Watchtower Blood Transfusion, Denys and Crile

Watchtower Blood Transfusion, Denys and Crile

Watchtower writes:

“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 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.””—Respect for the Sanctity of Blood, The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961 p. 558

Watchtower cites the book by Crile as an authoritative source supporting the view that blood transfusion “nourishes or sustains the life of the body.” Watchtower fails to point out that Denys lived and worked in the 17th century.

Watchtower takes the quoted words above from the chapter VII titled A Brief History in Transfusion. In the same work by Crile we have chapter XIII titled A General Review of the More Modern Theories and Practice of Transfusion. This chapter presents the then current view on blood transfusion.

It is more than interesting that Crile writes in chapter XIII:

“The question as to whether or not blood acts as food when transfused is of interest. Hunter concludes that as it is not immediately destroyed, its nutritive value is not as great as blood taken by mouth. “We find that the loss of weight in starvation is unaffected by the transfusion of blood in whatever quantities and however often repeated, and this is the case even although at death the blood may not only be increased in quantity but be actually richer in quality that in health. This in one of Tchiriew’s experiments in which transfusion had been repeatedly made and in which the weight had steadily fallen from 6.928 to 4.583 kilos, the quantity of blood obtained from the body amounted to about 8.7 per cent of the body weight as compared with the 7 per cent usually obtained in health; and this blood contained 27.11 per cent of solids with 4.21 gms. of nitrogen, as compared with the 21 per cent of solids containing about 3.2 gms. of nitrogen usually found in healthy blood. Similar results were obtained by Panum, by a method, however, not as free from objection as that of Tchiriew, on whose results, as one those of Foster, the greatest reliance can be placed.

“The blood is primarily a carrier, and a given amount of transfused blood would contain a certain amount of nourishment and a certain amount of waste material. When mingled with the blood of the recipient it would add the former to the resources of the recipient to be taken up by then tissues while the waste material would be excreted. The blood corpuscles would perform their natural functions unless there should happen to be hemolytic action, as there sometimes is between similar bloods, and would suffer the same fate as the corpuscles of the recipient. The objection may be raised that transfused blood would not follow this course, but as the weight of evidence is in favor of its acting just as the animal’s own blood acts, the objection does not hold. In short, as borne out theoretically and by experiment, transfused blood is of very little, if of any, value as a food for the recipient. Large quantities of blood plasma would be much more likely to nourish than equal quantities of whole blood, but it is doubtful if enough could be injected to produce measurable results.”—Hemorrhage and Transfusion; An Experimental and Clinical Research, by George W, Crile, New York and London, D. Appleton and Company, 1909, Chapter XIII A General Review of the More Modern Theories and Practice of Transfusion, pp. 271-2

What Does This Mean?

It means Watchtower quoted a source to support its preferential view that blood transfusion “nourishes or sustains the life of the body” when in fact the very source cited says elsewhere that consequentially blood transfusion will not nourish or sustain the life of the body as though food.

Watchtower made deceptive use of Crile's book.

Marvin Shilmer

Any time the Watchtower want's to prove a point they point to supportive information of WORLDLY PEOPLE they however most often quote out of context to get their spin across so they only quote what they need.

LD

Yes, Crile was not agreeing with the humorous level of ignorance that he had found in a 252 year old (in 1909) research paper. 

The function of the placenta was understood in 1909 and the premise for Deny's theory was therefore understood to be incorrect.  And as you have pointed out, Marvin, Crile did in fact explicitly contradict that theory.

As the chapter title stated, Crile was providing a brief history of transfusion. This took the form of summarizing the misconceptions, accidents and mistakes that had befallen early researchers. 

WTS = Watch Tower Spin

I am sure that there was a WT article within the last 5(?) years that mocked something else that quoted an authority (medical I believe) that was a few hundred years old.  That citing such an authority would make them lose all credibility.  Does anyone remember that article?  Since I was aware of this situation with Denys, I was amazed that they would dare publish such a statement. 

I don't know about the last five years, but the Society has quoted various other older writngs and either misunderstood or misrepresented them. Sources include Thomas Bartholin and Joseph Priestly.

They have also misrepresented the ancient writings of Tertullian, and conveyed false impressions Pliny's writings as well.  

  The JWs leaders' case in banning the medical use of blood can be discounted
by the strength of the case that the four rules of Acts 15 were meant to reas-
sure Jewish law followers that they wouldn't have to avoid socializing with Gen-
tile Christians.  But it can also be discounted on their own terms:
 
  The similarity between transfusing and eating something depends on the thing
in question.  The similarity is greater with alcohol than with blood, so the JWs
leaders' example of the similarity between drinking and transfusing alcohol as a
reason to see eating and transfusing blood as similar is misleading.

  Eating and transfusing blood are analogous in the sense of resemblance in some
particulars between things otherwise unlike, like a horse and a cow or an orange
and an apple.  As the research by George W, Crile shows, that similarity is
slight at best.

  The JWs leaders' stance isn't that "abstain" at Acts 15:29 is an absolute.
They hold that "things offered to idols" are permissible as food when far enough
away from another's idolatrous use of them ("Insight on the Scriptures," 1988,
Vol.1, "IDOLS, MEATS OFFERED TO," pp.1172, 1173).

  The JWs leaders apply that reasoning to "blood"--the medical use of minor
fractions of blood is permitted since the similarity to whole blood is small
enough, and something around half the blood in animal meat can remain when the
meat is used as food.  (As opposed to the Jewish view, which interprets the ban
on eating eating animal blood as an absolute, the JWs leaders use a near-gener-
alization for it.  Animal slaughter removes about half, not guaranteeably more
than half, of the blood.  Neither view sees Mosaic law as giving a method of
preparing the meat further or cooking to determine their interpretation.)

  Applying the JWs leaders' reasoning to the comparison of eating and transfus-
ing blood, transfusing blood is so slightly similar to eating blood that trans-
fusing blood can't be banned on the grounds of a rule against eating.

  Applying the JWs leaders' reasoning to their stance on Gen.9:1-6, which is
that it's just an eating ban and requires capital punishment for killing, Gen.9:
1-6 can't be seen as sustained at Acts 15 to support a transfusion ban.

  That leaves the JWs leaders ban of the medical use of blood to hinge on their
stance that the "pour and bury" verses of Mosaic law apply not just to the blood
of slaughtered animals but that any blood removed from a person should be dis-
posed of, and that the JWs leaders' stance on that was sustained by "abstain
from...blood."  But it can be shown that those verses are about animals slaugh-
tered for food.

  The JWs leaders make exception to their own stance on the disposal of human
blood with their own reasoning about the allowance of something slightly similar
to something banned.  They allow the medical use of minor blood fractions that
wouldn't be available if the blood they were derived from was disposed of be-
cause the medical use of mnor blood fractions is only slightly similar to eating
blood.

  Since that's all the JWs leaders' stance of banning the medical use of blood
hinges on, even a sympathetic view of their stance is so slightly similar to a
strong case for a transfusion ban that it should allow transfusions. 

  Sorry for the double-post--I didn't edit in time.

  That leaves the JWs leaders ban of the medical use of blood to hinge on their
stance that the "pour and bury" verses of Mosaic law apply not just to the blood
of slaughtered animals but that any blood removed from a person should be dis-
posed of, and that the JWs leaders' stance on that was sustained by "abstain
from...blood."

  (The JWs leaders make exception to their own stance on the disposal of human
blood with their own reasoning about the allowance of something slightly similar
to something banned.  They allow the medical use of minor blood fractions that
wouldn't be available if the blood they were derived from was disposed of be-
cause the medical use of minor blood fractions is only slightly similar to eat-
ing blood.  So the JWs leaders' stance is that not disposing of blood fractions
is okay since only most of the blood needs to be disposed of.)

  But it can be shown that the "pour and bury" verses are about the blood of
animals slaughtered for food.  That just leaves a ban on eating human blood.

  Since that's all the JWs leaders' stance of banning the medical use of blood
hinges on,  even a sympathetic view of their stance is so slightly similar to a
strong case for a transfusion ban that it should allow transfusions.