Confused about the blood policy

by Hondo 5 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Hondo

  I am a non-JW and just recently lost my wife to them after 20 years of marriage. She did the wallet "no blood" card bit and also filled out some "power of attorney" looking document, signed by sevenal other JW's, that essentially took me out of the decision making picture had my ex-wife ever need a blood transfusion but was unable to make her own decision. In other words, I would not have been able to save my wife's life. The designated people on the document would have made that decision and I would have had to what my wife die. It did not happen, which I am happy for.

  Question.

  I have read all the biblical quotes in Leviticus and Acts that supposedly authorize the JW to die. I don't get it... How do they interpret these phrases from the bible to mean that they are essentially "ok'd" to commit suicide. If I read correctly, the only punishment that the bible outlines, should someone break a blood rule, 2000+ years old, is cleansing oneself in the evening. The bible does not mention human blood at all, unless I missed something. All discussions, again unless I missed something, centered around animal blood. What thought process have the Watchtower/JW's used in determining these biblical passages authorize death? I can somewhat understand their concern about the very small chance of receiving tainted blood, everyone has this concern. With all the post-donation testing conducted on blood now-a-days, any rational/logical person should be able to weigh the chances of living by accepting a transfussion, against not accepting and perhaps dieing, or accepting a transfussion and risking the possibility of catching a desease and becoming sick, or even possibly dieing, which is very low as I understand it.

  Am I missing something here? My ex-wife was willing to die because of these bible passages, which say nothing about giving up ones life. Why? When confronted, all she would say is that it says she cannot accept blood because the bible says so. The Watchtower/JW's wrapped and packaged her very well.

  Appreciate any thoughts/comments/insight.

  Thanks

  Hondo
• 

  gumby

  http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/bloodlaw.htm

  Gumby
• 

  Scully

  In my opinion, the WTS's blood policy is deliberately confusing. You can find some excellent information at www.ajwrb.org (Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood).

  The current stance on blood transfusions is that infusions of the four major components of blood (red cells, white cells, plasma and platelets) are forbidden. However, fractions of those same components (such as clotting factors, immune globulins, albumin and haemoglobin) are allowed, but are Conscience Matters? for individual JWs to decide. This is where it gets tricky for the medical profession, because most JWs are poorly informed about what they can or cannot have, and rely on the judgement of their local Elders? and the Hospital Liaison Committee? in their area. If a JW makes an error in judgement (in the eyes of the local Elders?) and accepts a blood product that is not on the "approved" list, they can be Disassociated? which is regarded by JWs as a voluntary "resignation" from the JWs and carries the same social ramifications of being shunned by all JWs as being Disfellowshipped? for committing a sin like adultery. The average JW, rather than risk making such an error, would prefer to refuse all but the very clearly stated "acceptable" blood products.

  This is also dependent upon where you live, and whether JWs are legally recognized in the country where you live. For example, if you lived in Bulgaria, where JWs were denied the status of a religious group due to their blood transfusion policies, you would now be allowed to have blood transfusions and permit them to be given to your children, because the Official Policy? was modified to satisfy the conditions imposed upon them by the Government of Bulgaria, thereby allowing them to be granted legal recognition as a bona fide religion in that country. Unfortunately, the Official Policy? while it does not expressly forbid JWs to receive transfusions, is muddied by language in the Watchtower publications to the effect that True Christians? would not accept blood transfusions.

  Love, Scully
• 

  Annanias

  Hondo, Scully is right, the blood issue has become a big mess. First of all, I'm sorry that your wife is now an ex. That leads me wonder why you are concerned with this at all. What she may or may not have done with her blood card would probably not have had any legal bearing on the situation had she needed blood and you were still her husband. A couple of fruit loops running up and telling the doc, "Oh she was in my congo and she told me that she would never take blood!" wouldn't hold much water with her husband standing there saying, "Okay, do it."

  But, don't let the medical types fool you into thinking that there is nothing wrong with it and it's perfectly safe and blah, blah, blah. That is simply not the case. You have to remember that blood tranfusions became vogue and the instant cure-all to medicine back when mercury was used to treat syphillis, i.e. one rung above witch doctors. And like penecillin and an "organ uplift", a "blood exchange" was once considered "good for what ailed you". Taking blood, it's derivatives, it's substitutes, it's fractions, etc. is medically, a very serious thing, in spite of what the medical professions propaganda ministry would like everyone to believe. There are a near infinite number of problems that can arise before, during, and after the administering of blood.

  That said, it doesn't mean that there won't be a time such that if you don't get some more of your blood into your circulatory system you with die until you are dead. That can and does happen, and it doesn't matter where or what the circumstances, you will be in the midst of a very emotional scene. The issue for JWs comes down to the beief that Jehovah is going to be pissed if you (or your loved one) takes blood. IBut, if Jehovah gets pissed, that kind of flys in the face of the "life is sacred" concept, doesn't it? If a person refuses blood, knowing that they will die as a result of their decision, are they not committing suicide, which is supposedly as verboten to Jehovah as taking blood, isn't it? Now for the most extreme case (and therefore, the one everybody always cites) your child is dying without blood, now what? JWs say that if you allow blood, there is no absolute garuntee that the child will live, but I've never seen that as proving much. There are no absolute garuntees at all, are there? My slant has always been kind of a loophole thing: if I okay the administering of blood to my child in an effort to save his/her life, the responsibility does not lie with my child but with me. Therefore, if the child dies, Jehovah will not hold the blood issue against the child. But I can be held accountable, except that I have been willing to sacrifice my well being (everlasting life?) for the sake of another human being, and that, we are told, is the greatest example of love a person can show. And since love trumps all of the virtues, at the very worst, the love example should offset the decision to allow blood, and we will simply have to replay the down.

  What I have seen as far as the blood issue and the blood card and the medical notifications and so on was that they were, to most JWs, a kind of antagonistic badge of honor/acceptance. Kind of like those tattoos that various special forces troops (French Foreign Legion, SEALS) wear. Y'know, the ones that say "Jump or Die", or "Death Before Dishonor". Hey, I got a blood card, I'm now a made man!

  I hope I haven't confused you more. But when you get into the aspect of choosing reasons why death would be preferable to life, you're into heavy duty opinion.
• 

  Natural human

  Hello may name Alex and I have about 3 years in the truth and i have not return in my power of attorney of the blood issue. I steel have problem about the blood issue, but after read your situation it made me thing more about what to do on my situation in looking at the Blood issue.

  Thank you.
• 

  BluesBrother

  Thinking back into dub mode, I questioned the statement that vioation of the Israelite law on blood was something that carried a light punishment . I quote from the WT source on the matter

  *

  it-1 pp. 549-550 Crime and Punishment ***

  In many instances the penalty named is ?cutting off,? usually executed by stoning. Besides this being prescribed for willful sin and abusive, disrespectful speech against Jehovah (Nu 15:30, 31), many other things are named that bear this penalty. Some of them are: failure to be circumcised (Ge 17:14; Ex 4:24); willful neglect of the Passover (Nu 9:13); neglect of Atonement Day (Le 23:29, 30); making or using the holy anointing oil for ordinary purposes (Ex 30:31-33, 38); eating blood (Le 17:10, 14); eating a sacrifice in an unclean condition (Le 7:20, 21; 22:3, 4, 9); eating leavened bread during the Festival of Unfermented Cakes (Ex 12:15, 19); offering a sacrifice in any place other than at the tabernacle (Le 17:8, 9); eating of communion offering on the third day from the day of sacrifice (Le 19:7, 8); neglect of purification (Nu 19:13-20); touching holy things illegally (Nu 4:15, 18, 20); intercourse with menstruating woman (Le 20:18); eating fat of sacrifices.?Le 7:25