Fisherman,
JW, however, trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood.
This is going to be a long response and for that, I apologize in advance.
-----
In his 1898 novel, War Of The Worlds, H.G. Wells speculated that a highly evolved race would have developed past the need to eat food. These fictional beings, in fact, had no digestive
organs of any sort:
"Entrails they had none. They did not eat,
much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other
creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological
advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of
the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and
the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes
and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."
Although
an entertaining read, Wells had completely misunderstood the function
of blood even by the science of his day. Injecting the "fresh living
blood of other creatures" will not sustain any being of flesh and blood
because blood is not the "food" upon which the body is sustained; it is
only the transport mechanism.
Starting in 1944, (I can provide scans for anything and everything that follows) the JW parent organization began making negative comments about transfusion, but it was not until 1951 that they specifically stated the nature of their objection:
As everyone can see, JW leaders and policy makers were laboring under the exact same misconception as H.G. Wells. Blood, in their view was "nutrition" and transfusion was therefore an explicit violation of biblical prohibitions against eating it.
The 1953 edtion of the book Make Sure Of All Things (The brown one, not the green one) included this view as an official answer for believing Jehovah's Witnesses to give to outsiders.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would point out that the entire doctrine was based upon a very outdated misconception.
-----
In 1958, serums, such as the diphtheria and tetanus antitoxins were allowed as conscience permits on the basis that they did not nourish the body.
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
However this rationale, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have brought the doctrine crashing down, as transfusion does not nourish the body in any form.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would
ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----
In 1961, the JW's resorted to outright dishonesty in an effort to shore up the original argument. This occurred via a misrepresentation of an obscure medical text:
"It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: "In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinarythat is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes."
Hemorrhage and Transfusion, published in 1909, was an outdated and hard to find medical textbook even in 1961. (I found a copy at the library of the Cleveland Clinic, which Crile had founded.)
The quote in question appears in chapter VII, A Brief History Of Transfusion and reads, in context:
"In the same year [1667] Denys of Montpellier, wrote concerning experiments which he performed on animals. He followed Lower's method in a general way except that he did not withdraw enough blood from the donor to cause death. He also tried transfusion from three calves to three dogs with success in each case. In a letter to M. de Montmore he describes two transfusions which he made on patients. His idea was that "In practicing transfusion one can only imitate the example of nature which, in order to nourish the fetus in the uterus of the mother, makes a continuous transfusion of the blood of the mother into the body of the infant through the umbilical vein. In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary--that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes"
As you can see, Crile was not agreeing with the humorous level of ignorance he had found in a 17th century paper, but was simply providing a narrative of the history of transfusion.
In chapter XIII, A General Review Of The More Modern Theories And Practices Of Transfusion, Crile demolishes the outdated idea that transfusion nourishes the body, so there can be no question that he emphatically disagreed with Denys.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust a leadership that has not been honest with you. (I can give other examples)
-----
What followed for the JW's was a period of confusion. Conflicting statements on the acceptability of post-exposure vaccines and serums can be found in 1961, 63, and 64. JW's faced with medical dilemmas had to write the parent organization on the acceptability of specific treatments as there was not a clear, consistent rationale in JW literature.
Finally, in June of 1982, a new explanation was offered. Blood components were classified as either "major" or "minor." However the policy that the JW's enforced did not consistently follow their own reasoning. The only basis the JW's ever offered for the major/minor division was raw percentage of blood volume for each respective component.
Platelets which comprises roughly 2/10ths of 1 percent of your blood volume were forbidden while albumin which comprises slightly more than 10 times as much (2.2%) was allowed. Not one of the components of plasma was forbidden yet plasma as such (these components suspended in water) were forbidden.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would
again ask how can you trust an organization that has made errors this basic and fundamental to the discussion.
-----
In June of 1990 the 1982 rationale was replaced. Blood components were now divided on the basis of transference across the placental barrier during pregnancy. The same divisions remained. This (IMHO) was one of their better and more honest attempts at interpretation as it put God back into the equation via an appeal to natural consequence.
However this rationale was not technically viable either. Just two years later, in 1992 a female lab tech who had donated a blood specimen for analysis was found to have "Y" DNA circulating in her blood stream. Researchers were puzzled until it was disclosed that she was 6 weeks pregnant. The source of the "Y" DNA was her unborn son.
Cells in the blood of the fetus including fetal nucleated red blood cells, were crossing the placental barrier. Other studies detected fetal erythroblasts, trophoblasts, granulocytes and lymphocytes in the maternal blood. Since then it has been demonstrated that a woman can still have fetal blood cells in her blood stream more than 40 years after her last pregnancy.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
In June of 2000, the 1990 rationale for the allowance of some blood
components was replaced. Blood components are now classified as
either "primary" or "secondary." Like the other three explanations, this one is flawed.
Under this rationale fractions of any primary component are allowed as conscience permits, but the problem here is that cooking fractionates the primary components. The blood cells are ruptured by the heat and cease to exist as formed elements (i.e. primary components.) This rationale would lead to the conclusion that it's okay to eat blood as long as you cook it thoroughly, which is not at all what JW's actually teach.
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would repeat the same question.
-----
On the rolling green hills of Pennsylvania, there is a tiny grave; a casualty to a view on gamma globulin which the JW's have not taught for more than 50 years. (IgG is the basis of a all post-exposure vaccines today) JW's today would opine that this was the parent's choice and that nobody twisted their arm, when in fact, the JW organization was teaching at the time that children who were given a blood product and died would not receive a resurrection.
Throughout all of this, the JW parent organization has never once admitted they were wrong, or shown anything remotely resembling contrition for the human cost of their mistakes
You said that, "[JWs] trust the gb and believe in
their authority and Bible interpretation on blood" to which I would ask how you can trust an organization that takes zero responsibility and will happily throw grieving parents under the bus.
