Comments You Will Not Hear at the August 1, 2004 WT Study (June 15, 2004 issue)
Review comments will be in black and parentheses () WT quotes will be in red and quotes "" Quotes from other sources will be in blue BE GUIDED BY THE LIVING GOD " Turn?to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them."?Acts 14:15?NWT source The whole verse in the NWTand saying: "Men, why are YOU doing these things? We also are humans having the same infirmities as YOU do, and are declaring the good news to YOU, for YOU to turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them .
"And the priest of Zeus, whose [temple] was at the entrance of the town, brought bulls and garlands to the [city's] gates and wanted to join the people in offering sacrifice. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their clothing and dashed out among the crowd, shouting, 15 Men, why are you doing this? We also are [only] human beings, of nature like your own, and we bring you the good news (Gospel) that you should turn away from these foolish and vain things to the living God, Who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything that they contain.? Acts 14:13-15 Amplified Bible (let?s see context)www.biblegateway.com /cgi-bin/bible
Opening Comments
Much has been written about the blood doctrine/policy here on JWD and other sites. I am not going to try to repeat that. What we might ask is why is the WTS covering this topic finally in a WT study article? Why was it sufficient to cover this topic in a Question from Readers article in the June 15, 2000 Watchtower which is reprinted verbatim in this issue, June 15, 2004? What has been happening over the last four years? I?m sure that the WTS headquarters has been bombarded with questions, not just by the rank and file but by elders, elders on the Hospital Liaison Committees, as well as COs and DOs. Having started a Talmud in this area, the WTS is obligated to keep adding to it. Because many JWs feel their eternal future depends on making the "right" decision regarding blood products, they want assurances from headquarters. Will this article clarify the official position or confuse the readers more? You tell me.
http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml
http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/bloodless/blood_jchart.html
http://noblood.org/forum/index.php?s=02ff95264daa74c2dde15a038b37f797&
http://www.pnc.com.au/~fichrist/bulgaria.html
START OF ARTICLE
Paragraph 1 After the apostle Paul and Barnabas healed a man, Paul assured observers in Lystra: "We also are humans having the same infirmities as you do, and are declaring the good news to you, for you to turn from these vain things to the living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them."?Acts 14:15. (not the snippet above) Paragraph 2 How very true that Jehovah is, not a lifeless idol, but "the living God"! (Jeremiah 10:10; 1 Thessalonians 1:9,10) Beyond living himself, Jehovah is the Source of our life. "He himself gives to all persons life and breath and all things." (Acts 17:25) He is interested in our enjoying life, present and future. Paul added that God "did not leave himself without witness in that he did good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts to the full with food and good cheer."?Acts 14:17.Question 1,2: Why is it fitting to recognize Jehovah as "the living God"?
What the WTS does not emphasize is that God gives to all persons, righteous and unrighteous, not just JWs. Why then does the WTS discourage giving material things to non-JWs?
that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. MATTHEW 5:45 w03 6/1 p. 7 Giving That Pleases God *** When it comes to organized charity, though, we need to be cautious as we evaluate the many appeals we receive. Some charities have high administrative or fund-raising costs, leaving only a small portion of the collected money for the intended purpose. (Matthew 19:16-22) Notice that Jesus did not just say, ?Give to the poor and you will get life.? Instead, he added, "Come be my follower." In other words, as commendable and beneficial as charitable acts are, Christian discipleship involves more. Paragraph 3 God?s interest in our life gives us reason to trust his guidance (1). (Psalm 147:8; Matthew 5:45) Some may react otherwise if they find a Bible directive (WTS doctrine/policy) that they do not understand or that seems restrictive (no beards on male JWs). Still, trusting Jehovah?s guidance (2) has proved to be wise. To illustrate: Even if an Israelite did not understand the law against touching a dead body, he benefited by obeying it. First, his obedience would draw him closer to the living God; second, it would help him to avoid diseases.?Leviticus 5:2; 11:24.Question 3: Why can we trust the guidance that God provides (3)?
Yes, trust God?s guidance as explained through the WTS, the only "true" channel to God.
w94 10/1 p. 8 The Bible?A Book Meant to Be Understood *** All who want to understand the Bible should appreciate that the "greatly diversified wisdom of God" can become known only through Jehovah?s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave.?John 6:68. Paragraph 4 It is similar with God?s guidance (4) about blood. He told Noah that humans should not consume blood. Then in the Law, God revealed that the only approved use of blood was on the altar?for forgiveness of sin. By those directives, God was laying the groundwork for the supreme use of blood---the saving of lives by means of Jesus? ransom. (Hebrews 9:14) Yes, God?s guidance (5) was with our life and well-being in mind. Discussing Genesis 9:4, 19 th -century Bible scholar Adam Clarke wrote: "This command [to Noah] is still scrupulously obeyed by the oriental Christians?No blood was eaten under the law, because it pointed out the blood that was to be shed for the sin of the world; and under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins."http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkegen9.htm
Paragraph 5
This scholar may have been referring to the basic gospel, or good news, bound up in Jesus. That includes God?s sending his Son to die for us, to pour out his blood so that we might have everlasting life (the carrot motivator for JWs). (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16; Romans 5: 8,9) The comment also covered the later command that Christ?s followers abstain from blood.Questions 4,5: (a) Before the Christian era, what guidance about blood did Jehovah give (6)? (b) How do we know that God?s guidance (7) about blood involves Christians?
Note that blood must be poured out, not stored; can JWs use products made from a blood fraction, like hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers made from stored blood?. Abstaining from blood, how does that mean that fractions are allowable?
Paragraph 6 You know that God gave the Israelites hundreds of regulations (600+). Once Jesus died, his disciples were not obliged to keep all those laws. (Romans 7:4,6; Colossians 2:13,14,17; Hebrews 8:6,13) However, in time a question arose about the one key obligation?male circumcision (practiced before the law code by Abraham and his descendants). Would non-Jews who wanted to benefit from Christ?s blood have to be circumcised, showing that they were still under the Law? (Can you think of WTS "directives" today that are based on the Law?) In 49 C.E., the Christian governing body (notice not capital letters as for the WTS GB today) addressed that issue (but the issue of their being a GB is not addressed in this article; just presented as a given). (Acts, chapter 15) Aided by God?s spirit, the apostles and older men concluded that obligatory circumcision (that means a person could choose to be circumcised in spite of this directive) ended with the Law. Still, certain divine requirements remained for Christians. In a letter to the congregations, the governing body wrote: "The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully, keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper."?Acts 15:28,29.Question 6: What directives about blood were given to Christians, and why?
Did Christians have to abstain from things sacrificed to idols?
w93 1/15 p. 23 Why Guard Against Idolatry? *** Part of an animal was sacrificed to an idol, a portion went to priests, and the worshiper got some for a feast. However, part of the flesh might be sold in a market. It was inadvisable for a Christian to go to an idol temple to eat meat even though he did not eat as part of a rite, for this could stumble others or draw him into false worship. (1 Corinthians 8:1-13; Revelation 2:12, 14, 18, 20) Offering an animal to an idol did not change the flesh, so a Christian could buy some at a market. He also did not have to ask about the source of meat served in a home. But if someone said it had been "offered in sacrifice," he would not eat it, to avoid stumbling anyone.?1 Corinthians 10:25-29. Paragraph 7 Plainly (only an idiot can?t understand this), the governing body viewed ?abstaining from blood? to be as morally vital as abstaining from sexual immorality or idol worship. This proves that the prohibition about blood is serious.What is sexual immorality? How many rules and laws does the WTS have detailing this?
"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock"/p 92 Uncleanness includes an intentional momentary touching of sexual parts or caressing of breasts. ( I Thess. 4:7, 8; 1 Tim. 5:1,2)
Such minor uncleanness can be handled at the discretion of an elder or two; it does not require a judicial hearing.
It may include the willful practice of heavy petting or the fondling of breasts.
The nature, circumstances, and actual extent of what has occurred may indicate loose conduct, which would require judicial action.
http://www.douknow.net/jw_m9.htm
Christians who unrepentantly commit idolatry or sexual immorality cannot "inherit God?s kingdom"; "their portion will be..the second death." (1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Revelation 21:8; 22:15) Note the contrast: Disregarding God?s guidance (8) concerning the sacredness of lifeblood can result in everlasting death. Showing respect for Jesus? sacrifice can lead to everlasting life (the carrot motivator for JWs). Paragraph 8 How did the early Christians understand and act on God?s guidance (9) about blood? Recall Clarke?s comment: "Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should ever be considered as representing the blood which has been shed for the remission of sins." History confirms that the early Christians treated the matter seriously. Tertullian wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals?and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals?At the trials of Christians you offer the sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them." Yes, despite threats of death, Christians would not consume blood. God?s guidance (10) was that important to them.First, who was Adam Clarke? Why do the words of a Methodist minister carry so much weight?
In spite of his vast knowledge, Clarke held some very "quirky" ideas. For example, he wrote: "There is scarcely any doubt now remaining in the philosophical world that the moon is a habitable globe." He described this "lesser light" as a place of mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes and seas, and he believed that the moon is inhabited by intelligent beings. Additionally, Clarke speculated that the "serpent," used by Satan as an instrument by which to approach Eve (Gen. 3), was a creature of the "ape" family. The New Testament, of course, indicates that the "serpent" was a snake (ophis), a limbless reptile (cf. Mk. 16:18; cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9; 20:2). Clarke also entertained the bizarre notion that Judas Iscariot did not commit suicide , as our common translations indicate in Matthew 27:5. Rather, the learned gentleman ventured the opinion that Judas was stricken with remorse over having betrayed the Lord. His mental anguish became so acute that he was seized with "violent dysentery." He got choked, fell off of a seat upon which he was sitting, and his bowels gushed out. Clarke further attempted to argue that Judas sincerely repented of his betrayal of Christ, and that the Bible student may entertain every hope that the traitor will enjoy eternity in heaven . Of course the evidence is clear that Judas hanged himself. The verb apagcho, in the middle voice, means precisely that, "to hang oneself." The same term is used to describe the death of Ahithophel in the Greek version of the Old Testament (2 Sam. 17:23). Moreover, Judas was described by Christ as the "son of perdition" (i.e., worthy of perdition; cf. 2 Thes. 2:3) who "perished" (Jn. 17:12). And Peter noted that the wayward apostle "fell away" and went to his "own place" (Acts 1:25), i.e., the place of which he was deserving.http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/clarkeBarnes.htm
Second, who was Tertullian and what other opinions did he have on Christian doctrine; does the WTS agree with those?
w02 5/15 p. 31 The Paradox of Tertullian Tertullian viewed the Son as subordinate to the Father. However, in his attempt to counteract modalism, he went "beyond the things that are written." (1 Corinthians 4:6) As Tertullian erroneously sought to prove the divinity of Jesus by means of another theory, he coined the formula "one substance in three persons." Using this concept, he attempted to show that God, his Son, and the holy spirit were three distinct persons existing in one divine substance. Tertullian thus became the first to apply the Latin form of the word " trinity" to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.
And the book The Theology of Tertullian notes: "[It was] a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea." Hence, Tertullian?s formula?three persons in one divine substance?played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom.g82 4/22 p. 25 Are You Immortal?
By the third century, Tertullian, a prominent church leader, taught: "Some things are known even by nature:
the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many . . . I will use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato when asserting Every soul is immortal."w02 7/15 p. 4 What Has Happened to Hellfire? ***
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian believed
that hell was a fiery place.w91 6/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers
In the third century C.E., Tertullian claimed that
women "who rub their skin with medicaments, stain their cheeks with rouge, make their eyes prominent with [black] antimony, sin against Him." He also criticized those who dye their hair. Misapplying Jesus? words at Matthew 5:36, Tertullian charged: "They refute the Lord! ?Behold!? say they, ?instead of white or black, we make [our hair] yellow.?" He added: "You can even find persons who are ashamed that they are old, and try to turn their white hair to black."Is taking a blood transfusion the same as eating blood in one?s food? Is blood consumed when injected into the veins?
Cells are not consumed or replaced in a transplanted heart?neither are the cells in the blood that is transfused.
g99 8/22 p. 31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary? ***
Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. He wrote:?Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant."
g90 10/22 p. 9 Gift of Life or Kiss of Death? ***
As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: "A blood transfusion is an organ transplant
Question 8: What indicates that the early Christians took God?s guidance (11) about blood seriously.
Paragraph 9
Some may imagine that the governing body (buzzword) simply meant that Christians were not to eat or drink blood directly nor to eat unbled meat or food mixed with blood. Granted that was the first import of God?s command to Noah. And the apostolic decree did tell Christians to ?keep themselves from things strangled,? meat with blood left in it (actually all meat has some blood left in it). (Genesis 9:3,4; Acts 21:25) However, the early Christians knew that more was involved. Sometimes blood was taken in for medical reasons. Tertullian* noted that in an effort to cure epilepsy, some pagans consumed fresh blood. And there may have been other uses of blood to treat disease or supposedly improve health. Hence, for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for "medical" reasons. They maintained that stand even if it put their life at risk.
Question 9: Abstaining from blood included what besides not eating blood directly?
Notice how the WTS tries to make the jump to using blood for "medical" reasons. First, they quote Tertullian who is an early Christian credited for developing the modern teaching of the trinity and who believed in the immortality of the soul and hellfire. Knowing that the WTS considers these teachings as unscriptural and unchristian, why would Tertullian then be a credible or reliable source regarding the Christian view of using blood? Second, what proof does this ambiguous statement provide, "there may have been other uses of blood to treat disease"? So the only support the WTS has is twisted comments of Tertullian, no scriptures, saying that medical use of blood is forbidden to Christians. I doubt that Tertullian?s words are considered part of the inspired scriptures.
*For further info on how the WTS twists the words of Tertullian, see this website (by Andrew Lusk, Maximus, and Marvin Shilmer):
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/tertullian.htm
This interview with Gary Busselman is a good read too:
http://www.bible.ca/jw-blood.htm
Blood as MedicineParagraph 10
Using blood medically is now common. Early transfusions were of whole blood?removed from a donor, stored, and given to a patient, perhaps a battle casualty. In time, researchers learned to separate blood into primary components. By using component transfusions, physicians could spread donated blood to more patients, perhaps plasma to one injured man (or woman) and red cells to another. Continued research showed that a component, such as blood plasma, could be processed to extract numerous fractions, which could be given to still more patients. Steps along this line continue, and new uses of fractions are being reported. How is the Christian (only JWs) to respond (exactly as the WTS tells them or the individual will be considered to have disassociated themselves, to be shunned by JW family and friends)? He has firmly resolved never to accept a blood transfusion, but his physician urges him (and her!) to accept one major component, maybe packed red cells. Or the therapy may consist of one small fraction extracted from a component. How can a servant of God (only JWs?no Christ in this appellation) decide such questions, bearing in mind that blood is sacred and that Christ?s blood is lifesaving in the greatest sense?
Question 10: What are some ways in which blood is being used medically, giving rise to what question?
To sum this paragraph up: Whole blood, primary components (e.g., plasma, red cells, packed red cells), fractions, which can Christians choose are JWs allowed to accept per the WTS?
Paragraph 11
Decades ago Jehovah?s Witnesses made their stand clear (as a group or as individuals making their own choice?). For example, they supplied an article to The Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27,; reprinted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? Pages 27-29 (printed below after this review).* Published by Jehovah?s Witnesses (not the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?). That article quoted from Genesis, Leviticus, and Acts. It said: "While these verses are not stated in medical terms, Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [white blood cell] and platelet administration." The 2001 textbook Emergency Care, under "Composition of the Blood," stated: "The blood is made up of several components: plasma, red and white blood cells, and platelets." Thus in line with medical facts, Witnesses refuse transfusions or whole blood or of any of its four primary components.
Question 11: What medically accurate position regarding blood have Witnesses long held?
So what medical facts were presented above? How do those scriptures alluded to rule out transfusion of whole blood, RBCs, WBCs and platelets?
Paragraph 12
The medical article continued: "Witnesses? religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of fractions such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these." Since 1981, many fractions (breakdown elements derived from one of the four major components) have been isolated for use (such as Hemopure, and other hemoglobin-based blood substitutes, made out of stored blood of either humans or animals). Accordingly, The Watchtower of June 15, 2000, provided helpful information on the subject in the article "Questions From Readers." (Evidently not important enough back then to put in a WT study article.) For the benefit of millions of current readers (only JWs), the answer is reprinted on pages 29-31 of this magazine ("Read it, you dummies!" says the WTS, "and quit writing and calling us all the time.") It provides details and reasoning, yet you will see that what it says agrees with basics present in 1981.
Question 12: (a) What position has been presented regarding fractions extracted from primary components of blood? (b) Where can additional information about this be found?
JWs were not given a blanket endorsement of ALL fractions back then; only the WTS approved ones. Each time a new fraction was developed, JWs would have to call WT headquarters to get "clarification" of the official position on that product before accepting it or risk being DF?d (up until 2000) or being viewed as having disassociated themselves from the WTS "family."
The Role of Your ConscienceParagraph 13 Such information brings conscience to the fore. Why? Christians (only JWs) agree on the need to follow God?s guidance (12), yet in some areas personal judgments must be made (the WTS cannot get religious recognition in some countries if it is perceived that the organization forbids its members to take blood transfusions).A press release distributed in 1997 by the Commission clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society?s stated position: "In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah?s Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah?s Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah?s Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to ?public health? (Press Communiqué Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95."Also read "The Bulgarian Files" here:
http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abandon.shtmlConscience is the inherent ability to weigh and decide matters, often moral issues. (Romans 2:14,15) You know, however, that consciences differ.* *At one point, Paul and four other Christians went to the temple to cleanse themselves ceremonially. The Law was no longer valid, yet Paul acted on the advice of the older men in Jerusalem (GB?). (Acts 21:23-25) Still, some Christians may have felt that they would not go into the temple (go into a church?) or go through such a procedure. Consciences differed back then, and they do today. (Whose conscience was Paul acted out, his own or the older men in Jerusalem?) The Bible mentions that some have ?consciences that are weak,? implying that others? consciences are strong (and by implication better). (1 Corinthians 8:12) Christians (only JWs) differ in the extent to which they have made progress in learning what God says (what the WTS says), in being sensitive to his thinking, and in applying such to their decisions. We can illustrate this with the Jews and the eating of meat. Paragraph 14 The Bible is clear that a person obedient to God would not eat unbled meat. That was so important that even in an emergency when Israelite soldiers ate unbled meat, they were guilty of a grave wrong, or sin. (Deuteronomy 12:15,16; 1 Samuel 14:31-25)Still such questions might have arisen. When an Israelite killed a sheep, how quickly did he have to drain its blood. Did he have to slit the animal?s throat for drainage? Was it necessary to hang the sheep by its hind legs? For how long, What would he do with a large cow? Even after drainage, some blood might remain in the meat. Could he eat such meat? Who would decide?
Questions 13, 14: (a) What is conscience, and how does it come into play regarding blood? (b) What guidance about eating meat did God (13) provide for Israel, but what questions might have arisen?
Translation: Make your own decision and quit writing and calling the Society with a zillion picayune questions.
Yet someone who made the wrong call and said it was their conscience would be found guilty of a grave wrong and punished. No wonder individual JWs are concerned.
Did you know that an Israelite could sell an animal that was not properly bled to a non-Israelite (Deuteronomy 14:21)? Does that mean a JW can donate their blood for others to use?
Paragraph 15 Imagine a zealous Jew facing such issues. He might have thought it safest to avoid meat sold in a meat market, much as another would shun meat if there was a chance that it was once offered to an idol. Other Jews might have eaten meat only after following rituals to extract the blood.* *The Encyclopedia Judaica outlines "complex and minute" rules (hmmmm) about "koshering" meat. It covers how many minutes meat must stand in water, how to drain it on a board, the texture of salt to rub on it, and then how many times to wash it in cold water. (They should read the article the WTS uses to justify fraction use with what passes between a mother and child in the womb.) (Matthew 23:23,24) What do you think about such varied reactions? Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council or rabbis to get a ruling on each one? (Now we see what the point is; JWs are sending a multitude of questions to the WTS.) Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshipers (only JWs) to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance (13) on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood (pouring it out), but he did not go beyond that.?John 8:32Question 15: How did some Jews respond regarding the eating of meat, but what did God direct?
Can you imagine what would have happened to the Jews that did not follow the rules set out by their religious leaders? Would they have been tossed out?
How many rules can you think of that the WTS has printed about the use of blood?
1930-2003 Index/Blood Transfusions/Bible View
autotransfusion (autologous; one?s own blood): w00 10/15 30-1; w00 12/15 30
induced hemodilution: w00 10/15 31; w89 3/1 31
machines that act as an organ: w00 10/15 31salvage and reinfusion: w00 10/15 31; g90 10/22 13; w89 3/1 31storage and reinfusion: w00 10/15 30-1; w89 3/1 30-1
blood components: w00 6/15 29; w90 6/1 30blood fractions: w00 6/15 29-31; w00 8/15 30; w90 6/1 30albumin derived from blood acceptable?: w94 10/1 31food possibly containing blood components: w92 10/15 30-1
from placenta and umbilical cord: w97 2/1 29injections containing blood-derived albumin: w94 10/1 31injections of fractions acceptable?: w90 6/1 30-1
medical use of one?s own blood?: w00 10/15 30-1; w89 3/1 30-1
resist court order?: w91 6/15 31
Saul?s soldiers not executed for eating (1Sa 14:32-34): w94 4/15 31Witnesses accept blood derivatives?: w00 6/15 29-31
prohibition applies even if the blood is from a live human: w83 4/15 30-1
prohibition applies whether taken into mouth or put into veins: w78 6/15 24; bq 17-18heart-lung pumps: g82 6/22 26; w78 6/15 30intraoperative salvage: g82 6/22 26using person?s own blood (autologous transfusion): uw 158; g82 6/22 25-6; w78 6/15 29-30; g72 4/8 29-30; w61 559; bd 14-15; w59 640
Paragraph 16 As noted in paragraphs 11 and 12, Jehovah?s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components?plasma, red cells, white cells (note that "blood" is eliminated from the description), and platelets. What about small fractions extracted from a primary component, such as serums containing antibodies to fight a disease or to counteract snake venom? (see page 30, paragraph 4 (see end of review)) Some (the WTS) have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command "to abstain from blood.? (Acts 15:29; 21:25; page 31, paragraph 1) That is their responsibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood (animal or human), even a tiny fraction of just one primary component.* *Increasingly, the main or active ingredient in some injections is a recombinant product that is not from blood. But in some cases a small amount of a blood fraction, such as albumin, may be included (do I see a lecithin witch hunt in the making?). See Questions From Readers in the Watchtower of October 1, 1994. (see end of review). Still others may accept injections of a plasma protein to fight disease or to counteract snake venom, yet they may reject other small fractions. Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry such on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians (JWs) would find them objectionable. (are they hinting at hemoglobin-based products?)Question 16: Why might Christians (JWs) have differing views about accepting an injection of a small fraction from a blood component?
"Small," "minute," "tiny," fractions, does it make a difference if it a large fraction? Can individual JWs actually make the determination that "minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood"? What do you think?
Paragraph 17 What the Bible says about conscience is helpful when we make such decisions. The first step is to learn what God?s Word (previous WT publications) says to strive to mold your conscience by it (the slave?s food at the proper time). That will equip you to decide in line with God?s guidance (14) rather than ask someone else to make a ruling for you. (Psalm 25:4,5)As to taking in blood fractions, some have though, ?This is a matter of conscience, so it doesn?t make any difference.? That is faulty reasoning. The fact that something is a matter of conscience does not mean that it is inconsequential. It can be very serious (especially if you do the above determine that minute fractions are longer blood when the WTS still does). One reason is that it can affect individuals whose conscience differs from ours (If the PO does it then I can do it). We can see from Paul?s advice about meat that might have been presented to an idol and was later sold in a market. A Christian (only JWs) ought to be concerned about not ?wounding consciences that are weak." If he stumbles others, he could ?ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died? and be sinning against Christ. Hence, while issues about tiny blood fractions are for personal decision, those decisions should be taken very seriously.?1 Corinthians 8:8, 11-13; 10:25-31.Question 17: (a) How can our conscience be an aid when we are facing questions about blood fractions? (b) Why is making decisions on this matter so serious.
Translation: Quit asking the elders, the COs, the DOs, and quit writing us. And quit telling others what your personal decisions are; you are stumbling them and making the write to us.
"Tiny"?
Paragraph 18 A related aspect underscores the seriousness of decisions concerning blood. This is the effect such decisions may have on you. If your taking a small blood fraction would trouble your Bible-trained (WTS guided) conscience, you should not ignore it. Nor should you suppress your conscientious leaning just because some tells you, "It?s all right to take this; many have."Remember, millions of people today ignore their conscience, and that becomes deadened, allowing them to lie or do other wrong things with no remorse.Christians (only JWs) definitely want to avoid such a course.?2 Samuel 24:10; 1 Timothy 4:1,2.Question 18: How can a Christian (only JW) avoid deadening his (her) conscience as to decisions about blood?
"Small"?
Who do you think would be most likely to be acting as someone else?s conscience?
Are JWs allowed to lie without remorse?
Insight Book Volume 2 p. 244 LieLying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person Paragraph 19 Near its conclusion, the reprinted answer on pages 29-31 (see below) says: "Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is consequential? No. It is serious." It is particularly so because your relationship with "the living God" is involved (which has to go through the WTS as the only true channel on earth). That relationship is the only one that can lead to everlasting life (JW motivational carrot), based on the saving power of Jesus? shed blood. Cultivate a profound regard for blood because of what God is doing by means of it?saving lives. Paul aptly wrote: "You had no hope and were without God in the world. But now in union with Christ Jesus you who were once far all have come to be near by the blood of the Christ."?Ephesians 2:12.13.Question 19: In deciding medical issues involving blood, what should we keep uppermost in mind? (the wrong decision according to the WTS rules could lead to your being cast out and shunned)
Two fears are used to pressure JWs here: 1) losing their relationship with God if they don?t guess what the WTS rule is this week on blood and 2) losing out on everlasting life on a paradise earth and being rejoined with the dead loved ones, the reason 99% of people get baptized as JWs.
Concluding CommentsA book could be written on the changing blood policy of the WTS. I almost feel like I have. The documents below were mentioned in this article. If you see another WT article you don?t have access to, let me know.
My concluding point was not mentioned in this article. I am tempted to write to the WTS to get an answer.
Since the Bible says that blood had to be poured out on the ground, how has it been that hemoglobin-based (blood fraction/hemoglobin) products have been used by JWs. These products are made out of stored blood. It this a conscience matter?
Why then does the slave say this:
w00 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out?returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah?s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ?abstain from blood.? Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ?poured out.? That practice conflicts with God?s law.Too bad there couldn?t be about 1,000 letters for all over send to WT headquarters????.
Sorry this is late. I finished my first week of work and they were pleasantly surprised how quickly I am catching on?.I took that as a compliment. There have been 3 deaths in my life this week, all finally released from the pain they were in, none saw the "end" though in their lifetime.
I hope the Texas crowd weren?t flooded out. Stay dry.Blondie
How Blood Can Save Your Life pp. 27-29 Jehovah?s Witnesses ? The Reprinted with permission of the American Medical Association from The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472. Copyright 1981, American Medical Association.
Physicians face a special challenge in treating Jehovah?s Witnesses. Members of this faith have deep religious convictions against accepting homologous or autologous whole blood, packed RBCs [red blood cells], WBCs [white blood cells], or platelets. Many will allow the use of (non-blood-prime) heart-lung, dialysis, or similar equipment if the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted. Medical personnel need not be concerned about liability, for Witnesses will take adequate legal steps to relieve liability as to their informed refusal of blood. They accept nonblood replacement fluids. Using these and other meticulous techniques, physicians are performing major surgery of all types on adult and minor Witness patients. A standard of practice for such patients has thus developed that accords with the tenet of treating the "whole person." (JAMA 1981;246:2471-2472)
PHYSICIANS face a growing challenge that is a major health issue. There are over half a million Jehovah?s Witnesses in the United States who do not accept blood transfusions. The number of Witnesses and those associated with them is increasing. Although formerly, many physicians and hospital officials viewed refusal of a transfusion as a legal problem and sought court authorization to proceed as they believed was medically advisable, recent medical literature reveals that a notable change in attitude is occurring. This may be a result of more surgical experience with patients having very low hemoglobin levels and may also reflect increased awareness of the legal principle of informed consent.
Now, large numbers of elective surgical and trauma cases involving both adult and minor Witnesses are being managed without blood transfusions. Recently, representatives of Jehovah?s Witnesses met with surgical and administrative personnel at some of the largest medical centers in the country. These meetings improved understanding and helped resolve questions about blood salvage, transplants, and the avoidance of medical/legal confrontations.WITNESS POSITION ON THERAPYJehovah?s Witnesses accept medical and surgical treatment. In fact, scores of them are physicians, even surgeons. But Witnesses are deeply religious people who believe that blood transfusion is forbidden for them by Biblical passages such as: "Only flesh with its soul?its blood?you must not eat" (Genesis 9:3-4); "[You must] pour its blood out and cover it with dust" (Leviticus 17:13-14); and "Abstain from . . . fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-21). 1
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. 2Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them. However, many Witnesses permit the use of dialysis and heart-lung equipment (non-blood-prime) as well as intraoperative salvage where the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted ; the physician should consult with the individual patient as to what his conscience dictates. 2
The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants (they did between 1967 and 1980); hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.MAJOR SURGERY POSSIBLEAlthough surgeons have often declined to treat Witnesses because their stand on the use of blood products seemed to "tie the doctor?s hands," many physicians have now chosen to view the situation as only one more complication challenging their skill. Since Witnesses do not object to colloid or crystalloid replacement fluids, nor to electrocautery, hypotensive anesthesia, 3 or hypothermia, these have been employed successfully. Current and future applications of hetastarch, 4 large-dose intravenous iron dextran injections, 5,6 and the "sonic scalpel" 7 are promising and not religiously objectionable. Also, if a recently developed fluorinated blood substitute (Fluosol-DA) proves to be safe and effective, 8 its use will not conflict with Witness beliefs.In 1977, Ott and Cooley 9 reported on 542 cardiovascular operations performed on Witnesses without transfusing blood and concluded that this procedure can be done "with an acceptably low risk." In response to our request, Cooley recently did a statistical review of 1,026 operations, 22% on minors, and determined "that the risk of surgery in patients of the Jehovah?s Witness group has not been substantially higher than for others." Similarly, Michael E. DeBakey, MD, communicated "that in the great majority of situations [involving Witnesses] the risk of operation without the use of blood transfusions is no greater than in those patients on whom we use blood transfusions" (personal communication, March 1981). The literature also records successful major urologic 10 and orthopedic surgery. 11 G. Dean MacEwen, MD, and J. Richard Bowen, MD, write that posterior spinal fusion "has been successfully accomplished for 20 [Witness] minors" (unpublished data, August 1981). They add: "The surgeon needs to establish the philosophy of respect for a patient?s right to refuse a blood transfusion but still perform surgical procedures in a manner that allows safety to the patient."
Herbsman 12 reports success in cases, including some involving youths, "with massive traumatic blood loss." He admits that "Witnesses are somewhat at a disadvantage when it comes to blood requirements. Nevertheless it?s also quite clear that we do have alternatives to blood replacement." Observing that many surgeons have felt restrained from accepting Witnesses as patients out of "fear of legal consequences," he shows that this is not a valid concern.LEGAL CONCERNS AND MINORSWitnesses readily sign the American Medical Association form relieving physicians and hospitals of liability, 13 and most Witnesses carry a dated, witnessed Medical Alert card prepared in consultation with medical and legal authorities. These documents are binding on the patient (or his estate) and offer protection to physicians, for Justice Warren Burger held that a malpractice proceeding "would appear unsupported" where such a waiver had been signed. Also, commenting on this in an analysis of "compulsory medical treatment and religious freedom," Paris 14 wrote: "One commentator who surveyed the literature reported, ?I have not been able to find any authority for the statement that the physician would incur . . . criminal . . . liability by his failure to force a transfusion on an unwilling patient.? The risk seems more the product of a fertile legal mind than a realistic possibility."
Care of minors presents the greatest concern, often resulting in legal action against parents under child-neglect statutes. But such actions are questioned by many physicians and attorneys familiar with Witness cases, who believe that Witness parents seek good medical care for their children. Not desirous of shirking their parental responsibility or of shifting it to a judge or other third party, Witnesses urge that consideration be given to the family?s religious tenets. Dr. A. D. Kelly, former Secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, wrote 15 that "parents of minors and the next of kin of unconscious patients possess the right to interpret the will of the patient. . . . I do not admire the proceedings of a moot court assembled at 2:00 AM to remove a child from his parent?s custody."
It is axiomatic that parents have a voice in the care of their children, such as when the risk-benefit potentials of surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy are faced. For moral reasons that go beyond the issue of the risk of transfusion, 16 Witness parents ask that therapies be used that are not religiously prohibited. This accords with the medical tenet of treating "the whole person," not overlooking the possible lasting psychosocial damage of an invasive procedure that violates a family?s fundamental beliefs. Often, large centers around the country having experience with the Witnesses now accept patient transfers from institutions unwilling to treat Witnesses, even pediatric cases.THE PHYSICIAN?S CHALLENGEUnderstandably, caring for Jehovah?s Witnesses might seem to pose a dilemma for the physician dedicated to preserving life and health by employing all the techniques at his disposal. Editorially prefacing a series of articles about major surgery on Witnesses, Harvey 17 admitted, "I do find annoying those beliefs that may interfere with my work." But, he added: "Perhaps we too easily forget that surgery is a craft dependent upon the personal technique of individuals. Technique can be improved."
Professor Bolooki 18 took note of a disturbing report that one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Dade County, Florida, had a "blanket policy of refusing to treat" Witnesses. He pointed out that "most surgical procedures in this group of patients are associated with less risk than usual." He added: "Although the surgeons may feel that they are deprived of an instrument of modern medicine . . . I am convinced that by operating on these patients they will learn a great deal."
Rather than consider the Witness patient a problem, more and more physicians accept the situation as a medical challenge. In meeting the challenge they have developed a standard of practice for this group of patients that is accepted at numerous medical centers around the country. These physicians are at the same time providing care that is best for the patient?s total good. As Gardner et al 19 observe: "Who would benefit if the patient?s corporal malady is cured but the spiritual life with God, as he sees it, is compromised, which leads to a life that is meaningless and perhaps worse than death itself."
Witnesses recognize that, medically, their firmly held conviction appears to add a degree of risk and may complicate their care. Accordingly, they generally manifest unusual appreciation for the care they receive. In addition to having the vital elements of deep faith and an intense will to live, they gladly cooperate with physicians and medical staff. Thus, both patient and physician are united in facing this unique challenge.REFERENCES
1. Jehovah?s Witnesses and the Question of Blood. Brooklyn, NY, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977, pp. 1-64.
2. The Watchtower 1978;99 (June 15):29-31.
3. Hypotensive anesthesia facilitates hip surgery, MEDICAL NEWS. JAMA 1978;239:181.
4. Hetastarch (Hespan)?a new plasma expander. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1981;23:16.
5. Hamstra RD, Block MH, Schocket AL:Intravenous iron dextran in clinical medicine. JAMA 1980;243:1726-1731.
6. Lapin R: Major surgery in Jehovah?s Witnesses. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:647-654.
7. Fuerst ML: ?Sonic scalpel? spares vessels. Med Trib 1981;22:1,30.
8. Gonzáles ER: The saga of ?artificial blood?: Fluosol a special boon to Jehovah?s Witnesses. JAMA 1980;243:719-724.
9. Ott DA, Cooley DA: Cardiovascular surgery in Jehovah?s Witnesses. JAMA 1977;238:1256-1258.
10. Roen PR, Velcek F: Extensive urologic surgery without blood transfusion. NY State J Med 1972;72:2524-2527.
11. Nelson CL, Martin K, Lawson N, et al: Total hip replacement without transfusion. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:655-658.
12. Herbsman H: Treating the Jehovah?s Witness. Emerg Med 1980;12:73-76.
13. Medicolegal Forms With Legal Analysis. Chicago, American Medical Association, 1976, p. 83.
14. Paris JJ: Compulsory medical treatment and religious freedom: Whose law shall prevail? Univ San Francisco Law Rev 1975;10:1-35.
15. Kelly AD: Aequanimitas Can Med Assoc J 1967;96:432.
16. Kolins J: Fatalities from blood transfusion. JAMA 1981;245:1120.
17. Harvey JP: A question of craftsmanship. Contemp Orthop 1980;2:629.
18. Bolooki H: Treatment of Jehovah?s Witnesses: Example of good care. Miami Med 1981;51:25-26.
19. Gardner B, Bivona J, Alfonso A, et al: Major surgery in Jehovah?s Witnesses. NY State J Med 1976;76:765-766.
w94 10/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers
Would it be proper to accept a vaccination or some other medical injection containing albumin derived from human blood?Frankly, each Christian must personally decide on this.
God?s servants rightly want to obey the directive found at Acts 15:28, 29, to abstain from blood. Accordingly, Christians will not eat unbled meat or products such as blood sausage. But God?s law also applies in the medical area. Jehovah?s Witnesses carry a document stating that they refuse ?blood transfusions, whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma.? What, though, about serum injections containing a tiny amount of a blood protein?
Witnesses have long realized that this is a matter for private decision in accord with each one?s Bible-trained conscience. This was pointed out in "Questions From Readers" of The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, which discussed serum injections that a physician may recommend if one is exposed to certain diseases. The active components of such injections are not blood plasma per se but antibodies from the blood plasma of those who have developed resistance. Some Christians who feel that they can in good conscience accept such injections have noted that antibodies from the blood of a pregnant woman cross into the blood of the baby in her womb. "Questions From Readers" mentioned this, as well as the fact that some albumin passes from a pregnant woman to her baby.
Many find this noteworthy, since some vaccines that are not prepared from blood may contain a relatively small amount of plasma albumin that was used or added to stabilize the ingredients in the preparation. Currently a small amount of albumin is also used in injections of the synthetic hormone EPO (erythropoietin). Some Witnesses have accepted injections of EPO because it can hasten red blood cell production and so may relieve a physician of a feeling that a blood transfusion might be needed.
Other medical preparations may come into use in the future that involve a comparatively small amount of albumin, since pharmaceutical companies develop new products or change the formulas of existing ones. Christians may thus want to consider whether albumin is part of a vaccination or other injection that a doctor recommends. If they have doubts or have reason to believe that albumin is a component, they can inquire of their physician.
As noted, many Witnesses have not objected to accepting an injection that contains a small quantity of albumin. Still, anyone wanting to study the matter more thoroughly before making a personal decision should review the information presented in "Questions From Readers" of The Watchtower of June 1, 1990.(Reprinted verbatim in the June 15, 2004 WT)
w00 6/15 pp. 29-31 Questions From Readers
Do Jehovah?s Witnesses accept any medical products derived from blood?The fundamental answer is that Jehovah?s Witnesses do not accept blood. We firmly believe that God?s law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions. Still, new issues arise because blood can now be processed into four primary components and fractions of those components. In deciding whether to accept such, a Christian should look beyond possible medical benefits and risks. His concern should be what the Bible says and the potential effect on his relationship with Almighty God.
The key issues are quite simple. As an aid to seeing why that is so, consider some Biblical, historical, and medical background.
Jehovah God told our common ancestor Noah that blood must be treated as something special. (Genesis 9:3, 4) Later, God?s laws to Israel reflected the sacredness of blood: "As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident . . . who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood." By rejecting God?s law, an Israelite could contaminate others; thus, God added: "I shall indeed cut him off from among his people." (Leviticus 17:10) Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ?abstain from blood.? Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.?Acts 15:28, 29.
What would "abstaining" have meant back then? Christians did not consume blood, whether fresh or coagulated; nor did they eat meat from an unbled animal. Also ruled out would be foods to which blood was added, such as blood sausage. Taking in blood in any of those ways would violate God?s law.?1 Samuel 14:32, 33.
Most people in ancient times would not have been troubled over the consuming of blood, as we can see from the writings of Tertullian (second and third centuries C.E.). Responding to false charges that Christians consumed blood, Tertullian mentioned tribes that sealed treaties by tasting blood. He also noted that "when a show is given in the arena, [some] with greedy thirst have caught the fresh blood of the guilty . . . as a cure for their epilepsy."
Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians: "We do not include even animals? blood in our natural diet," wrote Tertullian. The Romans used food containing blood as a test of the integrity of real Christians. Tertullian added: "Now, I ask you, what sort of a thing is it, that when you are confident [that Christians] will turn with horror from animals? blood, you should suppose them greedy for human blood?"
Today, few people would think that the laws of Almighty God are at issue if a physician suggested their taking blood. While Jehovah?s Witnesses certainly want to keep living, we are committed to obey Jehovah?s law on blood. What does this mean in the light of current medical practice?
As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah?s Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God?s law?and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah?s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God?s law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.
However, since blood can be processed beyond those primary components, questions arise about fractions derived from the primary blood components. How are such fractions used, and what should a Christian consider when deciding on them?
Blood is complex. Even the plasma?which is 90 percent water?carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries such proteins as albumin, clotting factors, and antibodies to fight diseases. Technicians isolate and use many plasma proteins. For example, clotting factor VIII has been given to hemophiliacs, who bleed easily. Or if someone is exposed to certain diseases, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin, extracted from the blood plasma of people who already had immunity. Other plasma proteins are used medically, but the above mentioned illustrate how a primary blood component (plasma) may be processed to obtain fractions.
Just as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be processed to extract a wound-healing factor. And other medicines are coming along that involve (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.
Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God?s command to ?abstain from blood.? They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be ?poured out on the ground.? (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.
Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions?
"Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, noted that plasma proteins (fractions) move from a pregnant woman?s blood to the separate blood system of her fetus. Thus a mother passes immunoglobulins to her child, providing valuable immunity. Separately, as a fetus? red cells complete their normal life span, their oxygen-carrying portion is processed. Some of it becomes bilirubin, which crosses the placenta to the mother and is eliminated with her body wastes. Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells.
Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential? No. It is serious. Yet, there is a basic simplicity. The above material shows that Jehovah?s Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to ?abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.? (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.
Many people would be willing to accept any therapy that seems to offer immediate benefit, even a therapy having known health risks, as is true of blood products. The sincere Christian endeavors to have a broader, more balanced view that involves more than just the physical aspects. Jehovah?s Witnesses appreciate efforts to provide quality medical care, and they weigh the risk/benefit ratio of any treatment. However, when it comes to products derived from blood, they carefully weigh what God says and their personal relationship with our Life-Giver.?Psalm 36:9.
What a blessing for a Christian to have such confidence as the psalmist who wrote: "Jehovah God is a sun and a shield; favor and glory are what he gives. Jehovah himself will not hold back anything good from those walking in faultlessness. O Jehovah . . . , happy is the man that is trusting in you"!?Psalm 84:11, 12.
[Footnote]See "Questions From Readers" in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, and October 1, 1994. Pharmaceutical firms have developed recombinant products that are not taken from blood and that may be prescribed in place of some blood fractions used in the past.
[Box on page 30]
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCTORIf you face surgery or a treatment that might involve a blood product, ask:
Do all the medical personnel involved know that, as one of Jehovah?s Witnesses, I direct that no blood transfusions (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma) be given to me under any circumstances?
If any medicine to be prescribed may be made from blood plasma, red or white cells, or platelets, ask:
Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup?
How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way?
If my conscience permits me to accept this fraction, what medical risks are there?
If my conscience moves me to decline this fraction, what other therapy might be used?
After I have considered this matter further, when may I inform you of my decision?
w00 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers In the light of Bible commands about the proper use of blood, how do Jehovah?s Witnesses view medical procedures using one?s own blood?Rather than deciding solely on the basis of personal preference or some medical recommendation, each Christian ought to consider seriously what the Bible says. It is a matter between him and Jehovah.
Jehovah, to whom we owe our lives, decreed that blood should not be consumed. (Genesis 9:3, 4) In the Law for ancient Israel, God limited the use of blood because it represents life. He decreed: "The soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls." What if a man killed an animal for food? God said: "He must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust." (Leviticus 17:11, 13) Jehovah repeated this command again and again. (Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15:23) The Jewish Soncino Chumash notes: "The blood must not be stored but rendered unfit for consumption by pouring it on the ground." No Israelite was to appropriate, store, and use the blood of another creature, whose life belonged to God.
The obligation to keep the Mosaic Law ended when the Messiah died. Yet, God?s view of the sacredness of blood remains. Moved by God?s holy spirit, the apostles directed Christians to ?abstain from blood.? That command was not to be taken lightly. It was as important morally as abstaining from sexual immorality or idolatry. (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25) When donating and transfusing blood became common in the 20th century, Jehovah?s Witnesses understood that this practice conflicted with God?s Word.
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out?returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah?s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ?abstain from blood.? Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ?poured out.? That practice conflicts with God?s law.
Other procedures or tests involving an individual?s own blood are not so clearly in conflict with God?s stated principles. For instance, many Christians have allowed some of their blood to be withdrawn for testing or analysis, after which the sample is discarded. Other more complex procedures involving one?s blood may also be recommended.
For example, during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.
The details may vary, and new procedures, treatments, and tests will certainly be developed. It is not our place to analyze each variation and render a decision. A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy. Ahead of time, he should obtain from the doctor or technician the facts about what might be done with his blood during the procedure. Then he must decide according to what his conscience permits. (See box.)
Christians should bear in mind their dedication to God and obligation ?to love him with their whole heart, whole soul, whole strength, and whole mind.? (Luke 10:27) Unlike most in the world, Jehovah?s Witnesses highly treasure their good relationship with God. The Life-Giver urges all to trust in Jesus? shed blood. We read: "By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses."?Ephesians 1:7.
[Footnotes]Professor Frank H. Gorman writes: "The pouring out of the blood is best understood as an act of reverence that demonstrates respect for the life of the animal and, thus, respect for God, who created and continues to care for that life."
The Watchtower of July 1, 1951, answered key questions about this subject, showing why transfusions of donated blood are not appropriate.[Box/Pictures on page 31]
QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELFIf some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be ?poured out on the ground??
Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into (or onto) my body?