If Ted Jaracz Dies Will the Governing Body Allow Blood Transfussions

by frankiespeakin 37 Replies latest jw friends

  • doodle-v
    doodle-v


    No matter who dies, the GB won't say outright in print what is now allowable and what isn't. They will use double entendres and hidden meanings to say things without really saying it, so the general public or the press won't pick up on it but the R & F will. They will gradually insert words like "personal choice" "between you and Jehovah" and "consience matter" in publications regarding blood so that many years from now they will say "it's always been a consience matter". Although I could be wrong because the GB has certainly damned themselves with regards to what they've printed about the blood issue. ie. "Youths who put God First" Awake. R & F are already confused about what exactly is acceptable regarding blood that most just refuse blood altogether without thinking twice. My brother did.

    Most JW's I know say that they refuse blood because of what the New World Translation says, not what the Governing Body tells them to do.In their mind they think they are following a law of the Bible. And yet there is the "double speak" in which in the same breath they hold on to every word the GB says because they are the "mouthpiece" of God.

    -Doodle-V

  • potleg
    potleg

    The Borg has always been a high controll outfit, sure they may say "it's a conscience matter" to the "outside" world, but within the borg it wont give up it's iron grip so easily. Kinda reminds me of old Henry Ford... You can have a model T in any color you want, as long as it's black.

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    What they believe is not what the bible says but what the GB wrongly advised to believe that it says. They have the erroneous perception here as on numerous issues because they believe in amateurs without a proper training, education in religion.

    Yes they are already trying to wiggle out of the blood doctrine but it won't work because people lost relatives needlessly due to it.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Doodle,

    Yes I sure they will have thier spin doctors in the writing and legal departments work up something.

    Green,

    Frankie, I think if they admit that they have been wrong all along on the issue that will greatly weaken their legal position, it will make them sitting ducks.
    I don't buy it. If they change thier policy, it don't open them up for legal repercussions, how on earth can that be used in a court of law against them??? What your saying don't add up.
  • Carol
    Carol

    In 1964 when I was 13, my mother the pioneer was due to deliver her 4th child, she had three of us 13, 10 and 8 and anothe on the way. As she had had the 10 yr old c-section and the 8 year old not c-section (he was a small baby and delivered within minute of arriving at the hospital), the doctors insisted number 4 be by c-section. When on of the three doctors in the practice found out she was a JW and would not have blood....he refused to deliver the baby, baring in mind this was a week before she was due to have surgery..... he was "not going to risk his record by having a patient bleed to death because they wouldn't have blood." My mother "stood firm in her faith" one of his older associates agreed to deliver the baby and everything turned out well! However, even at 13 I couldn't understand why my mother would be willing to die and leave the 3 of us older children without a mother, if a blood transfusion could keep her alive. I never said this out loud, she was going through enought without having a daughter brought up before the committe of 3.

    In 1975 my son was delivered by the same doctor that delivered my sister.......my non-believing husband assured me if I needed blood I was going to get it! I was relieved he was willing to take the decision out of my hands. I had a difficult, long, bloodless delivery!

    In 1987, I found myself pregnant for my daughter, at 5 months one of the Doctors wanted me to have an amnio done to make sure there were no problems (because of my age and the prior problem delivery) I refused telling him that if abortion had been an option I would have had one at 6 weeks not 5 months. He had a hissy fit....his associate...yes the doctor that delivered my sister and my son agreed to do the delivery......however there was a twist with this one...I had standing by at the time of delivery 7 pints of artificial blood.....it seems by non-believing husband's business partner was a medical doctor that was part owner of a company that manufactured this very expensive product. I did not need it however......and the hospital wasn't sure what to do with it (they tried charging me for it until I explained it was mine, sent for my use and they weren't charged for it and couldn't charge me for it).....I contributed it to the local blood bank!

    NOW, they're changing their minds....??? all those parents that watched their children die of lukemia because they couldn't have blood or bone marrow transplants....those little hemopheliacs......???? it makes you want to cry.

    I can see the problem with blood transfusion because of hepititus C or HIV/AIDS infection....but for crying out loud they test it now.....! I guess it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do" or maybe it's a case of "what's sauce for the goose may not necessarily be sauce for the gander".

  • Carol
    Carol

    Nathan, you can tease me any time you want! My sense of humor is so much better since I found this site. But it's obvious that maybe I should pick up a Watchtower and read it just to see how things have changed.....naw....why let the holy spirit get a toe-hold!

  • potleg
    potleg

    With all the people that have died because of not having a blood transfusion how could the Borg say it's OK or even make it a conscience matter without reprisals?

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Frankie I am not a lawyer but if the GB admit that their prohibiting the dubs to have transfusions was erroneous it lays them wide open to attack by the victims of this policy just picture yourself as a GB member you told a dub "don't let your child have blood because it violates divine law" and the child dies and then you later say no that was a wrong concept I am sorry, the parent will want to strangle you.

    If s/he sues I can't see how you can defend yourself after admitting that you gave the wrong advise. The world is not a kindergarden you can't play with people's lives and get away with it. Here you see hospitals getting sued left right and centre if a doctor's wrong advice causes the death of a patient. If the doctor admits to an error that's it they are left defenseless they are screwed.

  • VM44
    VM44
    TJ: I’m not going to repeat, I’m just going to tell you, you can see it all in writing. You know the Bible says do not go beyond the things that are written. We do not go beyond the things that are written.

    Really? Then why won't Judicial Committees put anything down in writing? even when requested to do so?

    Also, the Bible doesn't say to go beyone EVERYTHING that is written, the Bible is talking about the scriptures!

    Jaracz sounds like an obnoxious jerk.

    --VM44

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    Green,

    You couldn't make a case with what your saying.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit