Have you seen thsi on Blood?

Have you seen this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/790967.stm

Unbelievable, how is that a choice!..........wf

You can't fire me. I quit!

So this story is from 2000 and I bet almost no JW even knows about it. "Gods Channel" must be scrambled

Wow, Amazing Grace, very interesting indeed.  Of course, basically they are saying that by one's actions, one has disassociated.  Just legal speak.  As BlueCanary said:you can't fire me, I quit!

Wednesday, 14 June, 2000, 15:00 GMT 16:00 UK

Transfusions will no longer lead to expulsion

By the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent Jane Little

Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement have revoked a strict ruling that their members automatically face ex-communication if they accept blood transfusions.

The religious community insists that receiving blood is still wrong.

But under the changes, transfusions have been relegated to "non-disfellowshipping events" - in other words you will not be thrown out of the religion if you have one.

That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refused blood.

Only last week, a British Jehovah's Witness who lost pints of blood in a machete attack, renounced his faith at the last minute so that he could have the transfusion which saved his life.

Climbdown or procedural change?

But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.

He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.

If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.

But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.

Jehovah's Witnesses, who number six million worldwide, have suffered years of adverse publicity over blood transfusions.

It now looks like they quietly want to downplay this issue and to emphasise less controversial elements of the faith.

I don't see it as being a big change at all.  It is just weaseling their way out of the responsibility for deaths of JWs their partners and their children.

It is like Charles Manson pleading that he didn't stick the knife into Sharon Tate.

It only does away with the need for a JC.  Everything else remains the same.

Let the shunning begin.

Cheers

Chris

That is the current stand...no DF'g, but you diassociate yourself by taking blood.

That was the actual thing that made me look for the first time on the interenet about JW's, 2000 I think it was in a QFR.

Instead of being fired, you are layed off, forced to quit. Big difference...not.

Thanks Mouthy, it's funny but I was just wondering about this very question. I have been out for so long I wasn't sure if they disfellowshipped or not for taking blood. I see from that article they don't disfellowship, they just don't acknowledge that person any longer... I wonder what the difference is?

Snoozy

This just further proves what weasels they are.  Always trying to make themselves look good.  Who cares what happens to those adversely affected by their shunning and blood policies.

Their double-talk is so frustrating!!  Their result of shunning is the same. 

I agree with Black Sheep and White Dove.

Doesn't change a thing, just saves them the trouble of forming a committee. Evil bastards. 

So basically an intelligent jw could go ahead with the transfusion for themselves or children and simply cry about it later and pretend to be remorseful and sit in the back for a few months and then all is well and they can keep not only their family but their very life? wow, good deal.

How is this different than what so many jw's say about Christianity that goes something like this, ' you say you can be a Christian and go ahead and sin all will be forgiven?' when you are trying to point out their non biblical pharasitical rules & shunnning practices for ridiculous infractions. Isn't this the same thing? go ahead get the blood, suffer the congregational consequences but if you pretend to men you are sorry you will be considered forgiven after you sit through the man made alloted time of a congregational time out? Though Christians do not go to men for their forgiveness. (never mind the Catholics here, not who I am talking about). hmm, this isn't coming out right, does anyone get my  point anyway?

frazled mind today,

carla

I suggest that any JW needing a blood transfusion, goes ahead with it.  Since the WTS is having problems retaining members, I expect more of their policies will be changing.

I am very confused as to why the WTS needs to know anything about any medical treatment anyone needs to have.  They are not medical professionals.  This is personal information and probably falls under many 'Privacy Acts'.  They have no need to know this information nor should they in any way have access to it.  I personally would not divulge any of this type of information to these clowns.  This could be infringing on peoples' legal rights and the WTS needs to be very careful here.

My father hasn't accepted the blood fractions change so I doubt he'll accept this one.  The older the mind gets, the less likely to accept change it becomes.  The older ones can't keep up with these changes.  The WTS is a piece of work!   

I get your point Carla.

Also, that was the WT to covering their legal ass yet again. We've dropped the ban. We are not responsible for those deaths! Pretty soon it'll be 1975 all over again.

The average JW will still believe that a blood transfusion is banned in the bible and be caused undue pain emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Sounds like a huge CYA to me.....and Carla, I also get your point.

The wrongful death suits or the potential for them are catching up with them, I imagine. Expensive to fight and settle.

As someone mentioned above, it'd be fairly simple for you to keep such information from the elders. Patient privacy. Just makes sure the transfusions are delivered when they're not around.

I've already taken a blood faction, 20 years ago, in fact, I've done it 5 times all together. Rhogam. The first time I took it, it wasn't officially "okay" to do so, but I did it anyway.

Some of the Witnesses new, and kept their mouths shut for me about it.

It still makes absolutely no sense that you can take factions and not whole blood or plasma. Insane nitpicking.

If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

OK, let's take a closer look at this stupidity:  Who gets to decide if a person has disassociated themselves?  Is it in fact a "personal choice"?  Unless the person writes a letter to the BOE saying that they no longer want to be considered a JW, it is not a "personal choice" at all----merely another play at words.

This is akin to an employer saying "if you wear a red dress in here, we no longer fire you, but by your actions you have voluntarily quit."  Unless the person says "I'm giving you two weeks notice", they have not "voluntarily quit" at all and no judge, attorney or jury would see it as anything other than a firing.

I would assume that this is yet another pathetic attempt on the Borgs' part to try and avoid lawsuits from all the deaths they've been responsible for.  It might also, as has been mentioned, another attempt at slowly making the blood doctrine a 'conscience matter' without having to apologize to anyone for anything.

I have had so many calls to tell me I made a BOO BOO!!! ME!!!! Not possible LOL

I should have read the date on it   Printed in 2000 Sorry kids. Mum messed up AGAIN