Are blood fractions safer than primary blood components?

by IT Support 22 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  blondie

  XQ, can you show me in the WTS publications that the "blood being poured out" principle has been rescinded. To my knowledge and double checking with my local HLC that is still a valid principle and is why JWs cannot store their blood to use at a later time and why they cannot donate blood..

  While the WTS no longer mentions a 7,000 year long creative day, they do say this about storing blood only 4 years ago...and it is still valid per the WTS. This is why saying blood fractions (made out of stored blood which the average JW doesn't realize) are a conscience matter is so hypocritical. Believe me the HLC got very uncomfortable when I mentioned that. They said it was my decision. Of course, if I were DF'd because of it, I'm on my own.

  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.
• 

  Scully

  eyeslice is correct regarding the use of large donor pools to extract blood fractions.

  However, my understanding is that blood fractions are usually obtained from "pooled" blood sources. For example, a single dose of a blood clotting factor might have come from blood pooled from 200 or 300 blood donations. Hence the risk of contracting AIDs or CJD from a fraction could be potentially higher from a fraction than from the whole blood of 3 or 4 individuals in a transfusion of 3 or 4 units..

  I started a thread a while back about this: WTS approves of blood "orgies"!!

  While all donor blood is screened for hepatitis and HIV (among many other diseases that blood is tested for), there is always a very small risk associated with receiving a blood product, either a main component or a fraction. If you receive a blood product during the course of treatment, you should receive a document from the doctor or hospital that allows for the tracing of the blood product(s) you received in the very rare event of a product recall. Make sure you keep this document in a safe place.

  That being said, blood products have never been safer than they are now, and with the standards always improving and new and more precise testing methods being developed to screen out unsafe donors, I am confident that blood products will become more and more safe.

  If you are a healthy adult, there's no reason why you shouldn't donate blood either. One thing that has been a thorn in my side with the JWs on this issue is now that they have the option to take blood fractions, almost all JWs I have ever encountered in my practice would not hesitate to accept fractions if deemed necessary by a physician. Yet NOT ONE would consider donating their own blood for the extraction of blood fractions. I have asked discreetly. It's just maddening.

  Love, Scully
• 

  Axelspeed

  almost all JWs I have ever encountered in my practice would not hesitate to accept fractions if deemed necessary by a physician. Yet NOT ONE would consider donating their own blood for the extraction of blood fractions. I have asked discreetly. It's just maddening.

  I usually pose it this way?

  If you came across a bag full of money that fell out of the back of a getaway car running from the scene of a robbery. Would it be okay to scoop it up and use it for yourself, even if you felt it was for a good cause. Most good JWs will say "of course not!". Then ask why. They will normally say because its dirty money gotten illegally. Then I ask "And just how is that any different than using blood fractions that were obtained in a way (through blood donation) the WTS considers immoral, and thus illegal from gods standpoint.

  Axelspeed
• 

  blondie

  Good illustration, Axelspeed. My experience is that most JWs don't or don't want to know that blood fractions are made from expired stored blood. As Scully says, they would rather put the decision in the hands of the doctor.

  I donated blood again yesterday for the second time. It was even easier this time because I knew what to expect. Irrev would like to but his heart issues will not allow it. So every 8 weeks I go in now. There is little pain and it only takes 10 minutes to fill up the bag. The people are friendly and appreciative. Quite a few people get screened out because of past practices, past practices of partners, even traveling in certain countries can eliminate you for a period of time. The whole process takes about 45 minutes. Many employers here set up a donation center at their business and give employees time off to donate.

  http://www.redcross.org/donate/give/
• 

  shadow

  Blondie,
  
  
  Related to the question of storage are these comments:
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  NoBlood.org
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  blondie

  Cellsaving is not considered storing blood by the WTS. But there is no doubt that stored blood is used to make blood fractions...expired stored blood that has been around for some time, not just a quick run through a tube or machinery, back into the person.

  While the noblood.org has JWs posting on it and some of the staff may be active JWs, they do not have any official connection with the WTS. They merely respond to medical questions and will refer any religious/doctrinal questioners to the Hospital Liaison Committee in their area.

  www.noblood.org Who to Contact - For Those with Religious Concerns

  ---

  There is no doubt that medical emergencies are a stressful time for both those who have been afflicted and their family members. During such times there is a need for support. This may take the form of a visit by a close family friend, neighbor or one that shares a similar religious belief. Such assistance is similar in nature to what is provided by other support groups that are available for specialized diseases and groups.
  
  There are several religious groups that may have special needs. For instance, those with Jewish backgrounds may not accept heart valves, insulin, or hemoglobin solutions that are produced from pigs. A woman who is a devout Roman Catholic may wish to avoid having a procedure that would be abortive in nature or could destroy her ability to reproduce children.
  
  Jehovah's Witnesses
  
  The most common of groups that has a vested interest in bloodless medicine and surgery is Jehovah's Witnesses. For these individuals it is a non-negotiable position. Much information can be found about this group at their official Web site www.watchtower.org.
  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has provided specially trained members within their organization that help the individual members of their faith. The international arm of this arrangement is represented by Hospital Information Services, which is located in Brooklyn, New York. Located in many cities around the world are the agents of Hospital Information Services, which are arranged into groups known as hospital liaison committees, or HLCs. These groups of specially trained individuals work to help doctors and other medical professionals provide bloodless medical care for Jehovah's Witnesses.
  
  For the patient who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, it is best that they follow the procedure that has been delineated by their organization. They should contact the elders of their local congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. These elders are older men who have put themselves in the position to help the individual members and they are given special instructions on how to contact the members of the hospital liaison committee in emergencies. Patients can rely upon this arrangement when outside their hometown since the hospital liaison committees around the world are all interconnected via the world headquarters, Hospital Information Services.
  
  Research Ahead of Time
  
  This listing is by no means comprehensive. We at NoBlood.org are not in the position to research all of the available resources that exist. We have provided this basic research from published resources; however, you may find through contact with those of your religious affiliation that they might also have certain arrangements to help in emergencies.

  .
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  Blondie they changes the stance on "stored" blood when they allowed you to store your blood to be medicated and then put back inside your body. This is not the same as cell salvage. This would be withdrawing a quantity of blood then taking it to a lab have medication (such as an isotopic tracer) mixed with it and have it transfused back into you. Also another conflict that is freaky weird is that JWs allow bone marrow transplants. Go figure.

  In practice a JW could have their blood stored before surgery impregnated with antibiotics and recive the whole quatity of their blood during the surgery (their was a breif oversite that allowed a normal autologous tranfusion a few years ago but the quickly patched it). THere is a larger problem with JWs not understanding the watchtower policy than the policy being too strict (at least now days).
• 

  googlemagoogle

  the "blood has to be poured out" dogma is still in use. they contradict themselves with it, but they don't seem to care... because the stereotype witness won't ask "why" anyway...
• 

  IT Support

  the "blood has to be poured out" dogma is still in use. they contradict themselves with it, but they don't seem to care

  I have always firmly believed that if, e.g. you are willing to accept an organ transplant, you should also donate your organs for transplanation after your death. If you're opposed to donating your own organs, it would be hypocritical to accept one yourself, if you needed it.

  The same principle applies to blood. On the one hand, the Society permits JWs to accept fractions processed from stored blood, but on the other hand, they forbid JWs from donating blood because it will be stored. Some would call it a contradiction, I call it yet more hypocrisy.

  Regards,

  Ken
• 

  IT Support

  XQ,

  iN all reality the watchtower did the theolgical equivalent of the "94 Assault Weapon Ban".

  I quite agree. Thanks for your interesting comments.

  Blondie,

  Thanks for the references.

  While on the AJWRB site, I came across this interesting page, "Consumer Reports on Blood Safety" which includes some interesting statistics, contrasting the varying risks of blood transfusions with other life-and-death events.

  TD,

  Thanks for the interesting comments. You and XQ sound like you know what you're talking about.

  Concerned mama,

  Thanks for the reference.

  BluesBrother,

  I do not recall the WTS ever saying that that blood fractions were safer than a real blood transfusion.

  No, I don't think they ever have said that. I was just wondering for my own information.

  The reason I am asking about blood fractions / components, etc. is that I am updating my Health-Care Advance Directive (in the US, called the health-care durable power of attorney (DPA) form). Credit where credit is due, I think it is one of the few good ideas to come out of Brooklyn: I agree it is responsible to think through and put in writing your wishes in respect of organ transplantation and donation and end-of-life decisions before a crisis occurs.

  Anyway, in revising the section dealing with blood transfusions, the Society's original form obviously differentiates between these primary components and fractions. In this new, post-JW world, I had no idea how relevant these distinctions were, and whether there were medical reasons for carrying them forward. From the responses I've read so far, I don't think there are.

  XQ,

  I believe the stance of blood needing to be poured out is a sun set belief simular to the 42k years of creation.

  Interesting comment: I've just finished re-reading the study articles in the June 15 2004 WT and you're right, there's no mention in these articles of blood being poured out (other than as an aside [p23 par 14]). However, it is referred to in the Questions from Readers (p 30, right hand column, first paragraph), but it is in the context of how a JW must make their own conscientious decisions...

  Interestingly, there's no specific mention either of blood being stored, apart from an oblique reference (in the same paragraph as above) to it being "collected and processed."

  (While on the QfR, I suspect there's deeper significance to the second sentence: "We firmly believe that God's law on blood is not open to reform to fit shift opinions." Does anyone else think that's a dig at AJWRB? If so, it's significant in that the Society must be feeling the impact of their web site!)

  the belief that a fraction shoundn't be used if it replicates the "life saving function" of a "primary" component... These beliefs are now defunct

  I'm not sure if that's the case. See (same WT) p 24, last sentence of para 16:

  "Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable."

  Decyphering WT double-speak, I take this to mean that "such products" are forbidden.

  (they caught a hail storm of flack from the branches that held the former beliefs and didnot allow fractions). As well as issuing a gag order on the elder body, and service desk.

  I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Would you mind explaining further?

  As far as fraction biohazards think of it as drinking urine

  Interesting analogy! Thank you.

  Eyeslice,

  However, my understanding is that blood fractions are usually obtained from "pooled" blood sources. For example, a single dose of a blood clotting factor might have come from blood pooled from 200 or 300 blood donations. Hence the risk of contracting AIDs or CJD from a fraction could be potentially higher from a fraction than from the whole blood of 3 or 4 individuals in a transfusion of 3 or 4 units.

  Excellent point, thank you.

  Axelspeed,

  Always remind them that this is an issue of sacredness, not health, according to the society. To make this a health issue is to give wiggle room.

  Quite right.

  Eyeslice,

  although the Society has always made blood an issue of morality as opposed to health, the good health issue was seen as a positive side-effect if you like.

  I agree that's fair comment.

  Blondie,

  Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ?poured out.?

  There's no doubt this line of reasoning has been a significant underpinning of WT blood policy, as you quite rightly state.

  However, I don't think it's possible yet to be dogmatic about the shifting state of such policy. We are all too aware of the WT's sneaky insertion of new policy ideas over a number of years, small things at first, then later saying: 'This is nothing new, we said such-and-such five years ago.' and nobody had noticed or realised the significance of it...

  So it's probably too early to know whether they are deliberately dropping this line of argument. It may be significant, as XQ pointed out, that no mention was made of it in the June 15 WT...

  Scully,

  Thank you for your very interesting comments.

  (Sorry that my last post--which, on re-reading it today, seems terribly pompous -- duplicated your own reference to donating blood. I'd popped onto the computer and added it without having time to read all the new posts on this thread. That'll teach me!)

  Axelspeed,

  If you came across a bag full of money...

  Thanks, excellent illustration.

  Blondie,

  I donated blood again yesterday for the second time.

  Good for you. I'm going to do so at the first opportunity.

  Shadow,

  Thanks for the information. I hadn't realised www.noblood.org was back online.

  The site was apparently taken down a couple of years ago, I heard a whisper it was at Brooklyn's insistence-can anyone confirm? If so, why is it back up again? This time with Brooklyn's approval?

  Judging by the comments you quoted, I'd have thought Brooklyn would be highly displeased with it's re-appearance. Unless, of course, it's piggy-in-the-middle of a Brooklyn turf-war...

  Blondie,

  I just registered and looked at the Site Editors page. I recognise a number of the names as HLC brothers...

  XQ,

  Blondie they changes the stance on "stored" blood when they allowed you to store your blood to be medicated and then put back inside your body.

  Are you sure they allow that? Is it in print?

  Regards,

  Ken