Started a personal research project on blood/medical issues

Advertisement

Viewed 604 times

    sd-7 posted Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:32:00 GMT(10/11/2011)

    Post 1989 of 3760
    Joined 7/31/2009

    I wanted my next project in the process of undoing Watchtower doctrine to be their history of statements/rulings on medical treatments. I found out just how little I really knew once I checked out ajwrb.org's scriptural discussion of the blood issue. The logic was excellent.

    As I thought about it, even as a young person I wondered, in some unknowable corner of my mind, why there was only one scripture in the entire New Testament that dealt with blood if it was such a serious matter. The apostles' writings and Jesus' words mention certain specific sins as being particularly heinous or serious. Fornication, adultery, stealing, murder, lying, idolatry, drunkenness--these are things mentioned repeatedly and condemned as things that would result in a person 'not inheriting God's kingdom'. But Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus NEVER say that someone who eats blood will not inherit God's kingdom, nor do they prescribe any kind of sanction or punishment for it. Paul, who seems to write a lot about Christian conduct, points out that even eating food sacrificed to idols--something explicitly warned against in Acts 15:28, 29--was really no big deal unless it stumbled someone. So even the actual eating of blood probably wasn't something the apostles lost sleep over. If it had been, I'm sure Paul would've mentioned it, like he did fornication and so many other wrongs.

    Under the Law of Moses, eating blood was a capital offense. But so were a lot of things, like breaking the Sabbath; yet Jesus said it was okay to break Sabbath to save a life. So why not in this case? Also, if we're going to reinstate the Law's penalty, in a roundabout way, without any New Testament justification for it, you know, like reinstating rules about getting a tattoo or making up rules about shaving your beard, then we're in a position where we're living by law and not by faith. And Paul said that living by law alienates people from Christ, and that if you live by law, you've got another side effect--if you break one law, you've broken them all, and you're stuck in a sinful state. To make these rules is to ultimately deny Christ's power to remove law and make forgiveness possible. Spiritual implications for that one abound...Christ is pretty much out of the equation, which means it's just a modified form of Judaism, really.

    And of course, we're talking about EATING blood here, not a blood transfusion. Eating blood cannot restore blood volume, so it's not relevant to the issue. The infamous alcohol analogy in the Reasoning book doesn't hold either, as alcohol and blood are two very different substances that will have very different impacts if taken through the veins.

    I had heard a lot about the organ transplant issue, which was, what, 1967 or so? That was called 'taking in human flesh to sustain oneself' and 'cannibalism' back then. With the typical protect-our-assets statement that it's a 'personal decision'. Right. Cannibalism is about as much a personal decision for a JW as murder, I should think. In 1980, they made it a choice for which no judicial action should be taken, given the possibility of a variety of opinions on it. The bizarre thing is that the very same logic they use to say organ transplants may be okay could be used to justify blood transfusions.

    The other factor is the symbolism of blood. In ancient times, the pouring out of blood was because life was taken. The animal sacrifices were killed, not just given a little cut or something. In a blood transfusion, the human donor is not killed to provide the blood, the blood itself is in fact still living. So pouring it out on the ground, really, would be kind of DISrespectful to life, when you think about it, as that's life that could be medically useful.

    The other question this raised in my mind was, if blood absolutely HAS to be poured out on the ground to show respect for life, then where does that logic end? Doesn't that mean we shouldn't wear Band-Aids or try to stop our own bleeding if we cut ourselves? After all, that blood is leaving the body so it HAS to be poured out. Otherwise, blood that went out of the body might very well find its way back in if we put pressure on the wound! Forgive me if that last part sounds foolish or ignorant; I'm just throwing it out there because, well, it was in my head.

    The other thing I didn't know--shows you my complete lack of medical knowledge--was that breast milk contains white blood cells for the first six weeks after an infant is born. This can be verified by any basic search on the subject. Given that white blood cells are forbidden components for JWs, doesn't that mean breastfeeding should be outlawed? The transmission of blood cells from one being to another is clearly a natural (ie. God-given, uh oh!) process. This reality places the Watchtower Society in the position of implying that God himself is wrong for allowing breastfeeding--which is, in part, feeding on another's blood cells in a most literal way. Because it's the same thing, just a different format.

    I was pretty ignorant on this subject and would have found myself uncertain were I faced with a blood transfusion. Not because I care about the Society's rules anymore, just because I had no other standard or concept to compare them to. The other factor is, well, I'm still married to a JW, and my wife might be in a situation where this could come up. There's also a kid or two in the mix, so...that involves them as well. I would feel like a criminal if I let any of them die because of a rule that isn't scripturally sound. (Even if it were, I'd still feel responsible.) The irony is that I learned quite recently that my wife had blood administered to her as a baby, as she was born prematurely. So she knows firsthand that it can save a life without major problems being the end result. Go figure.

    Personally, I'd rather store my own blood for future use if possible. At least I know where it's been, you know? And while I know they screen it for diseases and all, I'm not convinced that that process is an absolute guarantee of anything. Probably, it's pretty safe with some possible risks. I get that the risks were grossly overemphasized by the Society. So if it came down to it, I'd only want someone else's blood as a last possible resort.

    I'm just saddened that I accepted this teaching with so little genuine reason to do so. But there you have it. Entry is too long. Thanks for reading it, if you bothered.

    --sd-7

    M wobble posted Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:41:00 GMT(10/11/2011)

    Post 5397 of 5745
    Joined 2/20/2008

    Thanks for your contribution SD7, this is still one of the most important areas that need discussion and if possible media coverage, people die because of a faulty doctrine, based on a crazy use of scripture.

    Children die, children who have no say in what is done or not done to them, the decisions being made by parents who themselves have not looked at the issue in a logical rational way.

    Ignorant and mis-informed JW's are not fit individuals to make such decisions.

    As to taking a B.T for myself, I feel much as you do, if the luxury of using my own blood is possible ,then I far prefer that, simply for medical reasons. If it comes to dying or taking donated blood, no contest, I only have this life, I ain't goin' to squander it.

    Heaven posted Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:03:00 GMT(10/14/2011)

    Post 4051 of 5868
    Joined 4/16/2009

    Good article, sd-7. In my day, the stance was absolutely no blood allowed. As a teen this revelation to me was part of my awakening. I could not fathom that saving a life was against Jehovah. Knowing that blood cells are passed between mother and child, both in utero and during breast feeding after the child is born, definitely shows that the Watchtower's stance is inaccurate.

    My cousin needed a blood transfusion because she had been in a very serious car accident. She refused the blood transfusion and died. She had 3 young children. She was a Jehovah's Witness.

    There are always risks with any medical procedure. But to not attempt to save a life based on the inappropriate application of scripture is plain wrong.

    MMXIV posted Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:58:00 GMT(10/14/2011)

    Post 530 of 815
    Joined 2/16/2010

    Great article sd-7, I'd never considered white blood cells and breastfeeding - another logical oversight in their dangerous teaching

    mmxiv

    LoneWolf posted Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:36:00 GMT(10/14/2011)

    Post 484 of 511
    Joined 4/5/2001

    sd-7 -- You might want to check out this thread I posted years ago. It uses the Society's own teachings to refute their position, and it's one that I have never heard them try to argue against.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/41260/1/The-Blood-Issue

    Have fun with it!

    sd-7 posted Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:05:00 GMT(10/14/2011)

    Post 2009 of 3760
    Joined 7/31/2009

    Very impressive, Lone Wolf. In a spiritual sense, somebody just got dunked on.

    --sd-7

    M TD posted Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:29:00 GMT(10/14/2011)

    Post 3671 of 4793
    Joined 5/14/2001

    sd-7

    Does a Jewish midwife break the Sabbath in the performance of her duties?

    In Jewish law, the preservation of life is the highest of all mitzvah. It takes precedence over the Sabbath. Circumstances involving the preservation of life can therefore either make the Sabbath hutra (abrogated) or dechuya. (suspended) When the Sabbath is abrogated, it is as if it does not exist at all in regard to the entire situation. When the Sabbath is suspended, a person must limit themselves to only the exempt activity.

    Jesus' argument was that healing did not break the Sabbath. Big difference.

      Close

      Confirm ...