Chukky, I am very sorry to hear that your 5 year-old child needs heart surgery. I hope everything turns out OK for you and your family. It is true some of the older Wts called transplants cannibalistic. However, you have to keep in mind that when transplants were introduced as a new surgical procedure, many ethical questions were raised. And it was not just the Witnesses who were asking them, but other groups. Was the procedure right in the eyes of God? Also, many early transplants were failures, leading even some in the medical profession to question their usefulness. This may help explain why Jehovah?s Christian Witnesses felt their were moral issues involving transplants. Also, some of the early WT articles linked transplants with transfusions. For instance, 11/15/67 Q&A WT article on whether or not one can donate body parts for transplants after ones dies, says the following ?Would a Christian who, while living, refused to give his blood to be used as a transfusion for some other person, allow his body to be turned over to a group or to a person and possibly at that time have the blood removed and used for transfusion, as has been done with some cadavers? (See, for example, Awake! of October 22, 1962, page 30.) A person might feel that he could stipulate that his body not be used in that way; but if many persons in authority refuse to abide by a Christian?s wishes about blood when he is alive, what reason is there to believe they will show more respect for his wishes after his death? Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments?? The link with blood transfusions is even seen after 1980, in a 5/15/84 WT Q&A article dealing with bone marrow transplants. (Related to ethical issues the ?Insight on News? section of the WT dated 11/15/74 which alluded to a horrid article by the president of the Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, called ?Harvesting the Dead,? which talk about the possibility of using clinically dead bodies for possible organ transplants and to ?draining periodically? for blood to be used as transfusions.) The issue of vaccinations are similar to that of organ transplants. When first introduced into the medical field, many vaccinations were dangerous. People died from them. Ethical and moral issues were raised not only by the Witnesses, but by other religious groups. Even some in the medical profession spoke against them. Now, they are generally safe, and it is up to the Witnesses whether or not they wish to take them. With regarding certain factors found in blood which are now allowed: the way I see it, when blood transfusions became popular in the 1950?s, the question was raised as to whether taking a transfusion would violate the apostles edict of Acts 15:28,29 to abstain from blood. Christians concluded that yes it was. Progress in the medical field as led to new technology whereby blood and its components can be separated. Certain parts, such as albumin, which is also found naturally in vegetables and eggs, can also be separated. If one wanted to get a transfusion from albumin, which is derived from blood, but not necessarily blood, then that is up to him and God. Some Christians, however, will not accept anything derived from blood. The Society while correctly noting that whole blood is strictly condemned in the Bible, also know that it is does not certain components, which are also available naturally in vegetable or eggs, and are separated from whole blood. Therefore, while not saying it is right, and it leaves up to the Christian to decide. A rough illustration - you?re told not to eat a ham and cheese sandwich. But the sandwich also includes mustard. You know not to eat the ham and the cheese, but maybe you can have the mustard.
