The Society would like you to believe that their blood policy is universally accepted by individual JWs worldwide.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The blood policy is so full of contradictions and in such a shambles that many witnesses, including elders and HLC (Hospital Liason Committee) members reject it.
"Why some Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood and conscientiously reject official Watchtower Society blood policy."
This was the title of a paper (article) written by one of Jehovah's Witnesses, in The Journal of Medical Ethics in 2000. Lee Elder, a former elder, was the founding member of The Associated Jehovah’s Witnesses for Reform on Blood and the author of this paper.
In his paper, Lee outlined why many witnesses are rejecting the WTS policy on blood.
"It is not uncommon for JWs to reject treatments or blood therapies the WTS permits simply because they are unaware they may now accept them. The WTS's blood policy remains in a state of disorder with no credible answers to the core issues raised by AJWRB. Furthermore, some JWs, including significant numbers of elders and HLC members, have concluded they can no longer conscientiously support WTS policy. Many are frustrated by the WTS's failure to provide meaningful answers and are deeply troubled over the death toll this policy has produced." 1
The blood policy, quite simply, does not make sense. Here are some examples of this nonsense policy:
A. Whole red cells must not be transfused, however, hemoglobin can. What's the difference? Well not counting its water content, a red blood cell is over 97% hemoglobin.2
Is the prohibition on blood transfusions really a Bible teaching?
What did the apostolic decree, in Acts 15:29 to abstain from blood mean?
"...you are to abstain from meat that has been offered to idols, from blood, from anything that has been strangled ..." Acts 15:29 New English Bible (NEB)
The Society says this apostolic decree was a reaffirmation of the law given to Noah, stated at Genesis 9:3-4, which was binding on all humans not just Jews since it predates the nation of Israel.
"Every creature that lives and moves shall be food for you: I give you them all as once I gave you all green plants. But you must not eat the flesh with the life, which is the blood, still in it. And further, for your life-blood I will demand satisfaction: from every animal I will require it, and from a man also I will require satisfaction for the death of his fellow-man." Genesis 9:3-4 (NEB).
This is the sole basis for their anti blood transfusion policy.
However when the Society discusses its policy it quite often refers to scriptures in the old testament that instruct the Levites on proper use of blood during sacrifices at the temple. It needs to be pointed out that these scriptures are of academic and historical interest only - as christians are not bound by these requirements, such as pouring out the blood on the ground or splattering it on their garments.
The law covenant added a further restriction; Isrealites could not eat anything that died of natural causes as it had not been bled (Deuteronomy 14:21) but they could give the unbled animal to alien residents or foreigners to eat.
"You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death. You shall give it to the aliens who live in your settlements, and they may eat it; or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a people holy to the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 14:21 NEB
This appears to be a contradiction - (Genesis 9) eating an animal with the blood still in it prohibited to all humans, (Deuteronomy) Jews may give dead unbled animals to alien residents and foreigners to eat. But there is a subtle difference here. Genesis refers to an animal that has been killed by a human for food. Deuteronomy refers to an animal that has died of natural causes.
It gets even more interesting when this is considered with what is mentioned in Leviticus:
"Every person, native or alien, who eats that which has died a natural death or has been mauled by wild beasts shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain ritually unclean till evening: then he shall be clean..." Leviticus 17:15-16 (NEB)
These verses tell us something, and that is that the prohibition on eating blood in Genesis 9 was not so much about blood, as about the value of life. The context of the verse shows that God was giving humans animals to eat just as he had given plant life as food, however there was a difference that humans needed to be aware of - animals were alive, or had life in them. According the New English Bible, Genesis 9:4 states "But you must not eat the flesh with the life...still in it".
This prohibition on eating 'flesh with the life ...still in it' was to make the human hunters show respect for life by not eating an animal while it was alive. In a sense, it served to remind them that the animals life did not belong to them - it was not theirs to take. This was ritualised in the law covenent by the requirement to pour the blood upon the ground if the animal was killed by a human hunter.The blood, or life, was symbolically returned to God - the giver of all life. If the animal was not killed by a human hunter, then there was no need to symbolically return what the hunter had not taken, life.
The WTS says that blood is sacred, because it represents life. But the point of these Bible verses is that life, even animal life, is sacred and that humans have no natural right to take it.
Quite simply, it is more important to show respect for all life, than something that merely represents life (blood).
The WTS has said that the apostolic decree in Acts 15:29 referred to the practice of eating blood. The Society claims that transfusion is ultimately the same as eating blood. However, No nourishment takes place when blood is transfused - it is an organ transplant. When a kidney is transplanted, the recipients body does not feed on it, and the body does not feed on blood when it is transplanted either. So a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood.
They also say that because the decree said to 'abstain' from blood then that means blood should not be transfused.- they claim that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood. Yet , as we have seen above, the Watch Tower Society policy is not even close to requiring abstaining from blood - just about any part of blood can be transfused (97%) but not all at the same time.
A blood transfusion is not a sin because it is not feeding on blood. It does not need to be poured out because nothing was killed to obtain the blood and we are not under the law covenant.
A changing policy
Over the last twenty years, the Society has slowly changed its policy so that nearly every blood product or fraction that was once forbidden is now acceptable.
How many innocent lives were lost because of the Society's vacillations and reluctance to clearly state its policy we will never know. Once the WTS said that thousands of children had died over this issue.
The Governing Body are clearly trying to separate themselves from the legal corporations they use to prevent them from being prosecuted in any lawsuits brought against the WTS over this policy. This was likely the real reason behind their "organisational restructuring". Them volunteerily giving up some of their power - especially to non-anointed ones is just unthinkable.
The WTS is being dishonest to all witnesses by slowly backing away from their blood doctrine without admitting it and trying to make it appear that all along it was a conscience issue. No doubt, in a few years, they will re-write their history so that new recruits don't learn the truth.
Public Debate on the web
Over the past three months there has been much debate on this subject, at BMJ.COM.
Witnesses, elders, a member of the Hospital Liason Commitee, medical professionals and others debated the society's view on blood. You can download a pdf of this debate from us here it is current to April 10, 2001. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view this file. It is over 100 pages long and about 800K in size.
The Watch Tower Society responded to this debate with the following email to the BMJ website:
Jehovah's Witnesses respect patients' autonomy
Editor -
Jehovah's Witnesses are usually well informed both doctrinally and regarding their right to determine their own treatment. It is not a doctor's job to question these principles, but the doctor should discuss with patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses the medical consequences of not having a transfusion in the management of their specific condition. It is essential to establish the views held by each patient. In line with these recent directives from the Royal College of Surgeons, I wish to clarify points raised by Muramoto in his article.
The position of Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to refusal of donor blood transfusion, based on their personal, deeply held religious beliefs, is well known among members of the medical community. The understanding that Jehovah's Witnesses have of the biblical command to abstain from blood precludes their use of whole donor blood and its four primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma). Acceptance of derivatives of any of these major blood components, including albumin, clotting factors, immunoglobulins, and haemoglobin based oxygen carriers, is a matter for each Witness patient to decide.
Thousands of specialist clinicians worldwide are skilled and experienced in the safe and effective use of medical alternatives to donor blood. An extensive body of medical literature has amassed over the past 40 years documenting the successful medical and surgical treatment of patients without recourse to donor blood. Many investigators now accept that allogeneic blood impairs the defences of the immune system and leads to higher rates of cancer recurrence and postoperative infection. Thus, the new paradigm in transfusion medicine considers allogeneic transfusion as an outcome to be avoided.
For their medical care, Jehovah's Witnesses seek out clinicians who are well informed about alternatives to donor blood and have experience in their use. Like most patients, they desire to be fully informed about the risks and benefits of and alternatives to any recommended medical treatment. However, as the Royal College of Surgeons and others point out, this process should occur without the consultant or medical team paternalistically imposing their value system(s) on the patient through coercive questioning or other means. Respect for the patient's unique belief system and patient autonomy are the hallmark of the doctor-patient relationship. Witness patients will gladly outline their management preferences in an atmosphere of understanding and mutual respect.
Our experience is that surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, and support staff offer a professional service to each individual who happens to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. These are most grateful for such personal care.
Paul Wade, director
Hospital Information Services (Britain),
London NW7 1RN
his@wtbts.org.uk
A predictable and disappointing response. This issues Dr. Muramoto, and others, raised were ignored. Wade implies the real issue is doctors meddling in the personal decisions of others, when it is really about the society's nonsense medical views and the damage they are causing.
Are JWs "well informed... regarding their right to determine their own treatment"? How many know about the change in policy - where the sanction for transfusion, disfellowshipping, was changed to "disassociation by conduct"? Do witnesses know they can accept over 97% of the contents of donor blood? If so, how do they reconcile that with their belief that they abstain from blood? In any case, regardless of their rights, JWs are not permitted to determine their own treatment.
The Watch Tower Society states which blood products are permitted and which are not. Failure to comply results in the offender being disfellowshipped. Irrespective of what you call it, the result is the same.
Wade then attempts to read the minds of the millions of JWs and associated ones around the world, and states what their personal, individual belief is on this matter. Thus belying the Watch Tower Society's claim that it is a personal decision
It would be correct to say "The current position of the Watch Tower Society...", rather than "The position of Jehovah's Witnesses..." but I doubt he could see any difference between the two statements.
1. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:377 available online from The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood website here
2. Electronic responses to: EDUCATION AND DEBATE: Bioethical aspects of the recent changes in the policy of refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses. Osamu Muramoto. BMJ 2001; 322: 37-39 available online at BMJ.com here
3. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:376 available online from The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood website here
4. Ibid.
5. Modern science refutes WTS blood fraction policy, The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on blood, available online at www.ajwrb.org
