Organ Transplants Bad->Good / Blood Transfusions Bad->Good ?

Advertisement

Viewed 3314 times

    still_in74 posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:32:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 1191 of 1276
    Joined 5/24/2007

    So what do you think? The whole blood fraction thing is rediculous, we all know that. But is it "warming" the R&F up for a shift to blood being a conscience decision?

    Pay particular attention to the WT of 1980............. some interesting wording here folks!

    Or gan Transplants are a conscience decision

    *** w61 8/1p.480QuestionsFromReaders***

    Questions FromReaders

    ? Is there anything in the Bible against giving one’s eyes (afterdeath)to be transplanted to some living person?—L.C.,UnitedStates.

    The question of placing one’s body or parts of one’s body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one’s death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself. If he is satisfied in his own mind and conscience that this is a proper thing to do, then he can make such provision, and no one else should criticize him for doing so. On the other hand, no one should be criticized for refusing to enter into any such agreement.

    Organ Transplants are BAD

    *** w67 11/15pp.702-704QuestionsFromReaders***

    Questions FromReaders

    ? 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.

    ...

    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.

    Organ Transplants are a conscience decision

    *** w80 3/15p.31QuestionsFromReaders***

    ? 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.

    ... The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

    What does this have to do with BLOOD?

    Here is the Watchtower’s history on the issue of blood

    ? 1940 Blood transfusions are acceptable

    ? 1945 Blood transfusion are not acceptable

    ? 1956 Blood serums should be treated as blood and are banned

    ? 1958 Blood serums and fractions acceptable

    ? 1959 Storage of own blood unacceptable

    ? 1961 Blood fractions are not acceptable

    ? 1964 Blood fractions are acceptable

    ? 1974 Blood serums are personal choice

    ? 1975 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are not acceptable

    ? 1978 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are acceptable

    ? 1982 Albumin is acceptable

    ? 1983 Hemodilution is acceptable

    ? 1990 Hemodilution is not acceptable (Blood Brochure)

    ? 1995 Hemodilution is acceptable

    So after all this what is acceptable and what is not?

    Acceptable

    ? Albumin

    ? Immunonoglobulins

    ? Hemophilia preparations (Factor VII & IX)

    ? Hemodialysis

    Not acceptable

    ? Whole blood

    ? Plasma

    ? White blood cell (Leukocytes)

    ? Red blood cells

    ? Platelets

    ? Storage of blood outside of the body

    The reasoning and logic behind how the Watchtower decides what is acceptable and what is not seems somewhat flawed. If we consider their current policy with
    regard plasma we see that it’s composition is made up of 92% water with the remaining 8% made up from Albumin, Immunoglobulins, fibrinogen and
    coagulation factors.
    So in fact every thing contained within blood plasma is on the Watchtower’s acceptable list but blood plasma on its own is not
    .
    So one can assume that as long as a patient requiring plasma receives the principle components separately there is not a problem.

    The ban on white blood (Leukocytes) cells is also illogical given that only 3 percent of a bodies total Leukocytes are contained in the blood system, with the
    other 97% being distributed through the body tissue
    . As the Watchtower now allows for organ transplants a patient receiving one will actually receive into his
    body more leukocytes from the tissue in the organ than they would if they had a blood transfusion. It is also worth noting that mother’s breast milk contains as much as
    12 times more Leukocytes than that found in a similar quantity of blood.

    The Watchtower makes a big deal out of their stance on blood when they talk about the benefits from abstaining from it. For example they state that from not
    having a blood transfusion the patient protects themselves from the risk of contracting diseases such as AIDS
    that may have contaminated the blood. The Watchtower fail to point out that Hemophilia preparation which were the major cause of transfusion acquired AIDS is on Watchtower’s acceptable list.

    Will BLOOD become a conscience decision like Organ Transplants did?

    Blood Transfusions are a conscience decision (?) - article generated from 1980 article above

    ***w2015 3/15 p.31QuestionsFromReaders***

    ? Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a medical treatment involving the use of particular blood fractions or a combination of all blood fractions?

    Regarding the transfusion of human blood 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 transfused blood 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 blood 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.

    Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical use of blood. 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 blood that would be transfused. It may be argued, too, that medical blood transfusions are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food.

    Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of medical treatments involving blood. 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 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 blood for medical use from humans where no life was taken. 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 a blood transfustion.

    M bennyk posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:42:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 405 of 666
    Joined 2/15/2005

    The possibility that the Organisation was moving toward considering blood transfusions a conscience matter was discussed a while ago; note the following (Thanks, Bulldozer):

    ***g73 6/8 p.15 Blood Transfusions - a Biological "Sin"***

    Since the blood cells are normally destroyed in sixty days and the liquid content turnover is even more rapid, a blood transfusion is a temporary or a transient transplant of a liquid organ. Indeed, this is undoubtedly the reason for its general acceptance at a time when organ transplantation is considered experimental.

    ***g74 3/22 p.21 My Life as a Surgeon***

    Blood transfusion is now recognized as a dangerous procedure-as hazardous as any other organ transplant.

    ***bq p.41 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood***

    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.

    ***hb p.8 Blood Transfusions - How Safe?***

    a transfusion is a tissue transplant.

    ***g90 10/22 p.9 Gift of Life or Kiss of Death?***

    As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: "A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. . . . I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions."

    ***g99 8/22 p.31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary?***

    Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.

    *********************************************************************************

    Perhaps this was intended to introduce a change in the Blood policy?

    ***g00 1/8 Pioneers in Medicine***

    [Footnote]

    Jehovah's Witnesses view organ transplant operations as a matter of individual conscience.

    M undercover posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:44:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 6205 of 13146
    Joined 9/25/2002

    The possibility is there, especially since they keep weakening their position on it.

    But the problem with them ever printing anything like what you've concocted is that it might lead to a wave of lawsuits from people who lost loved ones to death after refusing blood. As long as they keep the doctrine intact, though maybe with a less Nazi attitude about it, they can always say that they are upholding the Bible's law.

    It's sort of like the tobacco companies. They're never going to come out and admit all that's wrong with using their products. They have to print the warnnigs because of the government. And they'll slip and slide around the truth with some of their public service announcements. But if they were to ever just admit all that's wrong and give in to all pressure, the lawsuits they keep fighting now would be open and shut cases and they'd be in deeper trouble than they're already in. They have to keep the facade up so as to stay open.

    The same way with the JW blood doctinre. They have to save face so as to not open themselves up to a flood of lawsuits, thus threatening the very existance of the organization.

    viva posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:00:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 10 of 126
    Joined 3/10/2009

    It is too much a part of thier identity. I don't see them changing thier stance on blood even though it is clearly unscriptural. All restricitons in the bible are against the dietary consumption of blood, there is no nutritional value in a blood transfusion, nor does the transfused blood represent life (soul) as the donor is still alive (not so for many organs).

    However, blood technically is a connective tissue, maybe it is included in organ transplants? My conscience would allow that, not that I let the bible dictate my decisions.

    still_in74 posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:02:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 1192 of 1276
    Joined 5/24/2007

    But the problem with them ever printing anything like what you've concocted is that it might lead to a wave of lawsuitsfrom people who lost loved ones to death after refusing blood

    I agree 100% In fact i believe this to be the only reason that the WTS introduced the rediculous blood-fraction theory.

    Note thought, my "concoction" is almost word for word from the March 15, 1980 article on organ transplants quoted above. my substitutions are italicized and they are minimal.....

    F Mickey mouse posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:04:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 1094 of 4408
    Joined 12/11/2007
    But the problem with them ever printing anything like what you've concocted is that it might lead to a wave of lawsuits from people who lost loved ones to death after refusing blood.

    That didn't happen with transplants though did it? How many people must have died for want of a kidney? I've never read anything about successful lawsuits against the borg in connection with transplants.

    M hubert posted Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:20:00 GMT(3/10/2009)

    Post 3020 of 3315
    Joined 6/12/2004

    In response to Mickey mouse.... This is my pet-peave right now. ( I change occasionally) :)

    I think it's a matter of the time zone here. People that were in this position in the 1980's didn't sue like people of today. Today, you can get sued for anything, and everything. That's why the Watchtower is being more careful now how they "back out" of their "scriptural" laws, (flaws) according to their interpretation of the bible.

    I could never understand that either, until I realized it is a different society today than it was in the early 80's. Plus, the j.w.'s in those days...maybe also today? wouldn't sue the Watchtower Society, because even though they lost a loved one to the ridiculous practice of refusing organ transplants, would never THINK of sueing "God's Channel of Communication."

    I hope I am wrong here.

    Hubert

    M sir82 posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:52:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 2642 of 9321
    Joined 5/17/2005
    That didn't happen with transplants though did it? How many people must have died for want of a kidney? I've never read anything about successful lawsuits against the borg in connection with transplants.

    True, but...

    1) The organ transplant ban was in effect for only 13 years. The blood ban has been in effect for 48 years

    2) Far more people have medical need for blood transfusions than organ transplants

    3) Organ transplants were more rare, and the technology more primitive, in that 13 year period than now. Blood transfusions have been used, with a high degree of success, for 60+ years

    There are a ton - 10's of thousands, I'm sure - of unbelieving mates & disfellowshipped JWs who have lost relatives due to the blood ban who would have no qualms about trying a lawsuit against the Society.

    M slimboyfat posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:06:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 2837 of 8411
    Joined 11/24/2004

    Was anyone ever disfellowshipped for having an organ transplant?

    M leavingwt posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:11:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 1587 of 14200
    Joined 6/16/2008
    Was anyone ever disfellowshipped for having an organ transplant?

    Did anyone die, because of refusing an organ transplant?

    still_in74 posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:55:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 1193 of 1276
    Joined 5/24/2007

    could never understand that either, until I realized it is a different society today than it was in the early 80's. Plus, the j.w.'s in those days...maybe also today? wouldn't sue the Watchtower Society, because even though they lost a loved one to the ridiculous practice of refusing organ transplants, would never THINK of sueing "God's Channel of Communication."

    its amazing isnt it? when you read all those articles about not suing our brothers, who is the WTS really protecting? Us? I think not!

    M leavingwt posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:58:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 1588 of 14200
    Joined 6/16/2008
    its amazing isnt it? when you read all those articles about not suing our brothers, who is the WTS really protecting? Us? I think not!

    With ANY organization, follow the $$$. Maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. If you prove that they're NOT out to screw you, THEN you can be pleasantly surprised.

    I realize that's awfully cynical, but heck, I'm an ex cult member. Whadda ya expect?

    M undercover posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:03:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 6210 of 13146
    Joined 9/25/2002
    Note thought, my "concoction" is almost word for word from the March 15, 1980 article on organ transplants quoted above. my substitutions are italicized and they are minimal.....

    Yea, I gathered it was a rewrite with the key words changed. "concoction" may not have been the best word to use, but it was the best I could come up with at the moment.

    Isn't it interesting how they change their logic from one subject to another? They'll use a logical argument to support one doctrine, but if you use that same logic for another one, it doesn't add up the same.

    It's like the birthday/pinata thing. For years and years both birthdays and pinatas are bad. Then pinatas were okay because as their logical argument points out...it's not what pinatas used to mean but that it's now become a fun thing to do with no pagan or religious influence. You can take that same exact article and substitue 'pinata' withh 'birthday' and come up with a logical argument why birthdays should be okay to celebrate, but yet birtdays are still verboten.

    M sir82 posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:09:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 2644 of 9321
    Joined 5/17/2005

    Re: Birthdays:

    I recall someone on this site, many years ago, presented a line of reasoning (tongue in cheek of course) on why the Society should ban cosmetics for women. I don't recall the details, but the reasons for doing so would exactly parallel the reasons given for not celebrating birthdays:

    -- The only mention of cosmetics in the Bible are related to wickedness (Jezebel, prostitutes)

    -- Draws attention to the individual, not to God

    There were 2 or 3 other points - but it fit perfectly!

    M slimboyfat posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:54:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 2839 of 8411
    Joined 11/24/2004

    If no one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplantation doesn't that detract from the argument somewhat?

    M leavingwt posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:05:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 1592 of 14200
    Joined 6/16/2008
    If no one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplantation doesn't that detract from the argument somewhat?

    Somewhat, yes. I want to know if anyone died. The Society brags about the folks that die by refusing blood. Their hailed as "loyal unto death" and such. (It reminds me of the suicide bomber culture of death, with its proud parents, etc.) I've seen no article praising the dead folks that refused organs.

    Only if organ transplants were a common, life-saving procedure in hospitals at the time the ban was in effect, can we say that the ban on organ transplants was as egregious/immoral/disgusting as the current ban on blood. Right?

    -LWT

    M civicsi00 posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:12:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 326 of 616
    Joined 10/24/2007

    I have been researching this topic recently because of my father-in-law. He has started to tell one of the elders off that the Society has really screwed up the blood doctrine.

    In my research, I've learned that:

    -The Society admits that when the bible mentions blood, it is only in connection with taking it in as food.

    -The Society has also admitted that blood transfusions are tissue transplants.

    -Then the Society has admitted that they cannot be the judge of anyone who accepts a tissue transplant.

    The only two things I see that hold the Society back from permitting blood transfusions completely, without disfellowshipping, are:

    -They are still very adamant about teaching that blood transfusions are a nutrient (by using false analogies) and therefore should be rejected. (This is completely untrue, proven by modern medical knowledge, hence why they quote 17th century medical science when it comes to this.)

    -That it is a violation of God's law if someone sustains their life off of blood. (This is something that is NOT taught in the bible. It is a completely man-made rule.)

    M slimboyfat posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:20:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 2840 of 8411
    Joined 11/24/2004

    The worst thing about the blood doctrine as it stands in my opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept blood fractions but they will still not donate blood. That is just pathetic no matter what way you look at it.

    It also typifies their total lack of sense of community spirit within the communities in which they live. It is a "dying system" after all... unless they can use your blood fraction, then it's a case of, "that'll do nicely thank you very much, but don't expect me to betray my conscience and return the favour".

    dismayed posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:20:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 6 of 53
    Joined 3/9/2009

    I think they will permit all fractions even the "major" ones within 10 years. Then in about another 20 years they will drop it altogether.

    the light gets brighter....

    M leavingwt posted Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:31:00 GMT(3/11/2009)

    Post 1593 of 14200
    Joined 6/16/2008
    The worst thing about the blood doctrine as it stands in my opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept blood fractions but they will still not donate blood.

    I feel the worst thing is the dead children. This is not an abstract issue, it's a real issue. The lack of JW blood donors will not prevent anyone from getting a life-saving transfusion.

    -LWT

      Close

      Confirm ...