Blood, Medicine and Jehovah’s Witnesses

By Michael Fry ACKNOWLEGEMENTS:

In putting together this information I have relied on many many books, publications and articles from which I have drawn information. In particular I would like to mention:

Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christion Freedom by Raymond Franz.

Apocalypse Delayed by Jim Penton- University of Toronto Press

Awake to the Watchtower by Doug Harris Reachout Trust - London

Contents

Introduction Current Position of JWs on Blood and Blood products. History of JW’s, Blood and Associated Topics. What they said in:

1909, Comments from the Founder
1931, Vaccinations
1935, Smallpox
1945, Transfusions
1949, Organ Transplants
1952,
1958, Serums
1959,
1961, The Punishment
1963, Fractions & Serums
1964, JW Doctors
1967, Organ Transplants=Cannibilism
1971, Heart - not just a pump
1974, Serums
1975, Haemophiliacs
1977, (A New booklet),
1978, Serums & Conscience
1980, Organ Transplants
1982, Major and Minor Components
1984, Bone Marrow
1985, AIDS
1990, Another new Brochure, Haemophilliac’s protection?
1991, Hospital Liaison Committees
1992, Blood in Food??
1994 & 1995, RHIG and Kingdom Ministry
(Most witnesses will not realise just how the position has changed over the years)

Sect 2:
What the Bible Actually Says
Experiences(from both sides)
Appendix (What the witnesses are taught to do in an emergency)

Section 1: Introduction

There are over 4 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. If one asks a cross section of members of the general public what they know about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, then usually the most popular answer will be to do with their refusal to accept blood transfusions. The purpose of this report is to provide an alternative (and I hope balanced) view of the question of blood transfusions and Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are many problems when a blood transfusion is needed, especially in the case of a child. There are further complications if one parent is a Witness and the other is not.

I therefore researched, collated and wrote this initially for the purpose of explaining to a Witness just why I may give permission for my children to have a blood transfusion, if I consider it to be the wisest course of action, and having listened to and evaluated the potential risks and benefits. The document has grown and I hope that it may be of assistance to others. Its research proved to be quite a (sad) eye opener for me.

When a Jehovah’s Witness contemplates the refusal of a blood transfusion, then both they and their fellow Witness family and friends should be aware of just how their organisation has arrived at its rules regarding blood. I use the word “rules” deliberately, knowing that a Witness will consider the refusal of blood (including transfusions) to be a strict command from God. The evidence suggests that is not quite that simple. A Witness no longer has to repeat the old established response:

“no blood or blood products please”

Blood is not simply taken from one individual and later given to another. This is accepted by the Witnesses organisation and the rules and regulations governing blood products and Jehovah’s Witnesses have changed over the years.

Choice

If a person does not wish to accept a blood fraction transfusion during the course of a routine planned operation then so be it. If that person finds a surgeon that agrees to operate, then that is their decision.

A Sunday Telegraph article in December 1994 reported claims that “many surgeons had a far too cavalier attitude to the use of blood” and “if blood were a drug, it would not get a licence”. The article was prompted by a Hepatitis C scare. In early 1995 it was widely reported in the U.K. press and TV that up to 3000 persons may be at risk from hepatitis C from blood that had not been properly screened and treated in the 1980s. Persons were finally being contacted by the health authorities. At the time of writing (1995) it is being alleged that there had been a “cover up” on the part of the authorities.

This is worrying information indeed. Enough to possibly make one investigate further, or to even think twice before accepting a non essential blood transfusion as part of a routine medical procedure, especially if there were acceptable and available alternatives.

However, this document is primarily concerned with “danger to life” - the situation where the medical opinion requires that a transfusion is essential and any delay (in order to seek alternatives) is an unacceptable risk to the patient

Even in the case of the majority of routine operations and surgical procedures not normally needing any blood, there is always a chance that a complication will arise, (haemorrhaging for example) necessitating an unexpected transfusion. That is why many surgeons are reluctant to “go in with half a tool-kit” because of a “no blood” request by the patient or the patient’s guardian. Doctors and Surgeons are under oath to provide the best possible care that they can in the given circumstances. Time is often a crucial factor. They do their best with the information, knowledge and equipment at their disposal.

Witnesses need to be fully aware of how their organisation has developed it’s beliefs An average Jehovah’s Witness will have attended many meetings every week where regularly their organisation - the WBTS’s view of what the Bible says about blood will have been emphasised. Rarely, even for the purposes of balance, are they shown the “other side of the fence” in any detail. Never is anything critical of their position ever published. If a Witness is to see an alternative viewpoint on the outcome of their position with regard to blood, it will usually come from reading newspaper reports about the resultant tragedies.

When personal disaster strikes, and the issue of blood arises, the Witness will have an automatic reaction that causes them to refuse blood, for either themselves or their children. It is built up and repeated to them over a number of years; their organisation (WBTS) regularly publishes information, reports and experiences connected with the subject of blood and medicine. The Witness will consider his or her stand to be 100% consistent with the teachings of the Bible and certainly not negotiable. Others in his or her congregation, usually the elders or family and friends, will encourage them not to accept any transfusion.

The following quotations and comments are fully sourced wherever possible, so that they may be checked. First a few statements that are not disputed in any way. Many Witnesses’ arguments dwell on these points at great length.

It is not questioned that a blood fraction transfusion (along with most medical procedures) carries risk. It is probably correct that that blood is overused routinely. Jehovah’s Witnesses, in allowing themselves to used as ‘Guinea pigs’ have helped medical advancement in the use of non-blood treatments. Many of these treatments do have advantages over the blood alternatives. Medical knowledge is, after all, constantly progressing In some cases, transfusions have been forced on (usually the children of) Witnesses, and the patient has still died.

For decades now blood transfusions have usually been a transfusion of a blood fraction, which is usually one of the component parts of the blood. Whole blood (as donated) is considered to be a valuable commodity. For instance, an anaemic patient may require red cells only, rather than the plasma. Another patient could require platelets, a burned patient may require albumin, and yet another may require the clotting factors found in the blood. Other products such as vaccinations and serums are sometimes manufactured from specific types of blood.

The Organisation

(Watchtower Bible & Tract Society - WBTS)

The Governing Body of the organisation are located at Brooklyn, U.S.A. It is they that have effectively decided what will and will not be allowed, and also what is currently “left to the individual conscience” of a Witness. If a particular treatment is NOT allowed, then accepting it., as Witnesses know, will lead to disfellowshiping from the congregation.

The ex-Witnesses’ family, friends and acquaintances will then be forbidden to even greet that one or even to say “hello”. The disfellowshiped Witness is completely shunned and cut off from their former social circle, probably in it’s entirety. His former friends are told to “hate” him. (September 1981 Watchtowers) This practice has a strong tendency to “keep Witnesses in line”.

A Witness is not allowed to disagree with any of the organisation’s teachings or rulings. The organisation make the claim that they are “God’s sole visible channel of communication on earth today”. A big responsibility for the leaders of that organisation, you will no doubt agree. However, if past errors are pointed out to them, they will remind us that they do not claim to be “inspired” or “infallible”. Yet, on the other hand, they regularly speak of “revealed truths” and regularly claim that God is exclusively using them, as “God’s Mother Organisation”. Also the organisation will not tolerate any disagreement or dissension on any doctrine, however minor. Many non - Witnesses cannot comprehend these discrepancies, and they go unexplained.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. (Rev 20:13) No one can hide behind ANY earthly “organisation”, maybe hoping that “if anything is wrong it will be put right later”.

Most Witnesses spend literally thousands of hours telling others to examine their religion or personal beliefs. If you are a Witness, just once, please spend an hour or so examining just one aspect of your own. The Watchtower 1st May 1994 page 16 says

Millions of people have become Jehovah’s Witnesses. All of them should be well informed about the history of the organisation with which they are associated.

Very true. The current situation then regarding blood and blood products:

Present Position

ALLOWED (subject to personal conscience): Albumin, Immune Globulin’s etc., Factors 8 & 9 for haemophiliacs. Serums containing “minute fractions of blood”. Diversion and treatment of blood by dialysis machines, heart lung machines etc. The machine must be non blood primed and stay connected - a type of elongation of the circulatory system.

NOT ALLOWED (regardless of personal conscience): Whole blood, Plasma, Red or White (leukocyte) blood cells, Platelets, any storage of blood, including ones own.

(Publications quoted are all published by the WBTS (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society unless otherwise stated)

---

History of the Witnesses and the Issue of Blood.

It is important to examine the history of the subject because the average Witness will think that their governing organisation has been consistent. in its teachings about blood and associated subjects.

1909

C.T. Russell, (the founder of the religion in the 1870’s) commented on Acts 15. This passage speaks of abstaining from certain things including the eating of blood. It is the main scripture on which Witnesses base their present standpoint. Russell said:

It was not intimated that abstinence from these things would MAKE THEM CHRISTIANS, for nothing but faith in Christ and consecration to him and endeavour to walk in his steps could constitute them Christians… The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the “body” composed of Jews and Gentiles… A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden… These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on the subject that it was necessary for the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also (Watchtower, 15 April 1909, p. 4374).

Most Christians today (other than Jehovah’s Witnesses) would tend to broadly agree with Pastor Russell’s understanding of the context of Acts 15. More of the scriptural side in section 2.

The Modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs regarding blood transfusions actually started with the question of vaccinations. They had always refused to eat blood, such as blood sausage, because of their understanding of God’s command to Noah in Genesis chapter 9, which they believe forbids the eating of animals that had not been bled.

So it started then in 1931 with the question of vaccinations:

1931

VACCINATIONS

Vaccination is a direct violation of the Everlasting Covenant that God made with Noah after the flood. (Golden Age, 4 February 1931, p. 293).

The same article linked the eating of blood with demonism and sexual immorality.

..much looseness of our day along sexual lines may be traceable to the easy and continual violation of the divine commands to keep human and animal blood apart from each other. With cells of foreign blood racing through his veins a man is not normal, not himself, but lacks the poise and balance which makes for self control. (Ibid Page 293)

1935

As vaccination is a direct injection of animal matter in the blood stream vaccination is a direct violation of the law of Jehovah God (Golden Age, WBTS, 24 April 1935, p. 465).

SMALLPOX

Smallpox was a major problem. It should be remembered that smallpox had a mortality rate of up to 40%. In 1921 their were 100,000 cases in the (civilised) U.S. alone. By 1953 there were none. The vaccination program therefore saved literally thousands of lives world wide. A Witness named William Cetnar made a detailed investigation into smallpox vaccinations and actually discovered that the vaccination was not manufactured from blood at all. He submitted his findings to the headquarters of the organisation. He received no acknowledgement, but in April 1952 the society finally published the reversal of the vaccination ban.

Smallpox is highly contagious. How many died (or infected others) as a result of the organisation’s “rules at the time”, we can have no way of knowing. Children were unable to start school without a smallpox vaccination certificate. There were reports of sympathetic doctors actually scarring children’s skin and then issuing a false certificate. Witnesses could not leave or enter countries. Witnesses in prison were solitarily confined. An Incredible situation.

A modern Witness will no doubt see the change regarding vaccinations as an example of God “gradually revealing or making things clearer”. This is the usual explanation of doctrinal change. (It does not however explain why some doctrines later revert to the original thinking)

Anyway, because a Witnesses is obliged to obey all of their organisation’s present teachings at any one point in time, they are, by default, actually blaming God in the above example. God wants them to follow any present teaching, even if it later proves to be in error. No doubt it would therefore have been preferable for God to have made up His mind about vaccinations earlier?

Unfortunately, at that time, a senior member of the Headquarters of the organisation and the editor of the Golden Age magazine (the forerunner to the Consolation and now Awake magazine) was Clayton Woodcock. He hated the modern American medical advances. In other Golden Age articles he denied the germ theory of disease, instead blaming many illnesses on aluminium cookware of all things. He referred to smallpox vaccinations as “the filthy custom of injecting animal puss into the system”! (As illustrated here)

Many cartoons appeared in the Golden Age magazine showing things such as piles of pock marked babies, damaged by vaccinations. Other cartoons depicted “dope doctors” holding syringes labelled “puss”.

1945

TRANSFUSIONS

The organisations published view of blood transfusions started in 1945. They were a bit slow off the mark because transfusions had been an established medical procedure for well over 20 years, and the first large blood bank had started in Chicago in 1937.

WT, 1 July, pp. 198-201, stated that

“blood transfusions were pagan and God-dishonouring”. All blood and blood products and fractions were included in this ruling.

Incidentally, in the book Faith on the March by A H Macmillan - Prentice-Hall 1957 - one of the few “approved” non- WBTS publications, the author relates his experiences while visiting some 4,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses in prison, (as consciencous objectors) after the second World War. They were refusing vaccination and were put in solitary confinement. The author, a senior officer of the organisation, spent over two hours trying to persuade them to accept the vaccination. Page 188-190;

…Some of our boys in one prison considered this the same as blood transfusions and refused to submit…

I wonder where they got that idea from? They had not come up with the idea independently. Anyway, they eventually accepted the vaccinations and when asked by the warder how he managed it the author replied

“Well, I simply showed them their responsibility and pointed out that if evil resulted the government would be held responsible”, said Macmillan. “We told them that, too but it didn’t convince them”, said the warder. “The difference was, I talked the Bible to them, and that Book Jehovah’s Witnesses obey”. “Yes, I’m beginning to believe that,” was the Warden’s (incredible) conclusion.

As the concept of vaccination is obviously not referred to anywhere in the Bible, I can only conclude that it was the fact that the organisation had, since the late 1930s, quietly now accepted vaccinations that was really responsible for changing those men’s mind. Regrettably, the organisation had not yet chosen to specifically publish this fact that they could now accept the “filthy animal puss”.

1949

ORGAN TRANSPLANTS

Organ transplants are pronounced as acceptable. The December 22 Awake carried an article with the catchy title “Spare Parts for Your Body”. Blood was said to be wrong but organ and bone transplants were “wonders of modern surgery”

1952

Vaccinations, such as smallpox discussed above are now published as officially allowed (in a letter dated 15 April).

1958

Blood serums considered

“Are we to consider the injection of serums such as diphtheria toxin antitoxin and blood fractions such as gamma globulin into the blood stream for the purpose of building up resistance to disease as the same as drinking blood or taking in of blood or blood plasma by transfusion? No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category… prohibition in the scriptures is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with its being forbidden… The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces. While God did not intend for any man to contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing so does not seem to be included in God’s express will forbidding blood as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgement whether one accepted such types of medication or not”. (WT, 15 September 1958, p. 575).

It is interesting to note that this is the basic objection to blood transfusion, that a transfusion is the same as eating blood, taking it into the body as a nutrient or food. Another phrase, later introduced by the organisation and currently preferred in connection with the transfusion is “to sustain life or strengthen one” Later, the phrases were often interchanged, depending on what the particular argument being put forth required.

The 1st August Watchtower had a “Question from Readers” on page 478 asking whether a sister member of the “anointed remnant” (a special class of Witness who believes that he or she will go to heaven) who accepts a blood transfusion should then be allowed to celebrate the “Memorial” [a Witness remembrance of the death of Christ where only the "anointed" partake of the symbolic bread and wine] The answer given is yes. “Although she should be viewed as immature,… you have no right to bar this sister from celebrating the Lord’s Evening Meal” This attitude would only last for 2 years - see 1961 below.

1959

The “pouring out” of blood

Blood has to be “poured out”;

According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust… This is because life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before Jehovah God… Consequently, the removal of one’s blood, storing it and later putting it back into the SAME person, would be a violation of the Scriptural principles that govern the handling of blood (WT, 15 October 1959, p. 640).

They fail to point out that they are quoting from Lev 17:13,14 which was part of the old law to Israel, and (as they will agree) not applicable to Christians. However, the old law to the Israelites is often quoted as “indicative of God’s view” on a subject especially when it tends to support a current doctrine. That same law’s ban on shellfish or pigs, for example, is not quoted as “indicative of God’s view”.

1961

Punishment

Having a blood or blood product transfusion was now made punishable by disfellowshiping (or excommunication.) (WT, 15 January 1961, pp. 63-64)

It was only since 1952 under the then president N.H. Knorr that disfellowshiping became quite common. Until then, as long as they were not disrupting the congregation, Witnesses were sometimes able to do things the organisation had ruled against wthout official penalty. If discovered, other Witnesses would probably not view them as a mature Witness, but until 1952, it sometimes didn’t go much further. Since 1961 many have been disfellowshiped for accepting blood or blood products. Some have been disfellowshiped literally on their deathbed. Their former friends and family will not (or should not) then even attend the funeral.

Organ Donation

Organ donation is a matter for personal conscience:

Donating organs after death is a matter of conscience. …No scriptural principles are involved… It is therefore something that each individual must decide for himself… no one else should criticise him.. (WT, 1 August 1961, p. 480).

Blood and Personality

The 1/9/61 Watchtower on page 564 lends support to the amazing view that personality traits could be transmitted by blood transfusion - that the impulses to commit suicide, murder and stealing are in the blood and could therefore be transferred to another person accepting a transfusion, i.e. a personality transfusion.

1963

Blood fractions & serums (again)

A reversal. Any fraction of blood is now considered as a nutrient and is not to be used in any medical treatment. Serums are therefore ruled out again.

… for it is not just whole blood but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle (WT, 15 February 1963, p. 124).

Compare this with the 1958 statement a mere 5 years previously. Evidently blood derived vaccinations do not strengthen one in the face of disease because they are still OK. Serums are not. Note also the use of “sustain life or strengthen one”.

1964

Witness doctors

The November 15 Watchtower amazingly allows doctors that are Jehovah’s Witnesses to administer blood transfusions to a non - Witness, if this is what their job requires. Similarly, Jehovah’s Witness butchers and grocers are also allowed to sell foods containing blood (black pudding, etc) to non- Witnesses. That a blood transfusion involves the previous STORING, and processing of the blood here seems to be ignored. Yet this storage is the sole reason that Witnesses cannot use their own blood for transfusions - it has not been “poured out” and therefore would be showing contempt for Gods word. Witness doctors however, seem to be exempt from this ruling, and may therefore show such contempt for God’s Law without penalty. Interestingly, in other matters the organisation will strongly argue that one must only obey their superiors (boss, government,etc.) when it does not contravene God’s Law, as they see it. The matter of personal conscience does not enter in to it.

[To illustrate the normal rigidity of stated policies; at the same time (1964) Witnesses in Malawi, Africa were being raped, murdered and tortured because of their refusal to purchase a compulsory 35 cent I.D. membership card for the Malawi single state national party, which they considered political affiliation and therefore contrary to their beliefs about keeping separate from "the world"]

Other restrictions

The Awake 8 May 1964 P30, banned the use of cosmetics that used blood in their manufacturing process.

The Watchtower P128 of the same year;

• prohibited Witness farmers from using fertilisers containing blood products
• prohibited Witnesses from allowing vets to give transfusions of blood products to their animals or pets prohibited Witnesses from using pet foods that contained blood.

Around the late 1960’s there was prolific letter writing from Witnesses to food manufacturers to find out whether blood products were being used. In the UK I remember rumours, and therefore large question marks hanging over the use of fresh chicken, Marmite, Bovril, and even Milky bars of all things.

1967

Organ transplants = cannibalism

Another incredible reversal. Organ transplants are now cannibalism!

< BLOCKQUOTE> When there is a deceased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking 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 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 (WT, 15 November 1967, pp. 702..)

So although it was OK 6 years ago in 1961 see above, it’s now cannibalism. The organisation had no doubt clarified exactly what Jehovah God gave permission for. The same article was also strong in opposition to any donation of organs that had also previously been a matter of conscience.

1971

The Heart - not just a pump

The Watchtower 1st March had a lengthy study article stating that (regardless of medical opinion) the heart was more than a pump for our blood. It was linked with the brain through sensory nerve endings and was the actual organ in which affections, motivations, desires and emotions were literally formed. (Page 133-135) Of course the organ transplant would therefore transfer these emotions, etc to the recipient. Serious “mental aberrations” in heart transplant patients were said to be likely caused by the transfusion. (Remember that then [1971] organ transplants were not allowed - they were still cannibalism)

1974

Serums

A partial turnabout. Some serums, although derived from blood (see 1963) are maybe now a matter of conscience again. (Just about)

It can thus be seen that serums (unlike vaccines) contain a blood fraction, though minute… What then of a serum containing only a minute fraction of blood… We believe that here the conscience of each Christian must decide. Some may feel that accepting such a serum does not constitute an act of disrespect… that it does not constitute a flouting of God’s expressed will… the conscience of others may call on them to reject all such serums… While refraining from approving or condemning in such areas where we believe the decision must be left to individual conscience, we do, nevertheless, urge all to seek to maintain their conscience clean before God, never showing deliberate disrespect for his Word. (WT, 1 June 1974, p. 352).

Well, the way it reads to me, is that it is being left to conscience, but the Witness is being led to refuse rather than to accept. Also it appeared that a serum could only be acceptable if it contained a “minute fraction of blood” However, the important thing is that a Witness accepting would not now be disfellowshiped. Bible trained or WBTS trained conscience?

1975

Haemophiliacs

(some information from crisis of conscience - by raymond franz - commentary press - atlanta)

Haemophiliacs within the organisation were in a precarious position. Blood clotting and coagulant preparations such as Factor VIII (and IX) can significantly extend their life. In the 1940s the average life span of a haemophiliac was less than 17 years. Now days it is almost a normal life span. Raymond Franz (an ex Governing Body member) in his book Crisis of Conscience -(Commentary Press, Atlanta 1985) revealed that; the position of the society was that they had chosen not to publish anything specific on these particular blood fractions, as they became available. However, haemophiliacs writing to, or telephoning the headquarters of the society we told that acceptance of the fraction once would be acceptable, but to do so more than once would constitute “feeding” on the blood and would be wrong. The policy was changed, probably sometime in the early 1970’s although officially in June 1975. Astonishingly, nothing was actually published till 1978 - see below. Administration staff had previously been trying to contact haemophiliacs by going through the correspondence files. Some were not contactable because they had telephoned the society with their enquiry. It has been reported that the situation caused some resentment amongst the administration staff. Not surprisingly - It is quite possible that some haemophiliacs had died simply because they were unaware that the “rules” had changed!

Interestingly, the 22 Feb. 1975 Awake seems to rule out the treatment of haemophiliacs with blood particles or fractions. However (as mentioned above) there is evidence that those telephoning the headquarters in the early 1970s were told that a “one off only” treatment was acceptable. A Governing Body session on June 11th 1975 made the change official and thereafter enquirers were informed that the Factor VIII was an acceptable treatment (or, at least, up to their conscience). However, it wasn’t till later in 1978 that it was officially published as not forbidden. Therefore there were at least 3 years, possibly more, during which a Witness haemophiliac would have needed to write or telephone the headquarters of “God’s only visible organisation” to find out whether they could maybe save their own life with Factor VIII. It wasn’t considered important enough to publish.

The April 1st Watchtower, page 215-216 also again seems not to rule out Witness doctors from administering a blood transfusion! (see also 1964) The article here specifically deals with cross-matching of blood. Again storage and disrespect for God’s laws do not here seem to be an issue. One conclusion is that they need all the help they can get in the medical sphere and therefore Witness medics are given an extremely “loose rein” personality transplant?

Also in 1975 the Watchtower of 1st September again supported the thought that a “personality transplant” could occur through organ transplants as well as through blood transfusions (Page 519) It gave the example of a person receiving a kidney transplant could take on the aggression of the blood donor. The article does admit that the problem could be wholly or partially mental, but finds it of interest because of the Bible’s linking of kidneys and emotions.

1977

New booklet

A new booklet - “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood”. More reversals. Blood transfusions are now considered as organ transplants. (Remember - organ transplants are still not allowed at this time)

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 (Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, 1977, p. 41).

Children

Where children are affected the booklet argues that the parents must be allowed to refuse blood transfusions for their children. In support of this page 35 says

Are we then to assume that the courts are willing to assign a different religion to the children than that of their parents, when statistics show that the overwhelming majority of children are reared and indeed follow the same religious denomination?

The article fails to mention two things. Firstly, the Witnesses spend much time attempting to get other persons to change their religion, and they claim great success in this. Secondly, the Witnesses actually have quite a high turnover rate (i.e. Over 250,000 left the religion in the U.S.A. alone in the couple of years from 1976 -1978 ) and a significant number of Witness children, on reaching adulthood fall away from the religion. Any Witness knows this to be true.

1978

A gentler position on serums. Serum injections to fight against disease are not necessarily wrong. It is “not a clear cut area”. These injections are apparently not a method of “sustaining one’s life” in the face of disease. The article quoted below is the one that also (in writing and now finally published) allowed haemophiliacs to accept Factor 8 blood fractions more than once, assuming of course that they hadn’t unfortunately haemorrhaged and died already. Part of the article said:

What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease… This seems to fall into a “grey area”… we (the organisation) have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis. We urge each one to have a clear conscience and to be responsive to God’s guidance found in his Word (WT, 15 June 1978, pp. 30-31).

For many sensitive Witnesses, accepting a serum or other “allowed” product turns out to be a recipe for future guilt. Have I sinned?

1980

Organ transplants

Yet another turnaround.

Back to the pre 1967 position.
Organ and tissue transplants are now made a matter of conscience (again)

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation… there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. 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 (WT 15 Mar 1980, p31)

Do not forget that only three years earlier blood transfusions were rejected because they were essentially organ transplants! See also 1967 quotation. 13 years ago it was cannibalism! How many Witnesses stayed blind because they could not accept a simple cornea transplant? How many died when they could have had a chance of life, which they claim is so precious to them?

..with the exception of blood transfusions, corneal grafting is the most successful of all surgical operations involving the transfer of tissue from one person to another. (Medical Encyclopaedia, Hamlyns 1981)

The above is just one of millions of quotations the Jehovah’s Witness will not normally have his attention drawn to.

Hospital liaison committees

By now Jehovah’s Witnesses had started setting up hundreds of Hospital Liaison Committees in order to pre-empt the blood issue, especially in emergency cases. This concept was started in Canada in the early 1970s. All Hospitals are systematically approached and have the Witnesses viewpoints explained. Lists of sympathetic surgeons and doctors are kept. Non-blood surgical procedures are also kept on file.

The committees will try to circumvent doctors or social services making a child a ward of court if the parent(s) are refusing blood on the child’s behalf. Usually they will first try to arrange surgery without blood, maybe elsewhere, and almost certainly with increased delay and medical risk. The Liaison Committees sometimes get involved with legal matters and will often fight attempts by doctors and social services to temporarily remove a child from its parent’s custody in order to administer a transfusion.

1982

Major and minor components

June 22 Awake introduces the concept of what the organisation sees as the MAJOR and MINOR blood components (or fractions) and shows therefore what are and aren’t allowed. Minor products are OK, Major ones are forbidden. Summarised as follows

Blood consists of 54% Plasma, 45% red cells, Platelets 0.17% White cells 0.1% The plasma contains all the complex proteins, Albumin, clotting factors and immune - globulin, fibrinogens etc. To recap:

ALLOWED (subject to personal conscience): Albumin, Immune globulin serums, Factor 8 & 9 for haemophiliacs, blood diversion and treatment of blood by dialysis machines (as long as they are not primed with blood) etc.

NOT ALLOWED (regardless of conscience: Whole blood, Plasma, Red (erythrocytes) or White (leukocytes) blood cells, Platelets, any storage of blood - even one’s own.

“Small quantities”

It should be noted that when asked why the use of ALL blood and products are not simply banned, the argument is often advanced that preparations etc. involving small quantities of blood puts the matter into “personal conscience”. That is why a Witness will allow a blood test, which would involve the normally wrong practice of storing the blood, without ‘pouring it out’. Why is this? Who decides? What exactly is a “small quantity” - 5ml, 10ml, 200ml? How often can one receive this “small quantity”?

It is interesting also to take a closer look at the so called “major and minor” components. Many doctors have pointed out that PLASMA (not allowed) is about 93% water. The other 7% contains the Albumin, globulin and anti-coagulant agents etc that are ALL ALLOWED. Is it the water that is ruling it out? I apologise for the cynicism, but I did not make up all these constantly changing rules and baseless distinctions.

The white cells or leukocytes (not allowed) are only 0.1% of blood and many many more leukocytes are actually found in the ORGANS of the body (transplants allowed) and HUMAN MILK. Breast feeding has [thankfully] escaped criticism.

Albumin, immune globulin and gamma globulin (all allowed) require the donation of literally litres of blood to manufacture each dose of serum or product. Vast blood banks are used to STORE and process all this blood and blood fractions.

The organisation want to keep their stand on blood but allow the (by now very common) use of serums. They graciously leave it to personal conscience. Just how the average Witness is supposed to use his or her conscience in deciding whether to accept or reject any one of a number of a complex blood derived products is not stated. They are not medics or scientists. For instance Pharmacology in Nursing - Bergersen - 1976 Page 525 says (of gamma globulin / immune globulin)

gamma globulin is derived from an original blood plasma or serum pool that represents at least 1000 individuals.

The blood of a thousand persons! But it’s up to your own conscience. No penalty. Accept Plasma though and you will be disfellowshiped!

The amount of blood needed to be donated in order to produce the Factor 8 or 9 that a haemophiliac would use in a lifetime would probably amount to literally hundreds of thousands of pints, all requiring storage (no “pouring out”) at some time. A haemophiliac will generally have to inject themselves with a large syringe of factor 8 or 9 very regularly, perhaps weekly.

As earlier mentioned, It would seem logical and acceptable for ones own blood to be taken and re-used later, if for instance a future operation was envisaged. Yet the above mentioned Awake of June 22, 1982 said it was OK to collect ones own blood as long as it was returned to the body a little later. The means of collection & return could not be removed. It is likened to extending ones circulatory system. This is why kidney dialysis, heart lung machines are acceptable. NO STORAGE of the blood could be allowed though. The same article in the June 22 1982 Awake on page 25 restated that Factor 8 treatment for haemophiliacs was acceptable.

1984

Bone marrow

Bone-marrow transplant crops up and it seems that it is a matter of conscience. However, Witnesses are expected to come up with a “no”. A marrow and eating connection is made and this is OK. Yet blood transfusions have also been regularly likened to eating blood ( the “nourishment” comparison) and were ruled out on that basis

… red blood cells are formed in the marrow of certain bones… it is understandable why, in the light of the Bible’s prohibition on blood, the question arises whether a Christian could accept a graft of human bone marrow… since red blood cells originate in the red bone marrow, do the Scriptures class marrow with blood? No. In fact, animal marrow is spoken of like any other flesh that could be eaten. Isaiah 25:6. speaks of … “well oiled dishes filled with marrow”… Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood in it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether to him the bone marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or unbled tissue… Finally Dr. E. Thomas observes that “virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions” and may be given “packed red blood cells…. Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible ’s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide (WT, 15 May 1984, p. 31).

Exactly how? As far as I can see, anyone reading the above would probably be led to refuse rather than accept a bone marrow transplant. They would not however be disfellowshiped if they accepted a transplant. In this case conscience is introduced so that the organisation do not have to specifically rule either way. So one is able to eat marrow, which contains blood. One cannot however transfuse or eat blood. Also, why is it significant that marrow in human transplants is from “live donors?” Would, therefore, blood from dead humans or animals be acceptable? Of course not. Note how the society stand away from a decision on this argument because logic may then lead one to conclude that either

1. The Bible is contradictory or 2. The organisation are taking things to extremes in their shifting interpretations of exactly what the Bible writers did and did not mean so long ago.

Also, in the 1st September Watchtower the society quietly abandoned the notion that the actual heart, as an organ, was responsible for affections, motivations, emotions and desires. (see 1971) Instead the more sensible and common explanation of a “figurative” (as opposed to the “literal”) heart was adopted.

1985

AIDS

(Donated blood is now being routinely heat treated because of the discovery of AIDS and it’s transmission through blood and other body fluids)

The organisation again seized upon the AIDS problem to give credibility to their stand regarding blood and blood products. The 15 June 1985 Watchtower Page 30 stated that 70 Million units of Factor VIII went from US to Britain, thereby transferring AIDS to the British supply.

Many persons and organisations are predicting millions of deaths by the mid 1990s.

1988

AIDS has now become a world-wide problem is seized on by organisation in numerous articles as yet further proof of the correctness and the protectiveness of it’s policies. Any Witness today will support that view.

The Oct. 8th 1988 Awake P11 claims that the policy of their organisation has protected Jehovah’s Witnesses from AIDS, and points out that the 10,000 Americans with severe haemophilia have been infected with AIDS. Please note this.

1989

Use one’s own blood?

The March 1st Watchtower has an interesting “Question from Readers” The “reader” (yet again) logically asks why Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot give their own blood that can then be later used in an operation on themselves. This is ruled out as an “unacceptable procedure for Jehovah’s Witnesses” Deut 12:24 (from the old Law covenant) is used. There is no “pouring out” of the blood. The analogy with storage is again made. It is therefore said to be wrong. The same article states that it is OK to use a dialysis machine or similar. The blood being taken from the body, processed etc and then returned to the body is seen as an elongation of the circulatory system and is strangely acceptable. Blood can therefore leave one’s body, pass through a machine that processes it and then returns it to the body. One could not similarly treat and return one’s own blood sometime later. A Witness will believe that this differentiation is really t aught by the Bible itself?

I think that the real reason the Governing Body of the organisation cannot accept this logical treatment is really more concerned with practicalities. If they allowed it (no doubt subject to conscience) there would be many of the 4 million or so Witnesses wanting to deposit their blood in case of future emergency. Blood banks do not have the resources to “tag by name” all that blood and neither could it be transported to where it was needed if an emergency such as when car accident occurred. The “shelf life” would also present problems. “sustaining life”

The term “sustaining life” has also (by now) virtually replaced the phrase “feeding on blood” or “nutrition” in their publications. It is the “sustaining of life” by means of a transfusion that makes it wrong. Just what haemophiliacs, and persons accepting the permitted blood product based vaccinations and immunisations are doing is not mentioned. Surely that too is a “sustaining of life” ? Why else bother?

1990

New brochure

1990 saw a new brochure entitled “How can Blood Save Your Life?” It presents plenty of evidence of the dangers and risks associated with blood transfusions. Many quotations from medical sources are used. As usual though, the reader is only given one side of the story. As it is their latest publication dealing entirely with blood, let’s look at some of it

Page 8 Quotes the Medical World News - December 11th 1989 to support that a blood transfusion is a “tissue transplant” (italics in the original) It goes on to present a link between cancer and blood transfusions. That may well be relevant, although no statistics are given. Many things are linked to Cancer.(including burnt toast)

Page 13 has an interesting quotation from a Dr Knud Lund-Olesen:

Since some persons in high risk groups volunteer as donors because they then are automatically tested for AIDS, I feel that there is a reason to be reluctant about accepting blood transfusions. Jehovah’s Witnesses have refused these for many years. Did they look into the future? (Ugeskrift for laeger Doctors Weekly Sept. 26th 1988.

The inference here is that they were protected or pre-warned by their beliefs.

Page 16 re states that “the conscience of some Witnesses permits them to accept organ transplants, if done without blood”. Page 18 shows that doctors need have no fear of liability as Witnesses will sign release forms. It goes on to speak of “Risk / Benefit Analysis” - making an informed choice, after considering all aspects. I am at a loss as to how a Witness can do this as all they will read is their own organisation’s literature, none of which fairly presents any other viewpoint. Furthermore, a Witnesses “conscience” has only “allowed” them to accept organ transplants since the 1980 reversal. That is not really the result of their own conscience at all. It is following a set of changing rules and regulations.

[They speak regularly of a "Bible trained conscience" In practice it is a "Watchtower trained conscience". The first thing a Witness will do when faced with a question of the rightness or wrongness of a situation, is to look it up in their society's literature, regardless of whether the subject is mentioned in the Bible.]

The booklet also makes some very strained analogies to say the least. Page 20 of the booklet presents a scenario of a doctor forcing a patient to have a tonsillectomy, rather than alternative antibiotic treatment. It goes on to equate forced blood transfusion with forced sex or rape. Page 21, on the very important subject of blood transfusions and children, equates the risks of using oil or gas to heat one’s home or allowing children to go for a long car drive with the risk of refusing a blood transfusion on the child’s behalf! The writer wonders why a government or it’s courts will permit parents to allow their children the risk of a car journey, but not the risk of blood refusal. I can only comment that anyone convinced by such reasoning in a case of emergency must have totally lost their reasoning powers.

I do not in any way dispute the parent’s love and care for their children, it is just that they seem to have been brainwashed with a constant stream of one sided arguments. An interesting quotation on page 22 from a Doctor James Fletcher:

..for professional arrogance to supplant sound medical judgement. Treatments regarded as “the best today” are modified or discarded tomorrow” Which is more dangerous, a “religious parent” or an arrogant physician who is convinced his or her treatment is absolutely vital? (Paediatrics - October 198

A sentiment that has some truth. Unfortunately many doctors can be arrogant and unwilling to listen. As for treatments “best today but discarded tomorrow” - the same phrase aptly describes the WBTS’s rulings on this subject.

In answer to the question posed, I ‘m afraid that many persons will find the “religious parent” far more dangerous in this instance.

RH factor

The WT June 1st 1990 p30-31 has an article regarding the injection of blood fractions such as albumin or immune globulin preparations. These are used in very common cases of Rh incompatibility between mother and foetus. (NB If a Rh negative mother produces an Rh positive infant then RhIG immune human globulin given within 72 hours of birth will protect against blood disease problems in subsequent births) The article says:

some immune globulin moves from the mother’s blood to the foetus. Because of this natural movement of anti-bodies into the foetus occurs in all pregnancies, babies are born with a degree of normal immunity to certain infections ……… because of movement naturally of blood between mother and foetus.. this may be a consideration when a Christian is deciding whether (he?) will accept immune globulin, albumin etc…. each must resolve the matter personally before God.

Again, how can they practically do this? Just why the whole issue of medicine and blood is not entirely left to personal conscience I do not know. Neither is the logical conclusion of the above argument mentioned, i.e. that a mother could (subject to conscience) donate blood for transfusion into her child because of this previous “natural movement” in the womb. She would find herself quickly disfellowshiped if she did. (or even if she held the view that she could do so in the future)

Earlier on page 8 the same article claimed that haemophiliacs using plasma based clotting agents to treat their haemophilia have been devasteted. In the US alone the article states that 60%-90% of them got AIDS prior to the heat treating of blood from donors. It also admits that some cases of AIDS have come through tissue transplants (allowed by the organisation)

Haemophiliac’s Protection??

By now you may have spotted an anomaly with regard to the question of AIDS and whether a Jehovah’s Witness has been protected from it. One of the most tragic consequences of AIDS, blood and medicine is shown in the case of haemophiliacs. They truly have been devasteted as the organisation point out. The organisation readily grab the praise for it’s “protective policies” but fail to mention that the biggest cause of AIDS through blood in this case is the Factor 8 WHICH THEY ALLOW! IN FACT THEY STARTED TO ALLOW IT IN 1975. THE 10 YEARS TO 1985 WERE THE VERY TIME WHEN HAEMOPHILIACS WERE UNKNOWINGLY AND TRAGICALLY INFECTING THEMSELVES WITH THE HIV. VIRUS - PROTECTION??

The Witnesses tenuous linking of the biblical ban on eating blood with that of a transfusion also being a “feeding or nutrition of the body” seems to have been totally dropped. As earlier mentioned, “sustain life” is the current preferred phrase. It must be said that for many years medical science has realised that blood was used by the body in 3 main ways.

1. Transport of essential components (e.g. Oxygen) 2. Maintenance of internal environment, temperature etc. and 3. Defence using immune systems etc.

Blood is not used by the body as food. For that to happen, it would need to be eaten and pass through the digestive system. The Awake Oct. 22 page 9 seems to go on record with the view that that an intravenous blood transfusion is not now a “feeding on blood”. It is instead an “organ transplant”. The organisation had never been able to gain much outside support for the “feeding / nutrition” explanation. By their logic: If blood (when transfused) is being used as a food or nutrition and is also an ORGAN transplant, then logically another organ transplant, say a kidney or heart would also be used by the body as “food or nutrition”? Let’s hope not!

1991

Hospital liaison committees

The March 1991 Kingdom Ministry (a monthly ministry sheet for baptised Witnesses only) contained an insert entitled “Are You Ready to Face a Faith Challenging Medical Situation?” The KM had a 4 page insert that the Witnesses were told to “keep in a safe place” in case of emergency. All family members were reminded to complete, sign and date a medical directive document / card. This included unbaptised children’s identity cards.

The article tends to take a more aggressive line, covering subjects such as

Hospital Liaison Committees, ID documents, Talking with Medical Personnel, Rights, Help, Loaded Questions etc.

20 such committees are reported to have been set up in Britain. The article tells Witnesses how they should answer certain questions. I do not doubt their sincerity, but given the possible outcome, it is wrong for the society to “put words” into their members’ mouths to the extent that this KM insert does.

For example; It suggests that, if a Witness is being questioned by a judge, they say that a blood transfusion would affect them in the same way as being raped. (IF that analogy is true, then surely it is for the individual to make and voice it)

Some Witnesses were probably, in the past, secretly relieved when a court took the decision out of their hands and ordered a transfusion for their child or loved one. Following the suggested “answers to loaded questions” in the KM insert will not help the Witness with any secret doubts. It encourages Witness families to “rehearse their answers” to any tricky questions that doctors or judges may ask them.

The entire insert article is reproduced in the Appendix

11992

The October 15th 1992 Watchtower featured a Question from Reader, “How concerned should Christians be that blood components such as dried plasma might have been added to food products?” The answer quotes Paul’s words at 1 Cor 10:25 - “Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no enquiry on account of your conscience”. It concludes that “Christians should guard against becoming disturbed by mere possibility or rumour”

The answer seems to therefore indicate that it would not be too disastrous if a Witness accidentally eat food containing blood products! Incredibly, the article continues;

“However, even as to checking labels or making inquiry of butchers, reasonableness is needed …. A Christian might first ask “Is there verified evidence that blood and derivatives are used in this area or country? In most places the answer is NO! Hence many Christians have concluded that they personally will not divert a great deal of time and attention checking on remote possibilities”

In view of the fuss, distinctions and punishments the society have decided about blood, transfusions, and derivatives, I find this new relaxed attitude to the possibility of blood in food strangely inconsistent.

1994

The May 22nd WT had an article titled “Youths who put God First” It included examples / experiences of children who lost their life possibly as result of blood transfusion refusal. However, because of their faith, the article maintains that a resurrection to paradise life is most likely.

RH Factor The December 8th Awake had an article entitled RH and you. It discussed the RHIG injections mentioned earlier (see 1990) It accepts that it is made from blood, but again concludes that it is a matter for personal conscience. It mentions that if couples decide that the woman should not have the RHIG injection, then they may take extra precautions so as not to have any further children. The same article, commenting on “the issues involved in the mis-use of blood” states

“This journal and it’s companion (the Watchtower) have commented CONSISTENTLY on this matter” (emphasis mine)

The October 1st Watchtower has a Question from Readers about the acceptability of Albumin. (a constituent of plasma) The answer says that acceptance is a “private decision” (no change) It adds that “many Witnesses have not objected to accepting injections containing small amounts of albumin, e.g.. EPO [erythropoietin] which can hasten red cell production”. No definition of “small amount” is offered.

1995

The January “Kingdom Ministry” requested that Witnesses study, review and comply with the information in a previous KM Jan 1993. This referred one back to the March 1991 KM insert “Are You Ready to Face a Faith Challenging Medical Situation” ( previously quoted - see 1991 and the Appendix) This document virtually railroads a witness into the decision that the organisation dictates should be made. It tells the Witness what to think, and what to say

Mature minors

The Awake magazine of January 22nd related the case of 15 year old Joshua who had Myeloid Leukaemia. The Canadian New Brunswick Court of Appeal declared him a “mature minor” and upheld his refusal to accept blood transfusions. The attitude of Joshua and his family is summed up:

“..If he recovered he was a winner.. If he didn’t, and died and was resurrected to Paradise, he was undoubtedly a winner” and … “when there was talk of a bone marrow transplant, his brother Jerry was first to offer”

[see earlier 1984 for their views on bone marrow ] The article concluded that the case should not have come to court because the Act (concerning mature minors in Canada) had been complied with. Joshua died on October 4th 1994. The same magazine related a case of successful major heart surgery on a Japanese 4 year old called Akane. Such surgery is very difficult due to the low volume of blood in a 4 year old. The anaesthesiologist wrote to Akane’s mother saying that “his opinion of doctors had changed and they should use their firm grasp of medical knowledge to save lives, but they should also respect the dignity and wishes of the patient” I am puzzled by this because the patient, in that case, was a 4 year old.

The 15th January Watchtower had an article on page 5 entitled “Treasure the Real Life”. It spoke of blood transfusions “which some doctors call life saving” [note the inference] and stated that doctors were realising the importance of “treating the whole person - physical, spiritual and emotional” The experience of Kumiko was related (pp6-7) She died of leukaemia, aged 15, refusing to attempt to lengthen her life by “a few weeks, months or even years” by accepting blood transfusions. Naturally the article spoke of this decision enthusiastically. Kumiko’s non - Witness father put a note in the funeral casket saying “I will see you in Paradise Kumiko” Most touching but the article failed to clarify their real beliefs in this matter - unless her father becomes a Jehovah’s Witness he will shortly be destroyed at Armageddon and will NOT be seeing Kumiko again!

The 22 February 1995 related the experience of Mia Bjorndal who had renal failure. She refused any blood transfusions. During the course of the illness her haemoglobin fell to 1.4 g/dcl (normal 11-16); her serum creatinine was 682 (55-110 normally); her number of platelets at one stage was 17,000 per cubic millimetre of blood (150 -450,000 normal) Her treatment included the extraction of her plasma and the removal of the troublesome antibodies from this plasma. (by external circulation which, a footnote explained, is left to individual conscience - refers reader to Watchtower 1/3/89.) She again refused transfusions and Mia came perilously close to death - her father saying “Now it’s only Mia and Jehovah” (the actual title of the Awake article.)

Intravenous injections of immunoglobulins were also tried - 6 grams per day over 3 days (another footnote said that although immunoglobulin contains “a tiny faction of blood” it is again left to conscience - refers reader to Watchtower 1/6/90.) Mia was also treated with erythropoietin (which is based on albumin from blood plasma - see 1994) Against all odds, she amazingly recovered. That is not always the case, so I leave the reader to decide the inference suggested by the title of the article. Note also that she accepted medication and treatment that some years earlier was not “subject to individual conscience” It was therefore fortunate for Mia that her renal failure had not occurred earlier in her life.

All I have done thus far is to collate a resume of the Watchtower beliefs, remove the padding and place them chronologically with a few obvious conclusions. It has probably left you a bit confused? The WTBTS have certainly got very confused over the years.

God is not a God of confusion. (1 Cor 14:33 Revised Standard bible)

How though does the Headquarters of the Jehovah’s Witnesses - their Governing Body - arrive at all these rules, regulations and technical distinctions from the Bible? After all a Jehovah’s Witness will refuse a blood transfusion because he or she believes that is what God requires, and that God has made that clear in His word - the Bible.

I cannot accept that all these changing rulings, distinctions and technicalities are from God.

Neither can I believe that God would require one to sacrifice his or her life based on them. The arguments are morally and logically flawed.

Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition…. your teachings are but rules made by man. Matt 15:6,9. (New International Bible)

Section 2: What does the Bible Actually Say?

Acknowledgements to David Henke - Watchman Fellowship for some of the following arguments

Surprisingly, very little. The Witnesses organisation base their present beliefs regarding blood on just a couple of main scriptures. One in Genesis 9, the other in Acts 15 and restated in Acts 21. Before we go any further we need to here make a distinction between the Hebrew and Greek scriptures (Old and New Testaments respectively)

Much of the Old testament concerns the Laws given by God to the nation of Israel, or the Jews. Witnesses, in common with most Christians, believe that Christ’s coming to earth and his sacrifice did away with the need for the old Laws given to the Israelites. Many of these laws compelled Israel to offer animal sacrifices, perform various rituals and they also forbade eating blood or unbled meat, animal fat, and certain animals etc.

The reason why God placed a restriction on blood in the first place was because as Leviticus 17:11 says, “…for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” God was sanctifying, setting apart for a holy purpose, the symbol of life and man’s redemption, so that man would have the highest respect for it.

Many pagan religions profaned blood by the way they used it. For instance it has been the view of many in occultic religions in both ancient and modern times that if you would eat animal, or even human, flesh while it was still living you would receive in yourself the strength, or life force, of the thing being eaten. This was the reason why God placed such a restriction on Noah and Israel.

In the Old Testament sacrifices we see animal blood being shed for the sins of the people. These sacrifices typified the shedding of the blood of Jesus on Calvary. So the sanctification of blood as a sacred symbol was ultimately because of the sacredness of the blood of Jesus. However, the purpose of the shedding of blood, whether in type in the Old Testament, or in the reality of Christ in the New Testament, was because the purpose of God was to give life. Hence, the value of life itself is preeminent over its symbol, blood.

Isn’t it interesting that the Church, which God purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:2 is told to eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood symbolically in the Lord’s Supper (John 6:53-58).

There is a hierarchy of values in the Levitical law. For instance it was forbidden to the Israelites to gather wood on the Sabbath. When the first offender was brought before Moses for judgment Moses was told by God to put the man to death. Because this was the first offense, and it was a direct challenge to what God had commanded, the severest penalty was required.

However, in the New Testament Jesus asked the Pharisees, “Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?” (Luke 14:5) The difference in Jesus’ example is that a life is being saved, even if it is only the life of an animal. To administer a blood transfusion to save a life is to endorse, or sustain, the preeminent value, which is life itself.

Does self-sacrifice by refusal of a blood transfusion strengthen the value God places on life, or weaken it? Is it a sin to sustain life? It would be a sin to throw oneself in front of a Mack truck. But, it would not be a sin if in doing such a thing one was pushing another person out of danger. The difference, life, the life of another, is being valued highly, even though it cost a life to do so. With a blood transfusion life is being sustained but without the death of anyone else. (D.H.)

GENESIS 9

However, before these old laws were given was the great Flood. After the waters had gone, God spoke to Noah and his family saying (using the New World Translation - the Witnesses own Bible translation)

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 the flesh with it’s soul - it’s blood - you must not eat.

[with it's life, that is it's blood - Revised Standard Bible]

And besides that, your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man. And as for you men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with you and become many in it. (Genesis 9:3 -7 NWT)

The Witnesses will argue that this command, about blood, given to Noah and his family, applies to all mankind, from then down to today. This is said to be because we all descended from Noah. Whether that extension is valid, we just do not know for sure - the Bible simply does not specifically say. Some agree, others do not. Many scholars consider that it simply meant that God was now allowing man to eat meat (previously the diet has been vegetarian) but the animal had to be dead, i.e. without life, represented by the blood. After reading these verses in a number of translations, I tend to agree with the Witnesses on the point that that unbled animals are probably being referred to. It’s extension to all mankind is less clear.

Genesis 9:4 is the first prohibition against the eating of blood. God gave Noah and his family permission to use animal flesh as food but He restricted that permission by saying,

“But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

Because this was given to Noah and his family, which then constituted the entire human race, and was prior to the Law, the Watchtower says this restriction was a universal one (JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AND THE QUESTION OF BLOOD,p.7).

Two other things should be pointed out here. First, there are two kinds of ‘flesh’ discussed. The first is living animals, or ‘flesh with the life thereof,’ (KEIL & DELITZSCH COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT), and the second is unbled dead meat. This restriction is given to show respect for the blood of sacrifices.

Second, the claim by Jehovah’s Witnesses that this prohibition is universal on all mankind is not warranted because Noah and his family were the only believers who were saved through the Flood so the prohibition could still be limited to believers only. And, Moses was inspired by God to say, “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God.” (Deut.14:21)

Further, the Watchtower is inconsistent by saying Genesis 9:4 is universal but in the Watchtower of November 15, 1964, pages 682,683 they say it would be permissible for a Jehovah’s Witness doctor to administer blood to a non- Witness patient because Deuteronomy 14:21 allows the Israelites to sell unbled meat to the Gentiles. (David Henke)

If we accept that God’ words to Noah apply to all mankind right down to today, then what about the rest of Genesis 9, see above, especially the part about “being fruitful and making the earth swarm with you”? In 1941 the WBTS issued a book about and called “Children”. It clearly discouraged Witnesses from marrying and having children. (See pages 366-7 for instance) In many other publications and articles since, the Witnesses are often encouraged to consider the preaching work as more important than marriage or having children.

Today, childbearing is not specifically a part of the work Jehovah has committed to his people…. each couple must decide for itself. Watchtower March 1st 1988

They seem to be picking and choosing the parts they want to from “these universal laws for all mankind”, given to Noah.

The words to Noah, after forbidding the eating of blood, later went on to forbid murder. (see Gen 9 quote above) In a typical piece of WBTS reasoning, the booklet Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood on page 8 states

Later in the Law given to Israel, Jehovah God prohibited murder, bearing out that mandate given to Noah was still in effect. (Ex 20:13)

It does no such thing! There are two clearly different and separate subjects - eating blood and murder. By that reasoning you could say that that years later when Jesus also forbade murder he was endorsing everything else that was also in the old Law covenant to Israel. This type of reasoning, although plainly ridiculous, is quite common.

Anyway, the command to Noah is one forbidding the eating of either unbled or possibly still living animals, depending upon how you read it.

THE OLD LAW

Later came the Law to Israel. As mentioned, the Witnesses agree that it was superseded by means of Christ’s ransom sacrifice (Rom 10:4, 6:14 Col 2:13-14) but they will sometimes quote it when it suits them. Incidentally, that old law for the Israelites makes a number of other statements about blood and related subjects:

..eat no meat with blood in it. Blood is the life and you mustn’t eat the life with the meat (Lev 17:10,11, 13, 14 see also Deut 12:23-25)

Note that verses 13, 14 are the scriptures speaking of the “pouring out”, the relevance of which the organisation have arbitrarily transferred to modern times (with exemptions in cases of Jehovah’s Witness doctors, blood tests , serums and other WBTS designated “minor” blood products etc.)

The old Law also forbade eating fat (Lev 7:25, 11:2- and animals that died naturally (Lev 11:39) Certain animals were also forbidden to be eaten, as was shellfish. The Law had many many rules and instructions for Israel. If one takes time to read through the old Law covenant, mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy it becomes clear that most references to blood show that stands for the lost life. When sacrificing an animal to God, they had to pour out the blood because it represented the animals former life, now expired. That is why they were forbidden to eat it. A blood donor however does not die.

However, as we have said, Christ did away with the old covenant and the need for lots of complicated laws. It seems that the WBTS are intent on replacing them.

Leviticus 17:10″

“And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Since this text is part of the Law it cannot be said to be applicable to all of mankind. It is speaking directly to the offense of drinking blood. Because blood is at the heart of the Old Testament sacrificial system, and typified the blood of Christ, it carried a heavier penalty than eating unbled meat. If you will read verse 15 you will see the very mild penalty for eating unbled meat. The reason for the difference is that when an animal is killed by an Israelite he is to show his reverence for life and the atonement by pouring out the blood. However, the Law, and the type, are fulfilled in Christ. As Matthew Henry says in his COMMENTARY, “This reason is now superseded, which intimates that the law itself was ceremonial, and is now no longer in force…” (p.131).

The strictest orthodox Jews who still practice the Old Testament dietary laws have never equated a blood transfusion with eating blood. In fact among all the sects who claim to follow Christ the Jehovah’s Witnesses stand alone on this issue. No one else sees any connection between eating blood and transfusing it.

ACTS 15

So far then we have the command given to Noah in Genesis. The second scriptural passage used by Witnesses focuses on Acts 15: 19-21. The context concerns an argument that arose in 49 CE as a result of some teaching that non Jews (Gentiles) that accepted Christianity should be circumcised (like the Jews) so as not to cause friction or offence. The Apostles and older men in Jerusalem discussed the matter and James (in the crucial scripture) said that they:

..should abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood .

The organisation will argue that to abstain from blood would mean to shun blood in any form, whether it is by eating or transfusion. As we have seen, they have on many occasions attempted to connect the two by likening transfusions to a “feeding or nutrition”. The Greek word translated as “abstain” simply means to “stand away from”. Some other translations such as GNB simply translate the blood part as “eat no blood”, realising that contextually the scripture is talking about the eating of blood, keeping the peace with the Jews who had been forbidden to eat blood by the old law. In the 1st Century THERE WAS NO OTHER USE FOR BLOOD, and the organisation are making far too much of the word “abstain”. In 1 Peter 2:11 the same Greek word is used - “keep abstaining from fleshly desires “. Obviously this doesn’t mean shunning all forms of all fleshly desires , including sleeping breathing and eating! In any case, if they want to treat the word in such an all embracing manner, they would abstain from blood tests, blood based serums, vaccines end everything else. It would also be most important to make 100% sure that any food was free from blood, especially added blood produce in manufacture. (see 1992)

Remember the words of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the religion . They have been echoed by many Bible commentators since. On Acts 15:

The things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the “body” composed of Jews and Gentiles… A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden… These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on the subject that it was necessary for the peace of the church [or congregation] that the Gentiles should observe this matter also (Zion’s Watchtower ,15 April 1909, p. 4374).

In the booklet “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood - 1977 page 17, the command to Noah after the flood is discussed, followed by James’ words in Acts 15. They then conclude that it was not a temporary measure because it was re stated in Acts 21:25, which they believe to be 10 years later. But Acts 21 simply says the same thing as Acts 15 and the text clearly concerns the very same (Jews / Gentiles) issue .

After a discussion of Genesis 9 and Acts 15, the booklet then boldly states on page 17:

“up to this point we have established the following: A human is not to sustain his life with the blood of another creature”. (page 17)

They haven’t! All they have actually established is that

1. God told Noah not to eat unbled (or possibly living) animals, and 2. The Gentiles, so as not to stumble Jews back in the 1st Century were admonished to abstain from certain things in the Jewish Law, including blood. This obviously referred to the eating of blood or unbled animals.

And that is all they have ever established, because the Bible has no more to say on the matter

The phrase “not to sustain one’s life with blood” has been entirely introduced by the WBTS and is a “red herring” having no biblical support. In any case, eating meat with or without blood in it would both sustain life. The “sustaining of life” is not mentioned and is not a factor in emergencies

In the same booklet, the question is asked on page 9 .. “Could God’s law on blood be set aside in times of emergency”? (the inference being emergency blood transfusion - the word “emergency” fitting in nicely here) Of course it comes up with the answer “No”, and refers the reader to 1 Samuel 14:31-35 where some soldiers of Israel were hungry after a long battle and slaughtered some sheep and fell about eating them without seeing that they were fully bled. The booklet fails to point out that “God’s law on blood” here referred to is the OLD law to the Israelites that it acknowledges was superseded by Christ. Secondly, it fails to explain how “hunger after a battle” constitutes an “emergency”. in the sense it wants to portray. I consider that a child in an operating theatre with severe blood loss and a blood count of just 7, and it’s life ebbing away is an “emergency”. A group of hungry soldiers is not! I find the WBTS’s argument and inference most disturbing.

A couple more scriptures (not mentioned by Witnesses when discussing blood) are well worth considering. They are both in the New Testament, and therefore applicable to Christians. They show that the numerous food restrictions of the old law are no longer required.

Listen to me, all of you, and understand - there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man… Mark 7:14-19

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat - 1 Cor 8:8

I hope that I have thus far at least demonstrated that many of the arguments put forth by the WBTS do not stand up to close scrutiny. They make rules that must be followed, change them without pointing out the change and then when they get into a bit of a quandary they stand away and try to leave it to conscience. They show an almost breathtaking arrogance. If the matter was not so serious it would be almost comical.

[They] attempted to tie us up with rules and regulations. Galations 2:4 (Phillips Modern English)

Dearly loved friends, don’t always believe everything you hear just because someone says it is a message from God: test it first to see if it really is. (1 John 4:1 -The Living Bible)

---

Section 3: Experiences

Witness publications regularly back up their non blood beliefs with experiences “proving” that even medically, their way is the best way An average Witness will probably think that if all transfusions ceased tomorrow, survival rates would actually improve! For example the Awake March 8th 1991 p 13 has Sonya’s and Jonathan’s experiences :

Sonya, a bright 13 year old learned in 1989 that she had a cancerous tumour in one eye. The tumour was growing rapidly and surgery was required. The hospital said that it was a serious condition and that a blood transfusion may be required during the operation. The article states that “the family could not consent to that because of their religious convictions”… “The competent surgeon caring for Sonya was willing to remove the cancerous tumour, confident that she could do so without a blood transfusion. However because of hospital policy, the surgeon could not get an anaesthesiologist to assist”. The Witnesses hospital liaison committee are able to help and made arrangements for her to be transferred to a medical centre in another country. The surgeon agreed to be part of the team in the other country. The article reports that ” after the eight and a half hour operation, Sonya’s first words were an anxious inquiry as to whether blood has been forced on her. What a joy for Sonya to know that the answer was no!”

The article did not feel the need to tell us the result of the operation or even how Sonya was at that time, 2 years later in 1991. I guess that they had made the only point they wanted to. Note also the inference of the word “competent” that leads the reader to conclude that other surgeons unwilling to operate are incompetent? (italics mine). This type of assertion is frequently used by the WBTS. The other example on the same page relates the case of Jonathan. It says,

“Jonathan is the oldest son of Michael and Valerie. In late 1989 when he was 16 doctors informed them that Jonathan had a very large growth on his spleen. Doctors were somewhat apprehensive about operating without using blood, but they courageously [note the inference again] did so, respecting the family’s religious stand. During the recovery period, serious complications developed. Jonathon’s blood pressure dropped dramatically, and his blood count fell. In a second operation, he lost a great deal of blood , his haemoglobin falling to 5.5, which is about a third of normal level. The internist exclaimed: “your son’s condition is plummeting. We are up against a wall. If he doesn’t receive blood he may die!” What to do? … In Jonathan’s case, when his blood count fell to 5.5 after two operations, the doctors were convinced that a blood transfusion was necessary to save his life, and they were ready to seek a court order to force blood on him. But Jonathon’s firm faith and personal resistance to the use of blood slowed things down. Jonathan reports: ” I took Dr.______ by the collar and looked him in the eye and said, ‘No blood or blood products, PLEASE!”‘ The committee of trained brothers helped arrange for Jonathan to be airlifted to a larger medical facility… The next day Jonathon’s haemoglobin stabilised. His blood count steadily improved, and he was released 15 days after the initial operation.

That is just two from the many hundreds of similar experiences an average Witness will hear over the years. I strongly believe that it is morally wrong to continually report favourable experiences, when things turn out OK. They lead their readers to think that refusal of blood is a valid decision on medical grounds alone. In reality, many thousands and thousands of blood transfusions take place every day. Statistically, any problems are very small in number, and are not a major medical concern, despite all the Witnesses organisation’s publicity of any adverse minority viewpoints. On the other hand, hundreds of Witnesses die annually after refusing blood. Of course we cannot say for sure that it would or could have saved or extended their lives, but statistically the evidence is that in many cases it would have. When they do report cases of Witnesses dying after refusal to accept transfusions , the text will always dwell on things such as;

1. the faithfulness of the Witness, especially if it is a child, 2. positive statements about their faith from medical personnel 3. the resurrection hope and statements about the resurrection made by the former patient (NB The present teaching about the resurrection has also been subject to much change in the Witnesses short 120 year history)

The doubts, worry, panic, tears and trauma of the situation are not reported sufficiently or in an unbiased manner in such articles.

All Witnesses read and believe fully and without question all of their society’s current publications. They must. They are not able to seriously question anything. They are being given a one sided view on which to base a decision that could maybe cost them their life.

An alternative experience

Discover magazine August 1988 pages 28-30 had an article by Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal titled “Blinded by the Light”. It concerns a Ms Peyton, a 42 year old Witness who had had several tumours removed from her bladder over the course of a number of years. She was bleeding heavily and needed an operation. She refused a blood transfusion and the doctors and surgeons were doing their best: As reported in “In Search of Christian Freedom” Ray Franz ,- 1992 Commentary Press Atlanta.

As her blood count dropped further, Ms Peyton became short of breath. The body’s organs need a certain amount of oxygen (O2) to function. The oxygen is carried from the lungs to the periphery by haemoglobin molecules in the red cells. By now she was breathing supplemental oxygen - pure oxygen. The few red cells she had were fully loaded -but there weren’t enough vehicles left to transport the fuel her body needed. Her hunger for air increased. Her respiratory rate climbed. She became more and more groggy, and finally - inevitably - the muscle fibres of her heart declared there desperate need for oxygen. She developed crushing, severe chest pain. As I walked into the room I was awed by the scene in front of me. At the centre of everyone’s attention was a large woman with an oxygen mask, gasping for air, breathing faster than seemed humanly possible. At the head of the bed were three friends, fellow church members, coaching her.. At her side were several doctors -one monitoring her falling blood pressure, another coaxing some blood from an artery. The fluid that slowly filled the syringe had the consistency of Hawaiian punch: tests on the same revealed a red cell count of 9 (normal would have been 40). Hanging from the bed was a bag of cherry-red urine. The woman was dying. Her cardiogram tracings showed the deep valleys that signal a heart in pain. Within a matter of hours the damage they represented would become irreversible.

The woman went into cardiac arrest. CPR (Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was started. The team of doctors and nurses administered epinephrine and atropine (heart stimulants) Defibrillation - electric shock - was performed. The heart fluttered into activity then stopped. More CPR, more epinephrine and atropine, more defibrillation, more CPR. This went on for an hour, until there was no longer any hope or purpose. Ms Peyton was dead beyond recovery.

Note the blood count was 9. Most Witnesses will think that blood transfusions are unnecessary for the treatment of blood counts even as low as 5. In many of the experiences related to them, it stabilises, and the patient recovers!

Another case concerns Yvonne Leighton from Tyne & Wear and was reported in the Daily Telegraph in 1993. Yvonne was just 28 and had given birth to her second child. During a simple operation a few days after the birth, Yvonne haemorrhaged. Her blood count dropped. Blood substitutes were given but they did not help. The doctors spent hours trying to get Yvonne to have a transfusion to no avail. The Witnesses warned the doctors that if they gave blood against Yvonne’ wishes, then a charge of criminal assault would be brought. Sadly, Yvonne simply bled to death.

According to the WBTS, she died, rejecting the “symbol of life” - blood. Yet she lost her life, and was willing to do so.

She had been led to believe that the “symbol ” was more important than the thing it symbolised .

There are many many more similar cases. Further examples serve no purpose. I have simply related two typical Witnesses approved “experiences” followed by two others.

Conclusions

Well, what conclusions do you draw. Whether you are an elder, patient or friend you should consider :

Is the WBTS organisation qualified to make and change rules on which life or death may be in question? Are they consistent? What does the evidence show?

If proof of discrepancies and inconsistencies are put to the organisation, then the usual explanation is that God is gradually making things brighter - like a light getting brighter and brighter. Proverbs 4:18 is often quoted. (somewhat mis-applied and out of context) This does not explain why certain doctrines change (get brighter?) only to revert to the former belief a few years later. Is this the way a God of Love would deal with his people through His sole visible organisation or channel? God wants them to be misled or to follow wrong and false ideas ? - so he allows His only earthly organisation to advance such ideas? He wants anyone questioning that organisation to be severely cut off, and worthy of death? That does not sound like the God of the Bible to me.

What will you do?
Do you Care?
What now?
Will you just hope it doesn’t ever affect you?
Or your Children
Or your loved ones?

If it does I sincerely hope that God, and not an organisation of men, helps you to the correct decision.

You cannot now simply echo the Witnesses usual sentiment and say that “I will follow the organisation” or “if anything is wrong, it will be put right later” Such a statement is similar to the statements made by the guards in the concentration camps. They were “just following orders” That explanation is often quoted and decried by the WBTS organisation. So, if you are a Witness, what should you do? The Awake magazine, in an article aimed at Lutherians, put it well:

If after making an honest investigation, you are less than pleased with what you see, do more than just complain. A journalist, commenting on Karl Barth’s statement that a church IS it’s members, logically concluded: “Church members are responsible for what the church says and does”. So ask yourself: Am I willing to share responsibility for everything my church says and does? You may sincerely believe that your church is no part of false religion that God says he will soon destroy. But your life depends on being 100 % sure. Are you? (Awake - September 8th, 1987)

Why, in response to any sincere questioning of their beliefs or interpretations, does the WBTS resort to attacking the source of the questioning - rather than simply using the Bible and refuting the evidence.

Question the motives of a questioner by all means - but don’t ALSO ignore the questions! Surely a simple disproving of the allegations or claims, using the Bible would be more effective. Why can’t Witnesses hold their beliefs up to even a simple examination, as required in the Bible itself, and as indeed they require of others?

As far as the History of the Witnesses and blood goes, it’s quite obvious why they can’t, or won’t.

Jerry Bergman in his book “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Problems of Mental Health” relates a conversation with a former Witness previously on the “Awake” writing staff. This person admitted to Dr Bergman that the beliefs and interpretations regarding blood, the Bible and transfusions were considered to be in error by some senior headquarters staff. They are however, unable (or unwilling) to change policy because it is so firmly established and a change would cause an embarrassing loss of face. So many have lost so much through faithful adherence to the policy in the past.- it cannot now be seen to have been in vain.

The history of the shifting policies and distinctions made by the WBTS seem to be the confused reactions of a group of men. Sincere - undoubtedly, but also, in my opinion, tragically misguided.

I could not therefore let a child of mine die because of their “present beliefs”., which are actually just “organisational rules”.

Michael Fry

We are not dictators over your faith, but are fellow workers with you for your happiness. (2 Corinthians 1:24 Jerusalem Bible) < B>Test everything. Hold on to the good. 1 Thess 5:21 (New International Version)

APPENDIX

The March 1991 Kingdom Ministry (a monthly ministry sheet for baptised Witnesses only) contained an insert entitled:

Are You Ready to Face a Faith Challenging Medical Situation?

The full text follows. No one thinks much about the possibility of being in a hospital today or tomorrow. Still, “time and unforeseen occurrence befall us all”. (EccI. 9:11) Even if you do not accept medical treatment as your preferred form of health care, what will you do to protect yourself from an unwanted blood transfusion should an accident leave you unconscious and you are rushed to a hospital? Yes, an accident or a suddenly deteriorating health situation can abruptly bring you face-to-face with a challenge to your faith.

2 If you should find yourself in a hospital for any reason, what will you do to maintain integrity if some- one there tells you that you will die without a blood transfusion? Will you hastily accept that this claim truly represents your condition? Are you fully convinced that you do not want blood? Are you ready to face this challenge to your faith and “abstain from blood”? -Acts 15:28, 29.

Successfully resisting an unwanted, spiritually contaminating blood transfusion starts with a firm conviction. Such a conviction must be based on a clear understanding of what the Bible says about blood. Otherwise, you can, in the emotion of the moment, easily be intimidated by someone who claims to know more about the situation than you do. Would you be misled into thinking that maybe doctors know more about blood than God does? Surely, in these circumstances you will want to be “firmly resolved” to do “what is right” in Jehovah”s eyes, no matter what mere humans may say. (Deut. 12:23-25) But do you have to face this challenge all by yourself?- Eccl. 4:9-12.

HOSPITAL INFORMATION SERVICES AND HOSPITAL LIAISON COMMITTEES

To assist those who need help when faced with a blood transfusion problem, the Society has set up Hospital information Services at Brooklyn. It has also established 100 Hospital Liaison Committees in ma- major U.S. cities. These committees are made up of more than 600 elders specially trained for this work. In Britain the Society maintains a Hospital Information Desk at Bethel, and twenty Hospital Liaison Committees have recently been appointed in major cities and more are to follow. Hospital Information Services is able to do research in more than 3,600 medical journals world-wide to locate information on the availability and effectiveness of many forms of bloodless surgery and treatment. It then supplies Hospital Liaison Committees, health care centres, and some doctors with information on these medical advances. (Sometimes Hospital Information Services has sent out medical articles that show what can be done without blood and successfully defused an ongoing confrontation at a hospital.) It keeps the committees posted on favourable court decisions that will assist judges in looking at our cases with added insight.

It also maintains records on over 7,000 co-operative physicians so that the committees have up- to- date files to use when blood transfusion problems arise.

Hospital Information Services also supervises the training and work of the Hospital Liaison Committees. In the cities where they are located, Hospital Liaison Committees regularly make informative presentations to hospital staff to improve relations with them. They also poll these medical personnel to find any additional doctors who will treat us without using blood. These brothers stand ready to help you but there are crucial advance steps you must take to lay the groundwork for them to do that most effectively.

CRUCIAL ADVANCE STEPS -HAVE YOU TAKEN THEM YET?

First, make sure all in the family have their personal medical directive document thoroughly filled in-dated, signed, and Witnessed. Please note that revised cards came into use in January 1991. Some brothers arriving at a hospital with an undated and/or unwitnessed document have had its validity challenged. And do all our unbaptized children have their filled-in identification cards? If not, in an emergency involving your child, how do hospital personnel know your position on blood and whom to call?

Then see to it that all keep these documents with them AT ALL TIMES. Check this with your children before they go to school each day, yes, even before they go to a playground or recreational area. All of us should be sure that these documents are with us at work, when on vacation, or at a Christian convention. Never be without them!

Think what could happen to you if you should arrive in a serious condition at the emergency room of a hospital, unconscious and/or unable to speak for yourself. If you do not have the document with you, and there is no relative or elder yet at the hospital to speak for you, and it is concluded that you “need blood,” you “I will likely receive a blood transfusion. Unfortunately, this has happened to some. But when we have the document, it speaks for us, expressing our will.

That is why a medical document is better than a medical bracelet or necklace. The latter do not explain our Bible-based reasons for our position and do not have signatures verifying what is stated. A Canadian court ( decision said about a sister’s document: “The patient has chosen in the only way possible to notify doctors and other providers of healthcare, should she become unconscious or otherwise unable to convey her wishes, that she does not consent to blood transfusions”. So never be without it!

Since our medical directive is designed mainly for dealing with emergency situations, then in elective surgery you would be wise to write out your own personalized, more complete advance directive (based on our medical directive) so that you can include specifics, such as the type of surgery and the hospital. It is your right to do this and thus ensure the treatment of your choice. Even though you and the doctor may not anticipate serious problems, explain that this directive is to be followed in case of any unexpected developments.-Prov. 22:3.

The next important step is to talk to the necessary medical personnel that you will have to deal with in either elective or emergency treatment. To whom especially should you speak?

TALK TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL

THE MEDICAL TEAM: This is a time when the fear of man must not prevail. (Prov. 29:25) If you appear unsure, someone may decide you are not sincere. When surgery is needed, elective or emergency, you or the nearest family member must with determination ask some pointed questions of the head of the surgical team.

One important question is, Will the team respect the patient’s wishes and in all circumstances treat without blood? Without this assurance you would not be well protected.

State plainly and with dignified conviction what your wishes are. Make it clear that you want alternative non-blood medical management of your problem. Calmly and confidently discuss both your own advance medical directive and also the hospital’s release from liability form. If the surgeon is unwilling to work with your wishes, you will save time if you ask the consultant or your own general practitioner to locate another doctor for you. That is part of his job.

ANAESTHETIST: Of all on the medical team that you need to talk to before surgery, YOU MUST NOT FAIL TO SPEAK TO THIS DOCTOR. Charged with keeping you alive while the surgeon operates, the anaesthetist is the one who makes decisions about such matters as the use of blood. So you are not fully protected by just talking to the surgeon. Hence, you must speak with and convince the anaesthetist as to your position, determining whether it will be respected or not.-Compare Luke 18:3-5.

The usual practice, it seems, is for the anaesthetist to visit the patient briefly rather late on the night before surgery-too late if he is opposed to your stand on blood. Insist that the surgeon preselect a co-operative anaesthetist that you can talk to well in advance of elective surgery. Then there will be time to locate another one if the first one is unwilling to abide by your wishes. Do not let anyone try to talk you out of this right to be satisfied with the anaesthetist for your surgery.

To all of these, you must make clear your non-negotiable stand: NO BLOOD. Ask for alternative non- blood medical management of your case. Mention any known alternatives to blood for your situation. If the medical team feels these are not useful in your case, ask them to research other possibilities in the medical literature. Assure them you can get them some information if they wish by your asking your elders to contact the nearest Hospital Liaison Committee.

EXERCISING YOUR RIGHTS

Examine carefully the consent form the hospital asks you to sign upon admittance. Sometimes right after stating that they will respect your wishes a succeeding paragraph will declare that the signer agrees that the hospital can administer “lifesaving treatment when they encounter problems. That could include blood.

You have the right to alter any such statements to exclude blood or cross them out altogether. Nurses may try to tell you that you cannot do that, but you can! Explain that such a form is a contract with them and that you cannot sign a contract you do not agree with. If anyone tries to force you to sign against your will, ask to speak to the consultant and/or the patient representative for that health care centre.

Can you do such things? Yes, you can. So be aware of your rights as a patient. These human rights are not left at the front door when you enter a hospital. You do not have to give them up in order to get treatment. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

One such right is called the right of bodily integrity, which means that no treatment of any kind can be given you without your permission. You can even refuse all treatment if you wish. Your consent to treatment should follow a clear explanation of what the medical team intends to do, including all risks. Next, they should tell you about any alternatives that are available. Then, after you have been informed, you choose what treatment you wish.

To be sure of what you are consenting to, you MUST ask good questions about anything you do not understand, especially when large words or medical terms are used by the hospital personnel. For example, if a doctor says he would like to use plasma,’ you could innocently conclude he is referring to a “plasma volume expander,” but not so. Before agreeing, ask: “Is that a component of blood?” About any of his procedures, ask: Does that treatment involve the use of blood products?” If he describes some device he would like to employ, ask: “Is my blood stored at any time during the use of this device?”

But what should you do if you have done all the above and there is still no co-operation or even some resistance to your position? Do not hesitate to ask for help. Some have waited too long to get help and put their very lives in danger.

VALUABLE HELP IN A TIME OF NEED

Note the following procedure for obtaining needed help: (1) As soon as you or a loved one faces either elective or emergency surgery where there is a confrontation because the hospital wants to use blood; or (2) if your medical situation or that of a loved one deteriorates seriously; or (3) if in the case of a child (or an adult), the doctor, a nurse, an administrator, or a social worker says they are going to get a court order, then:

CALL YOUR LOCAL ELDERS if you have not already done so. (Indeed, because of our position on blood, it is the course of wisdom to alert our elders anytime we have to go to a health care facility.) Next, if it is deemed necessary, THE ELDERS WILL CALL THE NEAREST HOSPITAL LIAISON COMMITTEE. If you wish, some Hospital Liaison Committee members may come to the hospital at this time to help you -Isa. 32:1, 2.

These Hospital Liaison Committee elders know who the co-operative doctors are in your area and can get you in touch with them and start to line up other doctors or health care centres to assist. If none are available locally, the elders will check with the next nearest committee. And if that is not successful, they will call the Hospital Information Desk at Bethel. They may also be able to arrange for consultation with a co-operative doctor who can explain to your present medical team what can be done without blood. Hospital Liaison Committee brothers have been trained to handle such situations.

Members of the Hospital Liaison Committees are also willing to help you or a relative talk to a doctor or an administrator, but you must request that help. Of course, these brothers cannot make decisions for you, but often they can assist you in considering the Society’s view of matters and alert you to your options medically and legally.

If the medical team is still disinclined to co-operate, talk to the consultant about a referral to another specialist who will respect your wishes. If he hesitates to do that and ONLY if you definitely have another surgeon lined up elsewhere and your general practitioner is willing to arrange a referral, then you have the option of insisting on a transfer to the other facility.

Can you do that? Yes, you have that right. And if the matter later comes to court a signed and dated written statement can carry much weight. It can also possibly open the way ethically for other surgeons now to step in and offer their services to you. And, most important, it can get you the needed medical attention before your condition deteriorates dangerously. Do not wait too long!

LOADED QUESTIONS TO WATCH OUT FOR

You should know that there are some questions that doctors and others pose that are not always asked with good motive. The one most frequently asked by doctors (and by some judges) is:

“Would you rather die (let your child die) than accept a “lifesaving blood transfusion”?”

If you say yes, that would be correct in a religious sense. But that reply is often misunderstood and at times even produces adverse court decisions. You must remember that you are not in the ministry in this situation. Rather, you are talking about needed medical treatment. Hence, you must adapt to your audience, medical or legal.-Ps. 39:1; Col. 4:5, 6.

‘To a doctor, a judge, or a hospital administrator, “yes” can mean you want to be a martyr or want to sacrifice your child for your faith. Telling them about your strong faith in the resurrection in this situation will not usually help. They will brand you a religious fanatic, unable to make rational decisions when life is at stake. In the case of children, they will see you as a negligent parent who refuses so-called “lifesaving” medical treatment.

But you are NOT denying medical treatment as such. You simply differ with the doctor as to WHAT KIND of treatment. This position will often change the whole picture for them and you. Besides, it is misleading for them to make it appear as if blood is safe and is the ONLY “lifesaving” treatment. (See How Can Blood Save Your Life?, pages 7-22.) So you must make that point very clear. How can you do it? You might answer:

“I do not want (I do not want my child) to die. If I wanted (wanted my child) to die, I would have stayed at home. But I came here to get medical treatment so as to (to have my child) live. What I want is alternative non blood medical management of my (my child’s) case. There are alternatives available”.

Several other questions often asked by doctors or judges are:

What will happen to you if a transfusion is forced by court order? Will you be held responsible?”

Will accepting or having a transfusion forced on you cause you to be put out of your religion or be denied eternal life? How will you be viewed by your congregation?

One sister responded to a judge that in such a case she would not be responsible for what he decided. While correct from one point of view, the judge took it to mean that since she would not he held responsible, then he would take the responsibility for her. He ordered a transfusion.

You must understand that in asking these questions, some are usually looking for a way around your refusal to accept blood. Do not inadvertently give it to them! So how would we avoid that misunderstanding? You could reply:

“If blood is forced on me in any way, it would be the same to me as being raped. I would suffer the emotional and spiritual consequences of that unwanted attack on me for the rest of my life. I would resist with all my strength such a violation of my body without my consent. I would make every effort to prosecute my attackers just as I would in a case of rape”.

The strong, graphic impression must be made that a forced transfusion is to us a repugnant violation of our bodies. It is no casual matter. So hold your ground. Make it clear you want alternative non-blood medical management.

WHAT WILL YOU DO TO BE READY?

We have reviewed some things that you need to do to protect yourself and your family from an unwanted blood transfusion. (Later, we hope to -provide more details on handling problems that arise when infants and children are threatened with transfusions.) We have also seen what the Society has lovingly done to provide help in a time of need. What must you do with this information to be sure you are ready to face a faith-challenging medical situation?

First: Have a family discussion to rehearse these matters and to work out what you will say and do, especially in an emergency.

Next: See that you have all the documents you need.

Then: Make it a matter of serious prayer to Jehovah to back you up in your firm resolve to ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ Obeying his law on blood assures us of his favour for endless Iife.-Acts 15:29; Prov. 27:11,12.