JW Doctor mis-Illustrates a Blood Doctrine

by Marvin Shilmer 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Today I added a new article to my blog addressing an article written by a JW medical doctor in a regional medical journal. It's part of an initiative giving attention to how licensed medical professionals among JWs have dealt with the blood transfusion subject. What they say, how they say it, and what they don't say are all very telling. These men and women have licenses and professional careers at stake! As you can imagine, each has to tread carefully on the subject. But my reading suggests each one hedges where they feel comfortable doing so. 

  For the latest in this series see the article JW Doctor mis-Illustrates a Blood Doctrine
• 

  Island Man

  His abstain from penicillin fallacy illustration is just another version of the JWs' abstain from alcohol fallacy illustration. As you rightfully pointed out the very critical difference between the why of abstention from blood and the why of abstention from penicillin, is conveniently omitted because those very critical differences in the whys causes the comparison to fall flat on its face for the fallacy that it is.

  Another interesting point is this: JWs apply the command to abstain from blood to blood transfusions by equating a blood transfusion with the eating of blood. What's their basis for equating the two? Since feeding can be done intravenously as in the case of very ill patients, they reason, then the administering of blood can be compared to such feeding since it too is done intravenously. I don't know the technical term for this kind of fallacy, but it's basically the fallacy of equating two practices (transfusions and feeding) based on the fact that they share a common action (intravenous administration of a substance).

  This is a very interesting fallacy that makes hypocrites out of the JWs. Why? Because if they apply this flawed reasoning consistently, they should also be abstaining from invasive gynecological examinations. You see, Acts 15 also says to "abstain from ... fornication" - a practice which often involves inserting an object into the vagina. So by the JWs' fallacy of equating two practices based on a common action, both practices (fornication and invasive gynecological exams) share the common action of inserting an object into the vagina. Therefore Watchtower should regard such gyn exams as a form of fornication and instruct JWs to refuse them.

  Of course, if you tell a JW that abstaining from fornication should apply to gyn exams based on their own fallacy of equating two practices based on a common action, the JW would be quick to say you're being ridiculous and proceed to show you how the two are not the same. He might point out the different motives and objectives between the two actions ... and then you can take his own reasoning and turn it around to the blood issue to show him how the organization's position of equating blood transfusions with the eating of blood is just as ridiculous.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Island Man, 

  In the earlier days of Watchtower's blood transfusion taboo the religion's leadership leveraged nutritional gain as the reason why JWs should be concerned with the therapy. Then it admitted it was pointless to argue that transfusion was a means of providing nutrition. The latter was said point-blank by Watchtower in a letter to one of its appointed elders.

  I just added an article to my blog highlighting this at: Nutrition or not? Not! So what? 

  
  
• 

  Apognophos

  Interesting, Marvin, though this admission only makes them consistent with their revocation of the ban on organ transplants.  When they lifted the ban (or disapproving stance, at least) on transplants in 1980 they wrote that, contrary to what they stated in 1967, an organ transplant could not be considered nourishment in the manner of food because the organ was taking the place of the previous one that failed, and eventually was incorporated into the body and replaced cell by cell over time.  This same argument would naturally hold true for blood as well, and it seems that the Society has decided to acknowledge that.  But it's surprising that they would do so since this reasoning is supposed to be the link between the Jewish stance on eating blood and the JW stance on not taking blood!
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  This same argument would naturally hold true for blood as well, and it seems that the Society has decided to acknowledge that.

  I agree it holds true from a logical perspective, but as recently as this year Watchtower again trotted out this piece of admittedly bad information for consumption by the masses. It's disgraceful. Carl Sagan had it right when it comes to Watchtower! 

  One thing Watchtower NEVER lets get in the way is facts. 
• 

  JW GoneBad

  Good thread Marvin. 

  Dr. Malak states:  

  "...To illustrate, if a doctor tells a patient to avoid penicillin, that patient could reasonably conclude that the restriction applies not only to the oral but also the intravenous route.  It is this directive, and not primarily concerns about the safety of blood, that motivates Witnesses to avoid transfusion."

  The key word here is directive.   

  Compare the patient's obedience and compliance to his/her doctor to obstain-to the directive Jehovah has supposedly given the GB and Jehovah's Witnesses to obstain from blood (Gen 9:24, Acts 15:28,29). 

  If a doctor tells any level headed patient to obstain or avoid penicillin, that patient wouldn't even allow a minute trace or even a fraction of penicillin in his system.  Why not?  Because the doctor whose advice he trusts told him to obstain or advoid penicillin. 

  Whereas, what do the Witnesses do after the Supreme Doctor of the Universe has told them to obstain from blood?  They find excuse after excuse and allow fraction after fraction of blood into their system.

  Go figure!!! 

   

   

   
• 

  rebel8

  Good points in that article.

  BTW there is nobody by that name on file with the GA medical licensing authority at this time. FYI
  
• 

  Odrade

  Poughkeepsie, NY. Pediatrician, and founder of Center for Bloodless Care at Vassar Med. He seems to have his bonafides. Appears he is a convert, came from a Catholic family, so most likely educated and in practice before converting. Interesting that his practice bio says he's a single dad with two adopted children. Just FYI.

  It takes a special kind of mindless devotion to dogma to be a practicing pediatrician and still determined to uphold the ban on blood. Very sad.