[continued from above]
"Keeping Free From Blood .. Christians are told to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:20,28,29) Just how far-reaching is that? What do the Scriptures require of a dedicated servant of God? If you are killing an animal or a bird, then, to comply with God's law and to render that creature suitable for food, you must drain the blood. According to God's law you must refrain from eating blood or taking it, as in a transfusion, to sustain life. Genesis 9:3,4 and Deuteronomy 12:23,24 contain Scriptural commands. Leviticus 17:10 points out that those in ancient Israel who willfully took in blood would be cut off by Jehovah. However, if an Israelite happened to eat the flesh of a clean animal that died of itself or was torn by a wild beast, he was declared unclean until the evening, provided he cleansed himself. (Lev. 17:15,16) With Christians too, if someone partook of the meat of an animal that had not been properly drained of its blood when slaughtered, and it was not deliberate on his part and he repented when it later came to his attention, avoiding a recurrence of such wrongdoing, Jehovah would mercifully forgive him.. The Society does not endorse any of the modern medical uses of blood, such as the uses of blood in connection with inoculations. Inoculation is, however, a virtually unavoidable circumstance in some segments of society, and so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual to determine whether to submit to inoculation with a serum containing blood fractions for the purpose of building up antibodies to fight against disease. If a person did this, he may derive comfort under the circumstances from the fact that he is not directly eating blood, which is expressly forbidden in God's Word. It is not used for food or to replace lost blood. Here the Christian must make his own decision based on conscience. Employment and Your Conscience .. Therefore, whether a Christian will submit to inoculation with a serum, or whether doctors or nurses who are Christians will administer such, is for personal decision. Christians in the medical profession are individually responsible for employment decisions.. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person.. So whether a Christian who works in a store will dispose of blood goods, such as blood sausage, by selling such goods to persons of the world who are willing to pay for them is a matter of conscience. It is also a personal matter as to whether another Christian will sell blood items to worldly persons in a drugstore or will spread blood fertilizer on the field of a worldly employer at his request. Naturally, a Christian could not properly encourage persons to obtain blood goods rather than those free from blood and he could not advocate any misuse of blood. However, we must leave it up to the conscience of the individual Christian as to what he will do when it comes to matters of this nature in handling such products. One Christian should not criticize another Christian for the decision he makes, just as one Israelite could not reasonably criticize another Israelite for selling to a foreigner an animal that died of itself and hence had not been properly drained of its blood. The use of blood in adhesives for manufacturing plywood and other commonly used materials has now come to the attention of Christians, and we use plywood as an example. Much plywood is made using blood glue, but some plywood is blood-free. A Christian purchaser or contractor may seek to obtain blood-free plywood if he can do so; however, if he decides to use all types of plywood, it must be left to his conscience. It is not always possible to determine just how the plywood has been made. Because blood may be used in some plywood, this does not mean that a Christian could not buy, sell or rent a home or purchase a trailer in which plywood is found. The extent to which he would check on such matters is for him to decide.. Also, if a Christian is working for a company that uses blood glue in some of its plywood or other products, he would not necessarily have to quit his job. He may work in the woods, cutting down the trees. Part of the lumber is used one way and part another. The employee is not responsible for what happens to the wood after he has done his job. Of course, if a Christian worked in a plywood plant and it was required that he prepare the blood glue or apply it to the plywood, he might feel he could not conscientiously do this. He might request that his employer give him some other kind of work not handling blood. But even this is a personal matter. By doing other work for the same company, such as working as a truck driver, salesman, and so forth, the individual may feel he is free from responsibility for any misuse of blood. Since blood is used in the manufacture of so many common products, it becomes almost impossible for the Christian to avoid all contact with them - leather goods, furniture, bottle tops, cotton cloth, and so forth. So just what the Christian will do is a matter of conscience, and others should not criticize him. Certainly it would not be fitting to disrupt the unity of a Christian congregation in a certain locality by becoming involved in detailed discussions and contentions over the personal decision in this respect on the part of some Christian associated with that congregation. -Ps. 133:1; Prov. 26:21; Jas. 3:16-18." - 1964WTWR 11 15 680-3
"The fact that serums are prepared from blood makes them undesirable to Christians because of the Biblical law against the use of blood. However, since they do not involve the use of blood as a food to nourish the body, which the Bible directly forbids, their use is a matter that must be decided by each person according to his conscience.. Vaccinations appear to have caused a marked decrease in diseases.. The question as to whether you and your children should be vaccinated is something for personal decision. You must decide on the basis of what you feel is the best course for the health of your children as well as for your own health. No one should be criticized for his decision. In view of the many risks involved with vaccinations, the course of wisdom seems to be one of caution." - 1965AWAK 08 22 18/20
"Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one's body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source? -W.L., U.S.A. A number of issues are involved in this matter, including the propriety of organ transplants and autopsies. Quite often human emotion is the only factor considered when individuals decide these matters. It would be good, though, for Christians to consider the Scriptural principles that apply, and then make decisions in harmony with these principles so as to be pleasing to Jehovah. Acts 24:16. First, it would be well to have in mind that organ transplant operations, such as are now being performed in an attempt to repair the body or extend a life-span, were not the custom thousands of years ago, so we cannot expect to find legislation in the Bible on transplanting human organs. Yet, this does not mean that we have no indication of God's view of such matters. When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: 'A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul - its blood - you must not eat.' (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us. Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God's image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man's life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken. Gen. 9:5,6. When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others. It is of interest to note that in its discussion of cannibalism the Encycloppedia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Volume 3, page 199, has a section designated 'Medical cannibalism.' It points out that this is associated with the idea of obtaining strength or some medical virtue from the flesh of another human, adding: 'The most remarkable example of this practice occurs in China. Among the poor it is not uncommon for a member of the family to cut a piece of flesh from arm or leg, which is cooked and then given to a sick relative .. The whole superstition in China is certainly connected with the idea that the eating of the human body strengthens the eater .. Among savages the practice is found of giving a sick man some blood to drink drawn from the veins of a relative.' Some might argue that therapeutic practices involved in modern organ transplant operations are more scientific than such primitive treatment. Nonetheless, it is evident that men practicing medicine have not been beyond Modern science has developed many different types of operations that involve human body parts, some common and usually successful and others experimental and often unsuccessful. It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God's viewpoint presented in the Scriptures. Eph. 5:10. At present scientific researchers are starting to use artificial or animal parts where formerly human parts were thought necessary, such as in the case of cornea transplants. (See, for instance, Science News for May 21, 1966, page 396, and Time for April 28, 1967, pages 68 and 70.) Whether wider use of such operations will be made, we do not know. Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) However, we can be sure that in the future the time will come when all human medical operations will be unnecessary. (Rev. 21:4) Christians have strong evidence that the new order is near at hand when Jehovah the Great Physician will, through Jesus, do healing beyond the limitations of medical science of today. -Mark 8:22-25; John 11:43,44; Acts 3:6,7; Matt. 12:15. What should be done, though, when a Christian is asked to provide an organ for use in another person or to allow the body part of a deceased loved one to be so used? We might ask, If a Christian decided personally that he would not sustain his own life with the flesh of another imperfect human, could he conscientiously allow part of his flesh to be used in that way to sustain someone else? Even from a medical standpoint there is some question as to the wisdom and ethicalness of some transplants. One physician discussed this publicly in the Annals of Internal Medicine, citing the results of 244 kidney-transplant operations. In the majority of cases the recipient did not live more than a year after the operation. Then, commenting on the dangers for the volunteer who donates one of his kidneys, the doctor asked: 'Is it right to subject a healthy person .. to the possibility .. of shortening his life by 25 or 30 years in order to extend another's life by 25 or 30 months or less?' Reporting on this, Newsweek, of March 2, 1964, page 74, added that the doctor 'offers no conclusive answer, but he suggests that the question needs to be asked more often.' When it comes to deciding what to do with one's own body or with the body of a deceased loved one, for which a Christian is responsible, the apostle Paul's words at Romans 12:1 should not be overlooked: 'I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason.' Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration. Not to be overlooked is the use to which a dead body might be put. 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? Our bodies are the creation of Jehovah God. (Ps. 100:3; 95:6; Job 10:8) Christians might allow apparently necessary surgery to be performed, such as to remove a diseased limb, but they do not needlessly mutilate their bodies created by Jehovah. Would allowing a body to be mutilated after death be showing respect for and appreciation of God's creation? True, in some instances there may be legal requirements that Christians abide by, such as when the law requires a postmortem examination to determine the cause of death. (Rom. 13:1,7; Mark 12:17) In such cases the next of kin can usually request that the organs not be removed for transplant or reuse. In this way, even though an autopsy might be required, the Christian can prevent misuse of the body of a loved one. But when such laws do not apply, the Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God. -1 Pet. 3:16. It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him. -Prov. 3:5,6; Ps. 119:105." - 1967WTWR 11 15 702-4
"In a further argument for transfusion, it is claimed that what is transfused is merely a vehicle to convey food directly to the human body, and that the body does not feed on the vehicle itself. We therefore ask the question: After the transfused vehicular blood has released its oxygen and food elements to the body tissues of the patient, is this vehicular blood extracted from the patient's body and transfused back into the body of the blood donor? This would be quite embarrassing and impossible, especially where the blood donor or donors are not known or if the blood has been taken from a newly dead cadaver. So the transfused vehicular material is left in the patient's body. What then? Well, in the course of the years during which the human body renews itself into a new body, this vehicular blood is used or consumed by the patient's body, the same as any other transplant of an organ. In what way, then, does this outworking of things differ essentially from feeding on the transfused blood? The results are the same: the patient's body does sustain itself by transfused stuff.. Whereas the Mosaic law with its provisions about fat was abolished when Christ died as a sacrifice, the Apostolic Christian Council of Jerusalem reaffirmed God's law to Noah and applied it to the true Christian congregation. Christian fathers are obliged to teach this law and enforce it with regard to their minor children, for by God's law the fathers are the spiritual, religious guardians as well as the domestic parental caretakers of their underage children. The Christian witnesses of Jehovah today recognize that fact and follow the divine rule of conduct. They endeavor to keep their children from violating God's law to Noah and also the Jerusalem Council's decree. (Eph. 6:4) Rightly they try to protect their children from taking foreign blood into them." - 1967WTWR 12 01 720/724
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the for of whole organs or body parts taken from others.. The Scriptural Aspect .. Not to be overlooked are the religious, the Scriptural issues involved. There are those, such as the Christian witnesses of Jehovah, who consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism; and is not the utilizing of the flesh of another human for one's own life cannibalistic? .. hence unacceptable" - 1968AWAK 06 08 21
"Aluminum, From Curiosity To Versatility .. one of the most versatile metals known to man for which he should be grateful to the Grand Creator, who first locked it in the crust of the earth." - 1969AWAK 08 08 17-21
"Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually eating. But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? Examine the scriptures carefully and notice that they tell us to keep free from blood and to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:20,29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that mean simply that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all." - 1969WTWR 06 01 326-7
"masturbation is no mere innocent pastime but rather a practice that can lead to homosexual acts" - 1970WTWR 05 15 315
"How Is Your Heart? .. Where and what is your heart? You may say, What heart are you talking about? You know you have a heart in your chest, one that is pumping blood.. But do you have another 'heart' in your head, a 'figurative heart'? Is it part of your brain.. ? No! The brain, in which the mind resides, is one thing and the heart in our thorax, with its power of motivation, is another thing.. The Bible does not speak of a symbolic or spiritual heart in contradistinction to the fleshly or literal heart, just as it does not speak of a symbolic mind, and thus we do not want to make the mistake of viewing the literal heart as merely a fleshly pump as does orthodox physiology today. Most psychiatrists and psychologists tend to overcategorize the mind and allow for little if any influence from the fleshly heart, looking upon the word 'heart' merely as a figure of speech apart from its use in identifying the organ that pumps our blood.. The heart, nevertheless, is intricately connected with the brain by the nervous system and is well supplied with sensory nerve endings. The sensations of the heart are recorded on the brain. It is here that the heart brings to bear on the mind its desires and its affections in arriving at conclusions having to do with motivations. In reverse flow, the mind feeds the heart with interpretations of the impulses from the senses and with conclusions reached that are based on the knowledge it has received, either at the moment or from the memory. There is a close interrelationship between the heart and the mind, but they are two different faculties, centering in different locations. The heart is a marvelously designed muscular pump, but, more significantly, our emotional and motivating capacities are built within it. Love, hate, desire (good and bad), preference for one thing over another, ambition, fear - in effect, all that serves to motivate us in relationship to our affections and desires springs from the heart.. It is significant that heart-transplant patients, where the nerves connecting the heart and brain are severed, have serious emotional problems after the operation.. the new heart in turn registers few, if any, clear factors of motivation on the brain. To what extent the nerve endings of the body and the new heart are able to make some connections in time is not clear, but this cannot be ruled out as one of the several factors causing the serious mental aberrations and disorientation that doctors report are observed in heart-transplant patients. These patients have donor-supplied pumps for their blood, but do they now have all the factors needed to say they have a 'heart'? One thing is sure, in losing their own hearts, they have had taken away from them the capacities of 'heart' built up in them over the years and which contributed to making them who they were as to personality.. Medical World News (May 23, 1969), in an article entitled 'What Does a New Heart Do to the Mind?' reported the following: 'At Stanford University Medical Center last year, a 45-year-old man received a new heart from a 20-year-old donor and soon announced to all his friends that he was celebrating his twentieth birthday. Another recipient resolved to live up to the sterling reputation of the prominent local citizen who was the donor. And a third man expressed great fear of feminization upon receiving a woman's heart, though he was somewhat mollified when he learned that women live longer than men. According to psychiatrist Donald T. Lunde, a consultant to surgeon Norman Shumway's transplant team at Stanford, these patients represent some of the less severe mental aberrations observed in the Shumway series of 13 transplants over the last 16 months.' The article continues: 'Though five patients in the series had survived as of early this month, and four of them were home leading fairly normal lives, three of the nonsurvivors became psychotic before they died last year. And two others have become psychotic this year.. It is significant that heart-transplant patients, where the nerves connecting the heart and brain are severed, have serious emotional problems after the operation. The new heart is still able to operate as a pump, it having its own power supply and timing mechanism independent of the general nervous system for giving impulse to the heart muscle, but just as it now responds only sluggishly to outside influences, the new heart in turn registers few, if any, clear factors of motivation on the brain. To what extent the nerve endings of the body and the new heart are able to make some connections in time is not clear, but this cannot be ruled out as one of the several factors causing the serious mental aberrations and disorientation that doctors report are observed in heart-transplant patients.. These patients have donor-supplied pumps for their blood, but do they now have all the factors needed to say they have a 'heart'? One thing is sure, in losing their own hearts, they have had taken away from them the capacities of 'heart' built up in them over the years and which contributed to making them who they were as to personality.. The Human Heart Is Treacherous .. As we have learned earlier, the heart does not always listen to the mind. There are times when the heart overwhelms the mind despite its force of logic. We must remember that the heart reasons, too, although this has to do not so much with logic as it does with what is taking place in the heart as our motives, affections and desires take shape and gather momentum in a certain direction, whether for good or for bad. To illustrate, suppose the time comes when you must make a decision on buying a new suit or dress. First, the mind is confronted with certain facts. Perhaps older clothes are getting past their usefulness or there is a need for a change for some good reason. The heart comes very much into the picture too, as there is a desire at heart to look presentable. Heart and mind are in agreement that a new dress or suit be obtained. The mind now collects information on prices, quality, styles, and so forth, so that when you go shopping you have a pretty good idea which suit or dress should be purchased. But when you arrive at the store, there in the window is quite an eye-catcher, just waiting for the impulse buyer. It is not really practical for you; it involves much more money; it is rather extreme in styling; but how it tantalizes the heart! 'It's the heart's delight!' Now what will be done? What decision will be made? Will it be a practical, reasoned-out one, or one according to this new desire of the heart? If you are not very careful, the heart will overwhelm the mind. You will be motivated to follow a course against your better judgment." - 1971WTWR 03 01 133-40
"Operating with Stored Blood .. Men of science are constantly developing new methods for performing surgical operations. The Journal of the American Medical Association, dated November 15, 1971, described a procedure for open-heart surgery that employs sever hemodilution. Early in the operation a large quantity of blood is drawn off into a plastic blood bag. Though the bag is left connected to the patient by a tube, the removed and stored blood is no longer circulating in the patient's system. It is replaced with a plasma volume expander, which dilutes the blood remaining in the veins and which gradually dissipates during the operative procedure. Near the conclusion of the operation the blood storage bag is elevated, and the stored blood is reinfused into the patient.. These techniques are noteworthy to Christians, since they run counter to God's Word. The Bible shows that blood is not to be taken out of a body, stored and then later reused." - 1972AWAK 04 08 29-30
"God Readjusts the Thinking of His People .. Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940's Jehovah's witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position.. Other examples could be cited. Does this show that Jehovah's witnesses do not have the truth? Does this bring into question the basic principles of their teachings?" - 1972WTWR 08 15 501
"Transfusion Horror .. Two babies were infected with syphilis by blood transfusions at Germany's Kiel University Clinic last year, reports Wiesbadener Kurier. Infection spread to the parents. Not knowing the source, at least one of the families involved threatened to break up, each partner accusing the other of being unfaithful. Even though the truth came out in court, the damage was done. 'Two people will have told one another things of which they would be ashamed when they learned the truth,' notes the article. More Transplant Complications .. Recently it was reported that the incidence of cancer is 100 times greater among organ-transplant recipients than among the general population. However, the frequency of brain tumors is 'about 1,000 times greater,' according to Dr. Wolff M. Kirsch, of the University of Colorado Medical Center. The prolonged immunosuppressive therapy to prevent rejection of the new organ frequently entangles the patient 'in a snare of pathological processes,' he says. Prospects for helping such patients are considered 'bleak.'" - 1974AWAK 02 22 30-1
"'It has been especially gratifying to me to see at firsthand evidence of the truthfulness of the Bible's directives on blood. The medical profession itself has gradually come to appreciate that blood is not an innocuous lifesaver. Blood transfusion is now recognized as a dangerous procedure - as hazardous as any other organ transplant.. Today much is also made of the transplanting of various organs-kidneys, hearts, lungs and livers.. Because of what I have reason to believe is the Creator's view of organ transplants, I have serious reservations as to their Scriptural propriety.'" - 1974AWAK 03 22 21/23
"Serums or antitoxins are used. These are obtained from the blood of humans or animals that have already developed the antibodies for fighting the disease. Usually the blood is processed and the blood fraction (gamma globulin) containing the antibodies is separated and made into a serum. When this is injected into the patient it gives him temporary passive immunity. This is temporary, for the antibodies do not become a permanent part of his blood; when these pass out of his body he is no longer immune to the disease. It can thus be seen that serums (unlike vaccines) contain a blood fraction, though minute .. What, then, of the use of a serum containing only a minute fraction of blood and employed to supply an auxiliary defense against some infection and not employed to perform the life - sustaining function that blood normally carries out? We believe that here the conscience of each Christian must decide." - 1974WTWR 06 01 351-2
"Insight on the News - One Thing Leads to Another .. Decades ago, the transfusing of one person's blood into another's veins became a common practice. Then the transplanting of organs came into vogue. Where might this all lead? An article by the president of the Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, entitled 'Harvesting the Dead,' gives some idea. According to the article, many 'scientific and theological groups' favor a redefining of death. The new definition would label as 'dead' anyone whose brain functions had fully ceased, producing a state of 'irreversible coma.' What then? The suggestion is made that, although now legally 'dead,' the bodies could still be kept breathing and functioning through respirators in special hospitals, if desired, for a period of years. This could open the way for 'farms of cadavers which require feeding and maintenance, in order to be harvested.' These 'neomorts' legally 'dead,' but actually living bodies could then be used, the article says, for training medical students and interns, who could practice surgical procedures, including amputations. Major organs could be catalogued and computerized for ready availability in transplants. The 'legally dead' persons could be 'drained periodically' to supply blood for transfusion. Admittedly, the article presents these only as possibilities. However, interestingly, the author says that the initial precedent for all this is the 'blood donation' and the 'precedent in blood of commercialization.' In contrast, the Bible inculcates respect for people's bodies, even for those actually dead (not just in an 'irreversible coma'). (Gen. 23:1-6; 49:29; 50:24-26; 1 Sam. 31:8-13) But men today contemplate wholesale 'cannibalizing' of bodies. And even that seems too mild a term for cannibals never maintained 'farms' of human bodies to be 'harvested.' This shows where things can lead once men begin to violate Bible standards, including its prohibition of taking the blood of another creature into one's own body. See Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28,29." - 1974WTWR 11 15 684
"Hemophilia Treatment Hazard .. Certain clotting 'factors' [cryoprecipitated AHG] derived from blood are now in wide use for the treatment of hemophilia, a disorder causing uncontrollable bleeding. However, those given this treatment face another deadly hazard: the Swiss medical weekly Schweizer Med Wochenschrift reports that almost 40 percent of 113 hemophiliacs studied had cases of hepatitis. 'All these patients had received whole blood, plasma, or blood derivatives containing (the factors),' notes the report. Of course, true Christians do not use this potentially dangerous treatment, heeding the Bible's command to 'abstain from blood.'" - 1975AWAK 02 22 30
"Is the turning of people from the clergy to the psychiatrists a healthy phenomenon? No, for it really is a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They are worse off than they were before.. That [mental health professionals] are not the ones to go to for help when one is depressed and beset with all manner of problems is to be seen from the fact that suicides among them are twice as frequent as among the population in general .. what is needed at such times is not worldly psychiatrists who may wholly ignore the change that the truth and God's holy spirit have made in one's life and who know nothing of their power to help one put on a new Christian personality. Rather, what is needed at such times is a mature Christian in whom one has confidence and who is vitally interested in one's welfare and who will not shrink back from administering needed reproof or counsel so that one may get healed." - 1975AWAK 08 22 25
"Insight on the News - Transplant Problems .. It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: 'An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.' One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance. A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called 'personality transplant.' That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions. Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23." - 1975WTWR 09 01 519
"Your plasma also contains albumin. It works to retain water in your bloodstream, thus keeping the plasma in a liquid state and flowing in your system. If you experienced edema or swelling of your body, a blood test might show that your albumin level had dropped, and so let water from your blood escape through capillary walls and accumulate in your body tissue." - 1976AWAK 03 22 11-2
"'A Loaded Gun' .. The American public is continually warned about the hazards of drunk driving, smoking, cancer, narcotics, etc.,' notes 'Oasis,' a magazine published for employees of the U.S. Social Security Administration. 'But,' it continues, 'have you ever seen a warning dealing with blood transfusions? There is ample information available on hazards of transfusions .. in medical journals and such, but very few, if any, warnings. Sure, every transfusion may not result in a reaction or disease, but as one author stated on the subject, 'it is like playing liquid Russian roulette.' Every drunk driver does not cause a death or accident, everyone that smokes does not develop lung cancer .. not every loaded gun kills, but we are still warned about the potential dangers.. anyone who administers a blood transfusion should, like the Surgeon General warns about smoking, warn the participants that transfusions are dangerous to your health, as dangerous as a loaded gun." - 1976WTWR 06 01 336
"Masturbation and Homosexuality .. In fact, masturbation can lead into homosexuality.. Proper hygiene calls for certain handling of the sex organs, and one might feel that this would be a temptation to misuse them. But because your motive is right - with the aim of avoiding sexual tension - you may well find that such care will instead help you to take a more healthful view toward these organs. You will appreciate that they were never meant to 'take you over' and rule your whole life.. Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ .. will kindly and patiently help you to build up the needed strength so that you come off victorious." - 1976YYGB 35-8
"Could God's law on blood be set aside in times of emergency? The Bible answers, No. There was no special dispensation for times of stress. We can see this from what occurred with some soldiers of Israel in the days of King Saul. Famished after a long battle, they slaughtered sheep and cattle and 'fell to eating along with the blood.' They were hungry and were not deliberately eating blood, but in their haste to eat the meat they did not see to it that the animals were properly bled. Did the fact that this seemed to be an 'emergency' excuse their course? On the contrary, their God - appointed king recognized their action as 'sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.' -1 Samuel 14:31-35." - 1977JWQB 09
"There is no denying that in Bible times God's law had particular application to consuming blood as food. Intravenous administration of blood was not then practiced. But, even though the Bible did not directly discuss modern medical techniques involving blood, it did in fact anticipate and cover these in principle. Note, for example, the command that Christians 'keep abstaining .. from blood.' (Acts 15:29) Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?.. Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes. Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person's muscles or circulatory system (intravenously). What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether. Similarly, the decree that Christians must 'abstain from blood' clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream.. Persons who recognize their dependence on the Creator and Life-Giver should be determined to obey his commands. This is the firm position that Jehovah's Witnesses take.. It is out of obedience to the highest authority in the universe, the Creator of life, that they refuse to take blood into their systems either by eating or by transfusion. The issue of blood for Jehovah's Witnesses, therefore, involves the most fundamental principles on which they as Christians base their lives.. Their relationship with their Creator and God is at stake." - 1977JWQB 18-9
"Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood.. a bottle of blood is a bomb.. donating blood can be compared to sending a loaded gun to an unsuspecting or unprepared person" - 1977JWQB 41
"Does this brief consideration of only some of the medical risks of blood mean that Jehovah's Witnesses object to transfusions primarily for medical reasons? No, that is not the case. The fundamental reason why they do not accept blood transfusions is because of what the Bible says. Theirs is basically a religious objection, not a medical one. Nevertheless, the fact that there are serious risks in taking blood simply underscores the reasonableness, even from a medical standpoint, of the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take." - 1977JWQB 48-9
"Doctors know that alternative solutions are not really 'blood substitutes.' Why not? Because the hemoglobin of the red cells delivers oxygen throughout the body. Nonblood solutions do not contain this." - 1977JWQB 51
"Firmly Resolved About Life And Blood .. God did not then enforce on the rest of mankind his law against taking in blood any more than he did his law against idolatry. (Acts 17:30, 31; 14:16) So a Gentile might buy and choose to eat meat with blood in it. (Deut. 14:21) But a worshiper of the Creator could not do so. In fact, if an Israelite, evidently unaware at the time that the blood had not been drained, did eat flesh containing blood, he had to take steps to cleanse himself of his unintentional error. -Lev. 17:15,16. If animal blood, representing life, was not to be taken in for sustenance, that would be even more so of human blood. We can easily see this from what occurred when Jesus once spoke figuratively about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Some Jewish disciples who did not discern that he was using only symbols were shocked and left him. (John 6:60-66) Yes, the thought of taking in blood, whether animal or human, was abhorrent to those concerned with God's view.. Similarly, God's command to 'abstain from blood' rules out ingesting it by the mouth as well as through injections into the veins. Furthermore, the Bible makes it clear that the divine law was not to be ignored even during an emergency that could threaten life. (1 Sam. 14:31-35) Many of God's approved servants have been willing to face dangers and even death rather than violate Scriptural principles and their integrity to Jehovah.. So their everlasting destiny is tied up in their faithfulness to Jehovah. This includes their being obedient to what he says about blood.. Avoid bloodguilt from (1) eating blood [blood transfusions], (2) sharing in bloodguilty organizations" - 1978WTWR 06 15 22-5
"Are serum injections compatible with Christian belief? What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, hemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a 'gray area.' Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God's law; their conscience would permit such.. Hence, we have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis.. How concerned should a Christian be about blood in food products?.. This may call for a degree of care.. Christians, individually, must decide what to do." - 1978WTWR 06 15 29-31
"Watching the World - Transplanted Rabies .. A 37-year-old Boise, Idaho, woman was hospitalized with headaches and facial numbness about five weeks after having a forester's cornea transplanted into her right eye. She suffered gradual paralysis and died within a short time despite the efforts of her bewildered doctors. In time scientists traced the malady to the donor of her transplanted cornea. He had died of a neurological disease unknown at the time. But new tests of his frozen eyes revealed rabies virus." - 1979AWAK 06 22 31
"Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney? Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient's body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10. Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient's body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the 'donor' is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person's blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God's command. Acts 15:19,20. Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant." - 1980WTWR 03 15 31
"Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood? It would not be contrary to God's Word to permit the medical withdrawal and disposal of some blood. But to do this through the use of leeches would conflict with what the Bible says. Admittedly, leeches are not commonly used today. Yet questions about using them do arise, particularly in Europe. Noting what the Bible says about blood can help us to evaluate such treatments.. However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible's indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body." - 1982WTWR 06 15 31
"So too, 'abstaining from blood' means not taking it into your body at all." - 1982YCLF 216
"It is with this in mind, and not just to honor the requests of Jehovah's Witnesses, that Denton Cooley (of Houston, Texas) has performed open-heart operations now for over seven years, limiting transfusions wherever possible by substituting hemodilution, diluting the patient's blood with a glucose and heparin solution. If this method has given excellent results since then .. one wonders why it has not been extended to present-day surgery." - 1983AWAK 03 22 16
"The Israelites were told: 'You must not eat any body already dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.' (Deuteronomy 14:21) Though it was unbled, they could sell the carcass to an alien resident. In seeming conflict, Leviticus 17:10 says: 'As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in their midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.' Why the difference between these verses? In presenting their view, some have asserted that Deuteronomy 14:21 permitted the alien to eat unbled meat if it was from an animal that was not killed by man, for then man did not have to give its blood (representing life) back to God. Leviticus 17:15 might seem to support this view; it says that the native or alien who ate a 'body already dead or something torn by a wild beast' was simply to 'wash .. and be unclean until the evening.' So it could appear that no substantial guilt came from eating blood if the victim was not killed by man. Thus some claim that it would not be wrong to take blood from a living creature, using it for food or for transfusions. However, is the basic difference between Deuteronomy 14:21 and Leviticus 17:10, 15 a matter of how the animal died? The Scriptural answer must be, No. The Israelites knew that they absolutely could not eat unbled meat from an animal that died of itself or was killed by a wild beast. While still at Mount Sinai they had been told to dispose of such carcasses. (Exodus 22:31) Deuteronomy 14:21 is in harmony, directing Israelites in the Promised Land to get rid of such unbled carcasses but allowing them to sell such to aliens. Now let us carefully examine Leviticus 17:10. It says that no 'man of the house of Israel or some alien resident' should eat blood. Was that because the animal had been killed by a human and so the blood had to be returned to God? To claim such is to read into the verse more than it says. Further, if guilt resulted only if blood was from a creature killed by man, then Deuteronomy 14:21 and Exodus 22:31 would not have forbidden Israelites to eat unbled flesh from animals that were not killed by men. Yet the Israelites clearly knew they could not eat such meat. Ezekiel stated: 'My soul is not a defiled one; neither a body already dead nor a torn animal have I eaten from my youth up.' -Ezekiel 4:14; compare 44:31. Why, then, does Deuteronomy 14:21 say that the 'alien resident' could be sold unbled meat, but Leviticus 17:10 forbids the 'alien resident' to eat blood? Both God's people and Bible commentators have recognized that the distinction must have been the religious standing of the alien involved. Aid to Bible Understanding (page 51) points out that sometimes the term 'alien resident' meant a person among the Israelites who was not a full proselyte. It appears that this sort of person is meant at Deuteronomy 14:21, a man who was not trying to keep all of God's laws and who might have his own uses for a carcass considered unclean by Israelites and proselytes. Jewish scholars, too, have offered this explanation. So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness? We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: 'When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast .. although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty.' Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, 'he must then answer for his error.' -Leviticus 17:16. Thus eating unbled flesh was not a trivial matter; it could even result in death. No true worshiper (Israelite or full proselyte alien) could voluntarily eat unbled flesh, no matter if it was from an animal that died of itself, was killed by another animal or was killed by a human. (Numbers 15:30) The apostolic council confirmed this. Writing to Christians making up the spiritual 'Israel of God' it forbade eating that which was strangled, whether the unbled meat was from an animal that died from accidental strangulation or it was from one strangled by a man. -Galatians 6:16; Acts 21:25." - 1983WTWR 04 15 30-1
"The doctor may suggest that you have some of your own blood withdrawn and stored for use, if necessary, during a later operation. Would you agree? Remember that, according to God's Law given through Moses, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground. (Deut. 12:24) We today are not under the Law code, but the underlying message is that blood is sacred and, when removed from a creature's body, is to be returned to God by pouring it out on his footstool, the earth. (Compare Matthew 5:34,35.) So how could it be proper to store your blood (even for a relatively brief time) and then put it back into your body? But what if the doctor says that, during surgery or in the course of other treatment, your blood would be channeled through equipment outside your body, and then, right back in? Would you consent? Some have felt that, with a clear conscience, they could permit this, provided that the equipment was primed with a nonblood fluid. They have viewed the external equipment as an extension of their circulatory system. Of course, situations vary, and it is you that must decide.. Loyalty to Jehovah ought to make us resist {blood} resolutely, because we choose to obey God rather than men.. To persons who do not yet know Jehovah, arguments in favor of blood transfusions may at times seem to show high regard for the sacredness of life. But we do not forget that many who argue in this way also condone the destruction of life by means of abortion." - 1983UWTG 158-9
"Kingdom Unity Convention .. Are You Tolerating Secret Faults? .. How this talk made us think! It forcefully showed that whether we are observed by humans or not, God sees us and rewards faithfulness. Particularly dealt with were the secret faults of masturbation, excessive use of alcohol and yielding to pressure in the matter of blood transfusion on being assured that this sin would be kept secret. But all such tolerating of secret faults results in a bad conscience and Jehovah's disfavor." - 1984WTWR 01 15 28
"Could a Christian accept a bone-marrow transplant, since blood is made in the marrow? Doctors perform most bone-marrow transplants by withdrawing some marrow from a donor (often a near relative) and then injecting or transfusing it into the sick patient. They hope that the marrow graft will reach the patient's marrow cavities and later function normally. Usually this procedure is considered only in critical cases (such as aplastic anemia or acute leukemia) for there are acknowledged hazards in preparing a person for a marrow graft and in treating him afterward. As the question itself notes, red blood cells are formed in the marrow of certain bones such as the ribs, sternum and pelvic bones. Hence, it is understandable why, in the light of the Bible's prohibition on blood, the question arises whether a Christian could accept a graft of human bone marrow. The Bible states clearly that God's servants must 'abstain from blood.' (Acts 15:28,29; Deuteronomy 12:15,16) But, since red cells originate in the red bone marrow, do the Scriptures class marrow with blood? No. In fact, animal marrow is spoken of like any other flesh that could be eaten. Isaiah 25:6 says that God will prepare for his people a banquet that includes 'well-oiled dishes filled with marrow.' Normal slaughtering and drainage procedures never drain all blood cells from the marrow. Yet once a carcass is drained, then any of the tissue may be eaten, including the marrow. Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood with it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether to him the bone-marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or would be unbled tissue. Additionally, since a marrow graft is a form of transplant, the Scriptural aspects of human organ transplants should be considered. See 'Questions From Readers' in our issue of March 15, 1980. Finally, writing in Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (Update I, 1981, page 138), Dr. D.E. Thomas observes that 'virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions' and many are given 'packed red blood cells.' So the Christian should consider what additional issues he would have to face if he submitted to a marrow transplant. Proverbs 22:3. Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible's comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide." - 1984WTWR 05 15 31
"What are we to understand, then, by the word 'heart'?.. What an amazing number of different functions and capabilities are ascribed to the heart! Do all of these reside in the literal heart? That could hardly be so.. in nearly a thousand other references to 'heart' in the Bible, 'heart' is obviously used in a figurative sense.. obviously, a distinction must be drawn between the heart organ and the figurative heart." - 1984WTWR 09 01 03-7
"Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?" - 1985RFTS 073
"our position on blood is non-negotiable." - 1985WTWR 04 15 13
"Each batch of Factor VIII is made from plasma that is pooled from as many as 2,500 blood donors." - 1985WTWR 06 15 30
"Allow No Place for the Devil! .. What else does the Devil use in trying to turn us away? Has he not always tried to stir up rebellion, to cause Jehovah's servants to become critical of those taking the lead? 'The elders just do not understand. They are too critical, too demanding,' some may say. A person may go further and claim that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses or other responsible brothers interfere with freedom of conscience and the individual's 'right' to interpret the Scriptures. But remember Joseph's humble words: 'Do not interpretations belong to God?' (Genesis 40:8). And did not Jesus foretell that in these final days an organization of anointed ones, 'the faithful and discreet slave,' would be entrusted with providing spiritual food at the proper time? (Matthew 24:45-47). Beware of those who try to put forward their own contrary opinions. Also beware of those who want to throw off all restraints or who promise freedom, claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses are slaves!.. Occasionally you may hear someone question whether the Scriptural prohibition against eating blood really applies to transfusions. But what is behind that reasoning? Is it fear - fear of possibly losing one's present life or the life of a loved one? Is hope in the resurrection fading? Faithful Christians do not compromise on God's law or look for ways to water it down. Abstaining from blood to nourish the body is just as necessary as abstaining from fornication and idolatry, all condemned in the same spirit-directed decree of the apostles and older men at Jerusalem. -Acts 15:19,20,28,29.. Some who have a critical attitude claim that Jehovah's organization is too strict about cutting off social contacts with disfellowshiped persons. (2 John 10,11) But why do such critics feel that way? Do they have a close family tie or mistaken loyalty to a friend that they are putting ahead of loyalty to Jehovah and his standards and requirements?.. 'What is often the motive of those who criticize the Society or those taking the lead? Is it not often that some application of Scripture affects them personally? Rather than conform to sound doctrine and direction, they want the organization to change.. Again we ask, What is the motive of these critics? Are they encouraging wakefulness on the part of God's people, or are they, rather, trying to justify themselves for falling back into sleepy inactivity? (1 Thessalonians 5:4-9) More importantly, what will you do if you hear such a criticism? If a person is questioning whether we are living in 'the last days' of this system, or perhaps is entertaining ideas that God is so merciful that he surely will not cause the death of so many millions of people during the 'great tribulation,' then this individual already has prepared his heart to listen to such criticisms.. Yes, to all who are faithfully and loyally enduring in the Christian way, we are sure that Jehovah's truth is still beautiful, satisfying - even more so than when they first heard it.. Let us always appreciate our privilege of being in Jehovah's spiritual paradise, where we are enjoying so many rich blessings. We know who are holding faithfully to the sayings of everlasting life. So maintain close association with them, knowing that they are our genuine, loyal brothers and sisters in the faith. May we continue to have the same joy and satisfaction that we had when we first learned the truth, with the assurance of the grand prize of everlasting life in Jehovah's new system of things. As Paul so aptly said: 'Let no man deprive you of the prize'! -Colossians 2:18.. Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip" - 1986WTWR 03 15 16-20
"The ancient Egyptians believed that the physical heart was the seat of intelligence and the emotions. They also thought that it had a will of its own. The Babylonians said that the heart housed the intellect as well as love. The Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that it was the seat of the senses and the domain of the soul. But as time passed and knowledge increased, these views were discarded. Finally the heart became known for what it is, a pump to circulate the blood throughout the body." - 1986WTWR 06 01 15
"Sample causes of AIDS in these cases were: 'Exposed to virus-infected blood during surgery,' 'Infected by a 1983 transfusion,' 'Infected by a transfusion, she infected her husband and a son,' 'A blood transfusion gave him AIDS,' 'Contracted AIDS from blood transfusion during 1981 surgery,' 'Hemophiliac; his young son died of AIDS and his wife has ARC,' 'He got AIDS from a blood transfusion, and he endured three years of pain, paralysis and encroaching blindness.' One case, a 13-month-old baby, 'died, as did his mother, from a contaminated blood transfusion.' A two-year-old girl 'had a blood transfusion shortly after birth' and died of AIDS. In view of these evident risks, why are some authorities still insisting on forcing blood transfusions on adult Jehovah's Witnesses and their babies?" - 1988AWAK 04 08 31
"After discussing the notable example of David when facing the giant Goliath, the next speaker featured 'How Some Have Trusted in Jehovah' in modern times. For instance, there was a sister whose unbelieving husband, with gun in hand, threatened to kill her if she kept going to meetings. Others have demonstrated their trust in Jehovah when told that their life depended on accepting a blood transfusion. Youths have given proof of their trust in Jehovah by resisting pressures to go in for sports or to opt for higher education after completing high school." - 1988WTWR 01 15 25
"Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow the use of autologous blood (Autotransfusion), such as by having their own blood stored and later put back into them? Though Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, the Bible says that it is 'necessary' for us to 'abstain from blood,' viewing it as sacred. (Acts 15:28,29) This is understandable, for the sacrifices under the Law foreshadowed Christ's blood, God's means by which we can gain everlasting life. -Hebrews 9:11-15,22. How was blood to be dealt with under the Law if it was not used in sacrifice? We read that when a hunter killed an animal for food, 'he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.' (Leviticus 17:13,14; Deuteronomy 12:22-24) So the blood was not to be used for nutrition or otherwise. If taken from a creature and not used in sacrifice, it was to be disposed of on the earth, God's footstool. -Isaiah 66:1; compare Ezekiel 24:7,8. This clearly rules out one common use of autologous blood - preoperative collection, storage, and later infusion of a patient's own blood.. Jehovah's Witnesses, though, DO NOT accept this procedure.. In a somewhat different process, autologous blood can be diverted from a patient to a hemodialysis device (artificial kidney) or a heart-lung pump. The blood flows out through a tube to the artificial organ that pumps and filters (or oxygenates) it, and then it returns to the patient's circulatory system. Some Christians have permitted this if the equipment is not primed with stored blood. They have viewed the external tubing as elongating their circulatory system so that blood might pass through an artificial organ. They have felt that the blood in this closed circuit was still part of them and did not need to be 'poured out.'.. What, though, if the flow of such autologous blood stopped briefly, such as if a heart-lung machine is shut down while the surgeon checks the integrity of coronary-bypass grafts?.. a Christian having to decide whether to permit his blood to be diverted through some external device ought to focus, not primarily on whether a brief interruption in flow might occur, but on whether he conscientiously felt that the diverted blood would still be part of his circulatory system. -Galatians 6:5. What about induced Hemodilution?.. Some Christians have accepted this, others have refused. Again, each individual must decide whether he would consider the blood diverted in such a Hemodilution circuit to be similar to that flowing through a heart/lung machine, or he would think of it as blood that left him and therefore should be disposed of. A final example of autologous blood use involves recovering and reusing blood during surgery. Equipment is used to aspirate blood from the wound, pump it out through a filter (to remove clots or debris) or a centrifuge (to eliminate fluids), and then direct it back into the patient. Many Christians have been very concerned whether in such salvage there might be any brief interruption of blood flow. Yet, as mentioned, a more Biblical concern is whether the blood escaping into a surgical wound is still part of the person. Does the fact that the blood has flowed from his circulatory system into the wound mean that it should be 'poured out,' like the blood mentioned at Leviticus 17:13? If an individual believes so, he would probably refuse to permit such blood salvage. Yet, another Christian (who also would not let blood flow from him, be stored for some time, and later be put back into him) might conclude that a circuit with recovery from a surgical site and ongoing reinfusion would not violate his trained conscience.. When faced with a question in this area, each Christian is responsible to obtain details from medical personnel and then make a personal decision.. While modern medicine might be able to help us extend our lives for a time, we certainly would not want to extend our present life by doing anything that would violate our Christian conscience or would displease our Life-Giver." - 1989WTWR 03 01 30-1
"A Resolution .. As Jehovah's Witnesses, we testify that: .. (3) We abhor anti-God philosophies and practices, so common in Christendom, such as evolution, blood transfusions, abortions, lying, greed, and dishonesty." - 1989WTWR 04 15 18
"The faith of Jehovah's Witnesses is under attack from all sides - by the clergy of Christendom who hate the Kingdom message we take from house to house, by apostates who collaborate with Christendom's clergy, by medical authorities who want to impose blood transfusions on us and our children, by atheistic scientists who reject belief in God and the creation, and by those who try to force us to compromise our neutrality. All this opposition is orchestrated by Satan, the ruler of darkness and ignorance, the enemy of accurate knowledge." - 1989WTWR 12 01 12
"In 1979 Mr. and Mrs. Malette of Quebec, Canada, were involved in a car accident.. she was carrying a signed Medical Directive/Release Card, clearly refusing blood transfusions.. The doctor.. ignored those instructions.. Mrs. Malette sued the doctor and the hospital .. she was awarded $20,000." - 1990AWAK 09 08 31
"the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry has tried to clamp down on the trade, saying that it is unreasonable to profit from blood. In fact, the Ministry charges that medical institutions in Japan make some $200,000,000 in profits each year from just one plasma component, albumin." - 1990AWAK 10 22 05
"It is not surprising that transfusing such a complex substance might, as one surgeon put it, 'confuse' the body's immune system. In fact, a blood transfusion can suppress immunity for as long as a year. To some, this is the most threatening aspect of transfusions. Then there are infectious diseases as well. They have exotic names, such as Chagas' disease and cytomegalovirus. Effects range from fever and chills to death. Dr. Joseph Feldschuh of the Cornell University of Medicine says that there is 1 chance in 10 of getting some sort of infection from a transfusion. It is like playing Russian roulette with a ten-chamber revolver. Recent studies have also shown that blood transfusions during cancer surgery may actually increase the risk of recurrence of the cancer. No wonder a television news program claimed that a blood transfusion could be the biggest obstacle to recovery from surgery. Hepatitis infects hundreds of thousands and kills many more transfusion recipients than AIDS does, but it gets little of the publicity. No one knows the extent of the deaths, but economist Ross Eckert says that it may be the equivalent of a DC-10 airliner full of people crashing every month.. As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: 'A blood transfusion is an organ transplant.'" - 1990AWAK 10 22 09
"The evidence mounts that blood transfusions are harmful to the immune system." - 1990AWAK 11 22 12
[continued below]
