1961 WT on Blood and today's "light"

by qwerty 17 Replies latest jw friends

  • qwerty
    qwerty


    We've all been given the new advanced health "care" Directive at our book groups. Talk about feeling pressured into a situation. We have to take forms home, read them, tick what medical care info our consciense will allow if we are in a life or death situation. Then take the form back and have our signiture witnessed by two others.

    On the meeting part about the A.M.C.D, we was advised to make multipul copies of the completed form. The instruction was to keep the original in a safe place where it could be found easily. One copy should be given to the doctor for your file, the others to the ones who witnessed your signiture, even give one to the Cong secetary and keep one in the glove compartment in your car.

    Take a look at the older light on Blood in this WT of 1961.

    *** w61 9/15 558-9 Respect for the Sanctity of Blood ***
    BLOOD TRANSFUSION
    15 Over the centuries man’s misuses of blood have taken on many forms. Ancient Egyptian princes used human blood for rejuvenation; others drank the blood of their enemies. But not until after William Harvey’s research into the circulation of the blood, in the seventeenth century, was there any extensive effort made to transfuse blood into the circulatory system of another creature. After having suffered severe setbacks due to fatalities, blood transfusion finally came to be viewed with more favor at the beginning of this twentieth century, when research made it possible to identify certain blood types. The two world wars and the Korean war gave doctors ample opportunity to experiment with the therapeutic use of blood, and now the process has been developed to the point that doctors use not only whole blood and blood plasma, which is the nearly colorless liquid in which the blood cells are carried, but also red cells apart from the plasma, and the various plasma proteins as they feel the need.

    16 Is God’s law violated by such medical use of blood? Is it wrong to sustain life by infusions of blood or plasma or red cells or the various blood fractions? Yes! The law that God gave to Noah and which applies to all his descendants makes it wrong for anyone to eat blood, that is, to use the blood of another creature to nourish or sustain one’s life. Even as Tertullian in his Apology showed how the early Christians reasoned on the matter, so today it is recognized that if this prohibition applies to animal blood, it applies with even more force to human blood. It includes “any blood at all.”—Lev. 3:17.

    17 Arguments to the effect that the prohibition on the use of blood issued by the early Christian governing body did not deal with human blood, but only with animal blood, show ignorance of the facts of history. In ancient Rome, which dominated the Mediterranean world in the first century, spectators at the gladiatorial contests would rush into the arena after the fight and suck the blood streaming from the neck of the vanquished gladiator. Some from among the Scythians reportedly ate their dead relatives. Treaties were made among some peoples by mutually drinking a portion of each other’s blood; and human blood caught in the hand and eaten was used to seal initiation into the rites of the pagan goddess Bellona. So when the apostles, under direction of the holy spirit, said that Christians were to keep themselves from blood, they did have in mind human blood too.

    18 It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: “In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary—that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.”

    19 In view of the emphasis put on the use of blood in the medical world, new treatments involving its use are constantly being recommended.But regardless of whether it is whole blood or a blood fraction, whether it is blood taken from one’s own body or that taken from someone else, whether it is administered as a transfusion or as an injection, the divine law applies. God has not given man blood to use as he might use other substances; he requires respect for the sanctity of blood.

    (be interesting in the light of WT habit of miss quoting, to find out exactly what George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician actually wrote!)
    Did you read Maximus's post on Blood and WT quoting, thanks Maximus.
    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=6288&site=3

    The Wt of Sept 1961 goes on in para 20,

    20 What a fine example in respect for this law was set by God-fearing King David! Before the enemies of God’s people had been driven from the land, the Philistines had a garrison in Bethlehem near Jerusalem, and on one occasion “David showed his craving and said: ‘O that I might have a drink of the water from the cistern of Bethlehem, which is at the gate!’” Yes, he wished that the Philistines were gone and that he could be free to go to that cistern and be refreshed by its water. But on hearing his expression, “three [valiant men] forced their way into the camp of the Philistines and drew water from the cistern of Bethlehem, which is at the gate, and came carrying and bringing it to David.” What they brought was nothing more than water, but they did it at the risk of their lives, and David knew it. “And David did not consent to drink it, but poured it out to Jehovah. And he went on to say: ‘It is unthinkable on my part, as regards my God, to do this! Is it the blood of these men that I should drink at the risk of their souls? For it was at the risk of their souls that they brought it.’ And he did not consent to drink it.” (1 Chron. 11:16-19; 2 Sam. 23:15-17) David respected the law of God. Not only did he abstain from animal blood; he avoided the far more gross wrong of consuming human blood. Yes, he avoided doing anything that even resembled violation of that law. He was a man after God’s own heart. It is a like course of obedience from the heart that moves mature Christians today to abstain from any practice at all that involves misuse of blood. Out of love for God they show respect for the sanctity of blood.
    WHAT!

    During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and fell to eating along with the blood. (1 Samuel 14:31-35) Did they have to die for their error?.....you would thinks so, No they were just told off!

    I wonder if the Elders are keeping tabs on anybody who does not complete or even ask for a form!?

    http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/crumbles.shtml

    qwerty

    "Facts are the enemy of truth."
    - Don Quixote - "Man of La Mancha"

    P.S I have scanned the copies of the Medical directive into my comp, just got to get the file size down, so I can put them on the web. I might try zipping each page, unless anyone as got a tip?

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello qwerty,

    a good remeinder for everybody!

    Btw, take a good lok at :

    w. 1.08.1958 p.478 QfR

    An article almost unknown...to many!!

    Agape, J.C.MacHislopp

  • Francois
    Francois

    Getting all your information about blood, blood transfusions, etc. from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is like getting all your information about nuclear power from Jane Fonda.

    The JW position on blood is nothing but the extension of the anti-intellectual, primitive, uninformed idea that blood is efficacious for the removal of sin; that blood is the location of the soul.

    "Without the shedding of blood, no forgiveness takes place."

    What does this say about the nature and character of God? It says that the God of the Hebrews wasn't much more advanced than the God of the Aztecs who believed that throwing perfectly good virgins into volcanoes was efficacious. It speaks of a savage's god made in their own image.

    And the WTBTS is guilty of perpetuating primitive concepts of God. The gods who go on a rampage in the storm; who shake the earth in their wrath and strike down men in their anger; who inflict their judgments of displeasure in times of famine and flood--these are the gods of primitive religion; they are not the Gods who live and rule the universes. Such concepts are a relic of the times when men supposed that the universe was under the guidance and domination of the whims of such imaginary gods. But we should have abandonded these primitive concepts of God long ago.

    It is at the feet of the Borg that responsibility for perpetuating these primitive concepts of god, and for enslaving millions of people thereby, should lie. It is a departure from the concepts of God given the world by Jesus. It constitutes reimposing the Mosiac law and the entire Noah story on the modern world.

    It's been said that Islam has an entire culture trapped in the 12th century. That's a distinct advantage to being trapped in the 30th century B.C.!!!

    Francois

  • Thirdson
    Thirdson

    Thanks Qwerty,

    I am still considering posting the reply I received from the UK WTS Hospital Information Service. Suffice to say I asked some questions regarding the clarification of JW teachings on blood since Paul Wade (HIS head) had posted on the BMJ board.

    The reply was typical. My questions about justifying the huge amount of blood allowable as minor components (fractions) were not addressed. The reply consisted of a quote from the US Supremem court and one from the Royal College of surgeons about the understood beliefs of individual JW's.

    I did think that the lack of a response spoke volumes about my questions though.

    Thirdson

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

  • uncle_onion
    uncle_onion

    very comprehensive D. Call me!

    UO

  • Enlighted UK
    Enlighted UK

    Qwerty, thank you for putting this reference on:

    "19 In view of the emphasis put on the use of blood in the medical world, new treatments involving its use are constantly being recommended.But regardless of whether it is whole blood or a blood fraction, whether it is blood taken from one’s own body or that taken from someone else, whether it is administered as a transfusion or as an injection, the divine law applies. God has not given man blood to use as he might use other substances; he requires respect for the sanctity of blood.[/quote]"

    So in light of the above, how can they then write the following:...

    How Can Blood Save Your Life? (1990)

    *** hb 27 Jehovah's Witnesses-The Surgical/Ethical Challenge ***
    While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration. However, Witnesses’ religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.

    So are fractions allowed or not????

    My reason for leaving the org was because of the blood issue. When my daughter was born it became a very very real issue to me. I suddenly realised what was involved, and the what the outcome would be if, when required to save her life, it was refused.

    If the org was Jehovah's mouthpiece on earth, would he really be changing his mind about what is and isn't acceptable? Would he play with people's lives like this, knowing the consequences? If the answer is no, then what is printed in watchtower pubs is just the society's viewpoint, nothing divine about it. If the answer is yes, then do I really want to jump to the every whim of a God who doesn't care? (Personally I think the answer is no, and that there are just a bunch of power crazy, frustrated window cleaners sitting in Brooklyn getting kicks out of playing god.)

    On the same thread of blood, this quote was in a paper discussing the JW stand on blood:

    The Golden Age, Jan. 5, 1929; Feb. 4, 1931

    “Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome afflictions. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion “

    I bet that not many JW's now are aware of the fact that JWs who obeyed the Society rules at this time would have died because of refusing vaccinations. Yet now they accept vaccinations without questionning.

    Enlighted UK

    Enjoy your life, it is the only one you'll have.

  • qwerty
    qwerty

    Thanks for you contributions to this post all.

    MacHislopp thank you for this reference.

    *** w58 8/1 478 Questions from Readers ***
    Questions from Readers

    ó One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States.

    We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God.

    However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.

    We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.

    Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Ask any JW if you they have been disfellowshipped and they would say yes,(the get out clause would be that they would not be if they were repentant!)
    Today they would probably be looked on as verging on as one of the evil slave class.

    qwerty.

    "He would make a lovely corpse."
    - Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

  • qwerty
    qwerty

    Just had a thought..... I think I am a little bit slow here,

    However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.

    NOT TRUE, ONLY IF THEY ARE NOT REPENENT!

    qwerty

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    Francoise,

    What does this say about the nature and character of God? It says that the God of the Hebrews wasn't much more advanced than the God of the Aztecs who believed that throwing perfectly good virgins into volcanoes was efficacious. It speaks of a savage's god made in their own image.


    Actually Aztecs had many gods like Tlaloc, the God of rain, Huitzilopochtli, God of war, etc. Some like Quetzalcoatl refused vertebrate sacrifices, and was only offered butterflies. Huitzilopochtli, on the other hand, had human sacrifices by the thousands taken from the Tlaxcalteca peoples. Only the heart was offered to him. The rest of the sacrificial victim was eaten by the people, except the victim's captor since the captor was considered like a brother to the victim.
    There was no waste.

    JRP

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    Hi qwerty:

    Very interesting post...thanks.

    We have to take forms home, read them, tick what medical care info our consciense will allow if we are in a life or death situation. Then take the form back and have our signiture witnessed by two others

    Do you know when this new Health Care Directive was handed out and if this and the forms needing to be filled out, will be given to those of us who are inactive and haven't been to a book study or the hall for a couple of years (except for memorials and assemblies)?

    What would happen to someone like me who is inactive and was faced with a medical emergency and they don't have this form on record of my choices?

    Does my inactivity now exempt me because I am no longer "witnessing" or am I still technically considered a JW?

    I know they "say" they don't df anyone who accepts blood, but they do take it as an indication they no longer are JWs and consider them da'd. Big difference eh?

    I know 30-40 years ago, a young brother, who had not been to a meeting in over 5 years, had a blood transfusion and was df'd over it.

    Do they still do that to inactive ones?

    Appreciate any answers in this matter. Thanks!

    Had Enough

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit