Associated JWs for Reform on Blood

[catholicxjw]

Hi Gang:

A really great group of people are those who want to assist the Watchtower in changing their blood ban.

I encourage everyone to visit their website: www.ajwrb.org

I was interviewed on a radio program with Wayne Rogers, their PR guy, a few years ago on the JWs' blood issue. Wayne's story was very compelling.

Jeff Schwehm

[ruthy]

In the interest of balance, here is a copy of my post about the blood issue on Catholic Jehovah's Witness forum and explains why I still would not accept a blood transfusion even if I wasn't (and soon I won't be) a JW.

On another thread I promised to get back to Patrick explaining the JW stand on blood.

I'm sorry it's taken so long but I'm going through a difficult time atm as I'm in the process of being disfellowshipped.

Here is an exert from the book "Reasoning in the Scriptures" which explains the official stand that we take:

*** rs p. 70 - p. 74 Blood ***

Blood

Definition: A truly marvelous fluid that circulates in the vascular system of humans and most multicelled animals, supplying nourishment and oxygen, carrying away waste products, and playing a major role in safeguarding the body against infection. So intimately is blood involved in the life processes that the Bible says “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11) As the Source of life, Jehovah has provided definite instructions regarding the use to which blood may be put.

Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’

Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood

Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”

Any animal used for food should be properly bled. One that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19, 20; compare Leviticus 17:13-16.) Similarly, any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten.

Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God

Lev. 17:11, 12: “The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’” (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ.)

Heb. 9:11-14, 22: “When Christ came as a high priest . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God? . . . Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.”

Eph. 1:7: “By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness.”

How did those who claimed to be Christians in early centuries C.E. understand the Bible’s commands regarding blood?

Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.): “Let your unnatural ways blush before the Christians. We do not even have the blood of animals at our meals, for these consist of ordinary food. . . . At the trials of Christians you [pagan Romans] offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that the very thing with which you try to make them deviate from the right way is unlawful for them. How is it that, when you are confident that they will shudder at the blood of an animal, you believe they will pant eagerly after human blood?”—Tertullian, Apologetical Works, and Minucius Felix, Octavius (New York, 1950), translated by Emily Daly, p. 33.

Minucius Felix (third century C.E.): “So much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1956), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. IV, p. 192.

Blood Transfusions

Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?

Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86.

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

In the case of a patient that refuses blood, are there any alternative treatments?

Often simple saline solution, Ringer’s solution, and dextran can be used as plasma volume expanders, and these are available in nearly all modern hospitals. Actually, the risks that go with use of blood transfusions are avoided by using these substances. The Canadian Anaesthetists’ Society Journal (January 1975, p. 12) says: “The risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes: avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and Rh sensitization.” Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to the use of nonblood plasma expanders.

Jehovah’s Witnesses actually benefit from better medical treatment because they do not accept blood. A doctor writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (June 1, 1968, p. 395) acknowledged: “There is no doubt that the situation where you [the surgeon] are operating without the possibility of transfusion tends to improve your surgery. You are a little bit more aggressive in clamping every bleeding vessel.”

All types of surgery can be performed successfully without blood transfusions. This includes open-heart operations, brain surgery, amputation of limbs, and total removal of cancerous organs. Writing in the New York State Journal of Medicine (October 15, 1972, p. 2527), Dr. Philip Roen said: “We have not hesitated to perform any and all indicated surgical procedures in the face of proscribed blood replacement.” Dr. Denton Cooley, at the Texas Heart Institute, said: “We became so impressed with the results [from using nonblood plasma expanders] on the Jehovah’s Witnesses that we started using the procedure on all our heart patients.” (The San Diego Union, December 27, 1970, p. A-10) “‘Bloodless’ open-heart surgery, originally developed for adult members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect because their religion forbids blood transfusions, now has been safely adapted for use in delicate cardiac procedures in infants and children.”—Cardiovascular News, February 1984, p. 5.

As you can see from the last few paragraphs, the issue is much less contravertial now than it was when you were a boy, Patrick. I'm sorry that you had to experience what you did, but the truth is that with today's technology, refusing a blood transfusion is far safer than it used to be; indeed I would argue that with today's pathogen filled supply, it is actually safer.

Blood is a registered poison over here in England and with good reason, it's dangerous stuff and the over-simplified idea that if someone loses blood they must have blood poured back into them just doesn't cut it. The risks of blood transfusion have been greatly understated for decades, making us out to be child killers. I'm not a child killer and I love my children as much as you do yours, that is why I would not allow this highly toxic substance in their system, just because some uninformed and badly trained nurse has an axe to grind.

However, from a purely medical point of view, the "volume expanders" mentioned in the quote above, are actually more effective than blood, since the thing that kills is the lowering of the blood pressure until the blood vessels colapse. When you put in blood, it actually lowers the blood pressure further because it thicken on contact with your own blood. Volume expanders thin the blood instantly allowing diluted blood to flow more freely through the body right from the moment it is introduced, raising the blood pressure and when the vessel sensors detect a lowering of iron content it kickstarts the bodies own blood manufacturing process. All this without the additional hazard of unscreened pathogens and immunity complications.

For more info on the technological advances in non-blood medical management:
NoBlood.org is a forum to investigate, discuss and report the latest techniques in blood conservation and alternatives to blood transfusion. NoBlood.org encourages cooperation among healthcare organizations, dedicated professionals and the general public to advance blood avoidance strategies resulting in solutions for life.
www.noblood.org/forum/index.php

There are many other, less straightforward issues involving what kind of blood fractions one could accept, as well as conscience issues about how one's own blood can be used in an operation, but I think this gives a fairly concise explanation as to why I will continue to carry a No Blood card even though I may not technically be a JW for much longer.

For me these issues have always been a matter of personal conscience rather than just jumping on a religious bandwaggon or following club rules.

Hope this helps,
Love Ruthy

[evanescence]

Hello Ruthy welcome to Catholicxjw forum

Evanescence

[heretic]

Hi Ruthy

Wow! That's the most coherent argument against blood transfusions I've ever read - yours is miles better than the WT explanation! I think you've hit the nail on the head in your last sentence too - that it should be a personal decision, not because someone tells you that you can't receive blood, so on that count, I admire what AJWRB are doing.

Personally, I too would prefer not to have a blood transfusion, because of all the problems they've been finding in recent years, especially the BSE type illnesses which I really think we're only scratching the surface on yet. But there are other times when I think there is no alternative - for example during organ transplants, or when a newborn baby needs a full blood exchange (not sure what the condition is that needs this treatment).

A couple of aside questions I have re the blood issue:
1. How do JW's view heart bypass surgery or haemodialysis where the blood leaves the body and goes back in? Is this classed as a transfusion?

2. Why don't they only eat Kosher/halal meat?

[Ana]

From my limited memory of the teaching regarding blood:

1) recirculation of blood such during heart surgery is permitted.

2) I do not know why they don't eat kosher meat.

I fully support a person's decision to refuse blood transfusions and believe that proper medical treatment is available without the use of blood transfusions.

[saintless]

Abstaining from blood for personal reasons is each person's choice. I don't believe that the bible prohibits it. Referring to Acts 15:29 to say the bible says no blood transfusions is silly to me. Blood transfusions didn't exist then, so why would that be phrased any other way?

I think the WTS ban on blood is akin to their previous bans on vaccinations and organ transplants. They have no business trying to make decisions like that for a person. They were wrong in a very similar way in the past, and you'd think they would learn to leave certain things alone.

That being said, I'm a bit scared of blood, though I'm not sure I'd refuse a transfusion if I needed it. I don't know if being scared of it is due to my JW background or not. But, I do wonder why is it that if the "alternatives" were just as effective, that there are so many stories of people who have died?

[evanescence]

God made these laws out of love, now why do you think he said "no" to drinking blood?

Its because it is unhealthy, you'd probebly get sick and you don't want a case where somebody enjoys blood so much that they become vampire like.

Blood transfusions on the other hand does not involve "drinking" blood , blood transfusions are there to save a life of those in need, why would a loving law be against this?

Evanescence

[ishmilchamah]

I've always eaten kosher meat, even now I have he habit of making sure meat is thoroughly drained of blood in the proper way.

I don't fully understand the Jw stance on blood but I do acually respect it to some dregree. Certainly there have been many medical problems with transfusions leading to the spread of hepatitis and AIDS, so its not always a good thing.

However, if it was va straight out choice between a transfusion or death, I'd go with the transfusion every time, and if I had to make that choice fr a relative, I would consider myself to be little better than a murderer if I refused and there was no other option.

In Judaism there are many, many laws, however all of these but three can be flouted if the end result is saving a life - life being so very important and such a gift from God.

The laws that cannot be broken are adultary, murder and idolitary.

The reasoning is that, for example, doing something that violated the shabbat laws but would save a life would mean that the one who was saved would be able to celebrate many shabbats in the future.

I think people need all the facts, the real facts concerning the dangers of blood transfusions as well as the benefits. The JW rule takes away an individual's right to make their own decisions regarding blood, and fosters a fear of blood-transfusions that is not from God. Blood is for life not life is for blood.

On this issue, I believe the JW's have a twisted view of God, or else, this issue reveals the JW twisted view of God. I don't know. But I still respect the JW's for making a stand - even if its the wrong one.

Am I making any sense?

[minkymurph]

In response to Ruthy, I agree with you it is a personal decision and should not be inforced. However, the Witnesses have always refused blood and their basis is a religious arguement, not a medical one. If there was no religious arguement, it is unlikely that anyone in the Society would be looking into medical alternatives or warning of the risk of blood. There is a risk with any medical procedure from taking a paracetamol, people have died from taking just 4 in the correct time, there is a risk with a general anaesthetic, some people can go into a coma and there is a risk with any form of surgery. A surgeon I once worked with told me that having babies was a dangerous business. Any drug and be called a poison. At the risk of going off the point, this could be said of the contraceptive pill which JW's allow. Pethidine is a clinical form of Cocaine, Morphine is a clinical form of Heroine. The drugs used in Chemotherapy are classed as poisons. I worked as a Clinical Research Technician for 18 years and one of the projects I worked on was an attempt to manufacture replacement blood. This is particularly significant in Third World Countries as they have limited refrigeration facilities. The clinical difficulty with blood expanders eg: Hartmans solution and Saline is they don't carry oxygen. It has not yet been possible to synthetically manufacture a molecule which has the capacity to carry oxygen as haemaglobin does. The medical profession would love to find one as not only does it eliminate risk, as you quite rightly point out, but finding a substance which can be kept in a cupboard and has a long shelf life would also be a great medical breakthrough. The medical profession may be a lot of things but they are not misinformed in relation to the safety of using blood. A substance akin to blood which does not carry oxygen will not deprive the body of fluid, but the brain and major organs will be deprived of oxygen, that is why they use it.

[minkymurph]

I forgot to add to my previous post. During blood transfusions, Saline and Hartmans solution, blood expanders, are used in conjunction with blood. The medical profession are not unaware of the complications of using blood and they know they have to counteract those affects. Their business is saving lives. They do not risk peoples lives by giving them a substance which carries a greater risk than another and is less effective than another. Blood expanders can be stored on a shelf without refrigeration for a significant period of time. Blood needs to be taken from donors, stringently screened and needs sophisticated refrigeration units for storage making it a costly. Why would the medical profession go to all this trouble and expense just for the sake of using blood? Blood vessels can be clamped during surgery but many have to be sealed using diathermy (surgical burning) and in the case of an RTA, haemorrage or severing of major vessels it is not possible to clamp every bleeding vessel in time to save the persons life. Incidently, in this country, first aiders are not told not to use tourneque's because of the risk to limbs/appendages because of lack of circulation. They are told to apply pressure to the wound instead to minimise bleeding.

[anne]

Whatever they use it is all blood.
Who was the law first given to and why,you should ask them,also why is it that Jews dont have a problem having blood transfusions,Look on the Jewish Virtual Library ,you will see how precious life was.I have lost my info on this ,but will try to find it.

[Meagan]

I've talked with a good number of people who work in the medical field and their stand is this:
They prefer non blood treatments due to the complications that arise when it is used.

[anne]

Any comments on Moses turning the Nile into blood?
and
Jesus turning water into wine?
Thanks.

[mantim]

I escaped from the j.w.'s when I was 19. When I was 33 I needed a transfusion, I took it, and lived. Had I been succesfully brain-washed, I would have died and left a wonderful wife and 3 small children to life of poverty and despair.

Why don't the j.w.'s give equal weight to scripture in the O.T. that forbids the eating of fat?

The only wayfor me not to seethe in resentments toward this unbelievable mis-lead crowd is to pray for them...peace...

[gkchesterton]

Dec 15, 2009 2:30:06 GMT -5 mantim said:

I escaped from the j.w.'s when I was 19. When I was 33 I needed a transfusion, I took it, and lived. Had I been succesfully brain-washed, I would have died and left a wonderful wife and 3 small children to life of poverty and despair.

Why don't the j.w.'s give equal weight to scripture in the O.T. that forbids the eating of fat?

The only wayfor me not to seethe in resentments toward this unbelievable mis-lead crowd is to pray for them...peace...

Fat is only mentioned in the Mosaic code. It is not mentioned in the Laws of Noah or by the Council of Jerusalem. Other than that I think we agree.