  This entire process has turned into a quagmire from which the WTS needs to extricate itself.

  Lee
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  What they're doing is forcing a disassociation upon someone. Isn't that exactly the same as disfellowshipping?

  From what I can see, it is exactly the same thing. However, it certainly sounds better to the "world" if the Society can state that a person who takes blood has made the decision to leave the JWs himself. They've been taking a lot of flak from the media about excommunicating a person for taking blood to save their lives.

  This "disassociation" claim sounds much better. In this way the WTBTS is absolved of all responsibility for abandoning the invidivual...it is now made to look as if the individual is the one making the decision.

  Once again, it's all about how the WTBTS is perceived by the "world". This has always been their major concern...not the so-called "sheep".