Is the end of Watchtowers hated No Blood doctrine in sight?

by nicolaou 28 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  nicolaou

  I won't pretend to know things that I don't but just look at the incredible rate of change we've witnessed recently. It seems that since Candace Conti and the Australian Royal Commission the Watchtower are scrabbling around to shore up their finances in the face of unprecedented legal action against them.

  Abuse settlement claims are one thing but what happens when children die as a result of your religious teachings?! You can bet WT Legal are arguing for a complete rewrite of policy to protect the organisation from litigation.

  Do you think their religious privilege will protect them forever? I don't.

  Read this current news story to see how one US state changed it's laws to protect the innocent against dangerous religious dogma.

  CHURCH'S 'FAITH HEALING' KILLED THIS BABY
• 

  Sofia Lose

  They have relaxed it as much as possible with the blood fraction nonsense. The main doctrine, along with disfellowhipping/shunning will NEVER go away. These policies are their cornerstones and strongholds; trademarks of sorts.

  SL
• 

  OneEyedJoe

  I can see them slowly backing away from it, but never outright saying that blood is now a conscience issue. If they're going to scrap it, they'll most likely just stop mentioning it so new converts won't know about it and it can die a quiet death. They can't just do away with it, though, because too many would realize that they're responsible for thousands of deaths (and even bragged about it).
• 

  Finkelstein

  If I understand correctly the position now is if a baptized JWs receives a complete blood transfusion they will only be DAed not DFed ???

  You still have to show level of repentance though.
  

  One thing interesting is that when confronted on the matter by elders they will ask if you what is your personal opinion to the doctrine itself . If you firmly stand against it, derived from own opinion, they may ask the $64,000 dollar question " Do you wholly accept the GB heads as the sole FDSL of Jehovah's earthly organization ?

  If you answer negative then they might very well DF you.

  It all depends how remorseful you are when approached about the matter.
  
• 

  tim3l0rd

  I think they still might. They have done similar reversals in prior decades. They would still be protected from lawsuits after reversing the doctrine by the first amendment. If they reverse it now, they can avoid JWs being put in jail for refusing blood transfusions for their children.

  Although, in recent years, they no longer try to remove the child from the hospital in order to avoid transfusions. Nowadays, they just let the hospital get a court order and comfort the parents by saying that there was nothing they could do. So, they may just leave it as is. The only way I see this blowing up is if a child needs some other procedure that definitely requires blood and the parents keep the child from the hospital so that he/she will not be taken and given blood.
• 

  tim3l0rd

  They can't just do away with it, though, because too many would realize that they're responsible for thousands of deaths (and even bragged about it).

  Well, they bragged about how "faith strengthening" it was for brothers to go to jail for not accepting civil service right after they made it a "conscience issue". I could see them doing the same for blood. As sickening as it sounds, I could see them printing: "In light of our new understanding what about parents, children, friends, and relatives that lost loved ones because they refused a blood transfusion? We should remember their faith as Jehovah will. Jehovah will not forget the strong stand that they took. BLAH BLAH BLAH..."
• 

  sir82

  Their policy, for decades I'd say, has been to quietly "allow" court orders to force doctors to administer blood transfusions to minors.
  

  The HLCs tell the parents to relax, "it's in Jehovah's hands now", "you can have a clean conscience" since they did everything they could.

  That has worked in the majority of cases, I suspect.

  Still, it only takes one failure and a pissed-off UBM to open the way to mufti-milion dollar lawsuits.
  
• 

  Billzfan23

  One Eyed Joe:

  How is that going to work? They still do the "blood cards" - don't they? Their whole rant on those blood cards is about remaining faithful.

  If they're going to scrap it, they'll most likely just stop mentioning it so new converts won't know about it and it can die a quiet death.
• 

  steve2

  In New Zealand, the Courts automatically step in and overrule parents' blood-refusal decisions and transfusions are administered without a peep from the parents or protest from elders.

  Me thinks JW parents like being able to take a stand knowing the Courts will reverse their decision and baby lives. Especially for young and inexperienced JW parents who face the prospect of their little child needing life-saving surgery that must be a huge relief!

  In the best possible sense of the term, it is a win-win:

  Parents are not forced to violate their beliefs. They can still make a "token" stand, the Court overrules their stand (so the parents' standing in the congregation is not jeopardized as it would be if they consented), baby has surgery with access to blood if needed and baby lives.

  What's not to like? Why should the organization need to change its stand against blood?
• 

  Lee Elder

  There is certainly precedent for the WT to eliminate the blood doctrine. Note how they accomplished something very similar with respects to vaccination:

  Questions From Readers
  

  “Is vaccination a violation of God’s law forbidding the taking of blood into the system? – G. C., North Carolina.

  The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself….our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out….all objection to vaccination on Scriptural grounds seems to be lacking….We merely offer the above information on request, but can assume no responsibility for the decision and course the reader may take.”
  – The Watchtower 12/15/1952 p. 764

  It can be safely assumed that JWs who skipped vaccinations for their children suffered the effects of polio, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. My suspicion is that most JWs continued to feel that vaccinations were a contamination and avoided them whenever possible. That attitude persisted among JWs for decades and I remember it well. We would likely see something similar with blood.