Ethics Panel Discusses Blood Policy of Watchtower Bible & Tract Society and Jehovah's Witnesses Refusing Lifesaving Treatment
The Oncologist journal of August 2002 contains an interesting discussion between a panel of medical professionals on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood therapies.
This article focuses on a Witness woman who refused some blood therapies but was convinced by her congregation elders that it was okay to accept bovine hemoglobin therapy. Realizing the glaring inconsistency of bovine hemoglobin being acceptable in the face of prohibiting other blood therapies like red cell infusion, one physician said,
"There's a feeling that the patient was completely settled, but she was also asking for help and accepting bovine hemoglobin, which seems to be slicing and dicing the rules a little bit."
Here's a link to the entire article. It's a good read.
"Ms. LF was managed as an outpatient for several months but was eventually readmitted for treatment of relapsed AML complicated by fever. She again began chemotherapy. When her hematocrit dropped below 10%, she was treated with bovine hemoglobin. Initially, Ms. LF was reluctant to accept the bovine derived product, but she eventually agreed to to accept it AFTER THE ELDERS FROM HER CONGREGATION APPROVED ITS USE IN HER CASE. During reinduction chemotherapy, the lowest level that Ms. LF's hematocrit reached was 7.1%, PARTLY CONTRIBUTED BY FREE BOVINE HEMOGLOBIN." [EMPHASIS mine]
Love, Scully
edited to add: AML is the same kind of leukemia that Shunned Father's daughter has.
edited because I'm at work and wanted to change formatting.
Very well written article. Thanks for sharing it Marvin.
I can't help but think how in the past the wtbts used to claim a person's personality changed when accepting blood but now they are willing to have people accept cow's blood? (moooooo)
j2bf of the class "I'm glad I can make my own decisions"
I was sent that article yesterday and was again struck by the authorisation of bovine haemoglobin by the HLC.
How can the WTBTS allow the use of bovine haemoglobin, whilst to all intents and purposes, refusing to allow human haemoglobin?
To an outsider this would imply that the WTBTS is more concerned about the *safety* of the human blood supply/their historic position, than what they hold to be a Biblical command to abstain from blood.
*Abstain from blood* except for all the *conscience fractions* and bovine haemoglobin.................
The interesting thing, to me at least, is the fact that the WTS/HLC permits the use of a risky, inferior quality substitute for human hemoglobin (ie, bovine derived hemoglobin) which actually further compromised this patient's condition. It did not, in fact, help her at all. The context of the article suggests that it even hastened her eventual demise. This probably would not have been the case had she been allowed a human blood product.
I understand that the main issue is the use of FREE BOVINE HEMOGLOBIN, but was also impressed with the bases for Mrs.LF's decision to accept it's use.
, Ms. LF was reluctant to accept the bovine-derivedproduct, but she eventually agreed to accept it after the eldersfrom her congregation approved its use in her care.
No one has made a decision here on the bases of informed consent or conscientious evaluation of scriptural principles. Mrs. LF goes for it when the elders say it is OK, the elders tell her it is OK when the someone in Brooklyn says its OK.
Mrs. LF unfortunately would have said no and died without understanding why if Brooklyn would have said so.
So the Bovine hemoglobin only made her already compromised condition worse.
This I found interesting:
Oncologist: Actually, I do not feel that way. Ive become known among the Jehovahs Witnesses as a doctor who will take on such patients. It is true that there are a lot of doctors who will not take them on because they feel its not within the standard of care and dont want any part of it.
I had never heard of any doctors actually refusing JW's because of their stance on accepting blood transfusions. It doesn't suprise me, however.
There is a mistaken notion regarding what is said about bovine hemoglobin used in this case. When the article states,
"During reinduction chemotherapy, the lowest level that Ms. LF's hematocrit reached was 7.1%, partly contributed by free bovine hemoglobin."
it is not saying that the bovine hemoglobin solution caused a decrease in LF's hematocrit. It is saying that the hematocrit level she did have was partially attributable to the bovine hemoglobin. In other words, without the contribution of bovine hemoglobin LF's hematocrit would have been even lower at the time. The introduction of bovine hemoglobin did not make LF's situation worse; it helped. What made her situation worse was refusing an infusion of packed red cells.
As Jst2laws points out, the real reason of this refusal was decisions made by Bethel Brass. LF's decision had little to do with any sound Biblical analysis as evidenced by her accepting the cow hemoglobin at the word of her congregation elders. Where does anyone think they heard about it and got permission to use it from? Does anyone think they found their decision by an autonomous comparison of the Bible with hemoglobin obtained from killing and bleeding out cows?
