Home | About | Bible | Experiences | History | Letters | Links | Misc |Members News | Physicians | Reform | Science | Watchtower | WT Victims Memorial

---

Reactions to WTS Blood Policy Change

In our congregation (Western Europe) an elder wrote to the local branch office to question the new blood policy. He was not in favor of this change and feared negative effects in the press (and with good reason). He is stripped of his so called "privileges". The reason is "disloyalty".

Thought you might like to hear this.

TB

You asked for feedback concerning the latest WT article about the JW blood policy. Since my husband is a WT follower, this subject is of great concern to me
.
I think that the article was written in such an ambiguous way that the average JW might not see the full ramifications.  I am sure my husband wouldn't.  He believes that all blood is bad and that no part of it can be accepted.  He is also not willing to have me explain it to him. Therefore, I feel that anything you can do to get the truth of the matter out to the public and the medical community is of paramount importance. I think press releases are a great idea.  The general public needs to be aware that there is more to the story about JW's and blood. Perhaps media attention would put pressure on the Governing Body.

One thing that really gets me is the fact that JW's can accept these blood components, some of which require great quantities of blood in order to collect, yet are not allowed to donate blood.  What hypocrisy. If you also decide to initiate a mailing campaign, please let us know. I would be more than willing to help.

Bless you and thank you for your efforts.  I keep you in my prayers.

Donna

Hi to all. My WT arrived only today so haven't had great deal of time to go through it carefully :-( First thing though - My opinion is that AJWRB has had great deal of influence in this small change. Yes, you should follow it up with  ALL 5 points you mentioned in the list announcement - optimist hey. So far it seems that you miss the opening question & WT statement.
Please note that the original question asks about medical products derived from blood, but the WT diverts the answer to WHOLE BLOOD -ARGHHHHHHH. Unless one knows WT strategy this small diversion takes the reader away from
the issue at hand - which is blood products  & NOT the whole blood. That must be pointed out to all concerned as fractions/components are allowed etc. etc. etc. Do you all see my point? I will read the rest of the article & go though it later.

Matthew

I agree to this statement of yours:

"The fourth paragraph from the end may well be the foundation for permitting the use of hemoglobin based blood substitutes currently under development."

Hopefully, JW can in the near future uphold their view regarding blood, but at the same time accept life-saving injections of hemoglobin based substitutes. Fine. But I'm afraid these substitutes will be quite expensive, at least for the first years, so Witnesses in under-developed contrives will not have this option. Martyr blood will still flow in Africa and Asia.

- Jan Martin Johannessen

My question for WTS: What about those who DID practice their conscience and use whole components prior to this decision? What will be done for them now that they have been cast out of the organization for not abstaining from blood unfairly? The facts suggest that the WTS is in an insupportable situation and they now know it. We saw similar backtracking on "The Generation" definition issue. The WTS has likewise waffled repeatedly on how it handles the college issue. The blood issue is even crazier now because essentially, a brother or sister can request all four components separately, and then have them
recombined at the moment of transfusion and still remain in good standing. This politicking is at the very least unpalatable to
the most ardent supporter of the Society. I would have respected the Governing Body more if they had simply stood fast to what they believed in.

-NAME WITHHELD-

Our comment: The new policy still forbids the use of what it terms "primary components", namely red cells, white cells, platelets and  plasma, but permits a JW to accept blood fractions of any of these components.

It appears that whatever change is here is minor, at best. The Society's usual obfuscational approach (a slight change hidden in so many words that it is hard to determine what, if anything, has changed) shows that they are reinforcing their very controlling approach. Clearly, they are in charge and loyal Witnesses continue to need them to interpret slight changes in their "law."
According to your interpretation, (which appears valid to me but may not to a local body of elders determined to disfellowship) it does appear that the WT is loosening their restrictions a bit and allowing Witnesses to take  "blood fractions" (is that a clearly defined legal or medical term?) as long as they don't accept any of the "blood components:" (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets and (4) plasma (serum). Since most JWs do not know the difference (medically) between "components" and
"fractions" (certainly not a clear-cut distinction, to say the least), and that decisions by Witnesses may be made by others or under less than ideal circumstances (during serious illness, following serious accidents, etc.) it appears to me that that this "new light" may be of greater benefit to medical personnel than Witnesses. They can be informed that JWs are allowed to receive
"factions" and plan their medical approach accordingly. Copies of this WT information, in as original a form as possible so the Witnesses know it is not made up, could be kept on hand to reassure the Witnesses, especially  in emergency situations, where time is of the essence.

Tom Cabeen

With regard to how AJWRB should proceed, I believe that a press release, web site response, and medical journal article are the three best things that would accomplish getting out the message and getting people talking about this. A mailing campaign has limited value since it costs money and you can't  be certain that people won't toss it in the trash. A letter to the governing body might be in order as well,  but that may have limited impact. Still, it should be done.

Personally, the big objections I have to the JW blood stance is that it is inconsistent and it impinges on the individual right of conscience. The new article only makes them even more inconsistent. It would be far better to simply state that this is a conscience matter, rather than that they make rules regarding whole blood and fractions. If God's word says "Don't eat ham
and cheese sandwiches," then why would it be ok to eat the ham, cheese and bread separately? They need to talk about the real issue: "What exactly does the scripture mean when it says, "abstain from blood." And, if there is no conclusive evidence to show that it includes modern medicine, then this should be a conscience matter that no organization can regulate or rule.

The average JW does not know that the society for years has allowed the use of many blood fractions. This "change" is but a step toward clueing them in. But most of the rank and file still won't get it. And you and I know that anyone who accepts a blood fraction is going to be judged. Many JWs won't accept it because of the years of "blood is wrong" attitude, much the same
way many old time Catholics still eat fish on Friday despite Vatican II.  The funny thing is, this "change" isn't really a change. It's simply the first time the real policy has been put in writing. It should make headlines in the medical news community if played up right. Take this news and run with it now while it's hot. TODAY, this minute--send out your press releases to major newspaper health  and religion reporters.  If you use my comments, leave off my name or screen name.

Our comment: While the WTS has previously allowed  JWs to accept the plasma proteins the recent policy significantly expands the options open to individual JWs, in that they they may now accept blood fractions or components of all four blood components the WTS deems to be "primary."

Dear AJWRB friends:

I must say that after reading the Questions from Readers article, I feel the WT Society is confused and they do not know what to teach regarding blood fractions. They do not mention what is their Biblical support for the partial ban on blood fractions.
Why do they not allow the brothers to receive platelets, white and red cells, since they suggest that these components pass from a mother to her unborn baby? This Q from R. article shows that the work of AJWRB has been effective so far, yet the
fight toward freedom of conscience for JWs on the blood issue is far from over. I think that all these reactions are expected from AJWRB:

1. Issue a press release.
2. Draw attention to the changes in medical journals
3. Publish a response at the web site with the reactions of current and
former JWs
4. Initiate a mailing campaign
5. Write a letter to the governing body.

The Q from R. article does not mention the Bulgaria agreement. I wonder if this article is going to be distributed in Bulgaria unedited. I think that the AJWRB should get additional copies of the June 15 WT and send them to the European Commission
of Human Rights, to the government of Bulgaria, to mass media, etc. The article clearly shows that JWs are not allowed freedom of choice "without control or sanctions from the organization." Instead, JWs receive a set of rules to follow from the WT leaders.

A medical study (maybe from JAMA or a similar magazine) that indicates how all blood components pass between a baby and his mother could be sent to HLC throughout the world.

Best regards,

Pedro

I think that AJWRB should pursue any one or all of the options mentioned in the list announcement as time and
resources allow.

Interestingly, the June 15th WT said:

"We firmly believe that God's law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions."

I think this statement says a lot about the work that AJWRB is doing.  It seems to me to be an acknowledgment that the Society knows about the existence of AJWRB and can be taken as a verbal assault in our direction.  In addition, it appears as though while God's law on blood may not be open to reform, this article demonstrates that the Society's interpretation of that law
*is* open to reform based on what medical science can do.

As for the WTS new policy, no scriptural rationale is given above for choosing red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma as the primary components of blood.  The reason for this is that no scriptural rationale exists.  If one is to take Acts 15 as applying to blood transfusions, it says to "abstain from blood".  It says nothing about primary or secondary components of blood.  In addition, it is not clear to me how the Society's ban on primary components necessarily protects individuals who take certain secondary parts of the blood from blood borne diseases and complications.

The new policy raises some very interesting questions. What does a JW do when a primary component of blood can be processed into what they consider a smaller part of blood? It is still blood, isn't it?  The Bible does not give any details as to
what is a primary or secondary component of blood either.  Where does the Bible list the 4 primary components of blood that are forbidden for a person to transfuse for medicinal reasons?

I agree with the Watchtowers comments that if  a Christian after reading the Bible believes that God is telling them to reject blood for medicinal reasons then we should respect that Christian's conscience. On the other hand, the rationale they provide for why one Christian might accept a blood fraction could just as easily be used as a basis for accepting the so called "primary" components of blood.

As for their list of questions that they suggest JWs ask, I find them them to be rather condescending.  Hopefully, most
JWs can think for themselves enough to ask questions like this before they ever enter the hospital or face this choice.

The article explains that some Christians accept blood fractions since they pass the placental barrier. If it can be shown that any of the so-called primary components pass through the placenta, then the primary components should be an "allowed"
blood fraction for JWs to take without fear of disfellowshipping. A couple of other general comments that the question from readers article does not address is how the organization treats JWs who donate blood.  If a JW is allowed to take a blood fraction that is derived from donated blood but can be disfellowshipped for donating blood this is very hypocritical and perhaps should be something that we could point out publicly in order to get a response from the organization.  (I really do believe that this question from readers article is a result of the work that the AJWRB has been doing in bringing the blood issue out
to the public.)  Also, I wonder if more JWs would be willing to accept certain blood therapies if the physicians would explain it to them in an appropriate fashion using the JWs own vocabulary and/or reasoning.  I think Dr. Muramoto showed in one of his journal articles that some JWs were more open to accepting certain blood therapies depending on how the physician presented the therapy to them.

Jeff S.

Our comment: AJWRB has provided substantial documentation showing that practically all blood components pass the placental barrier. The WTS is well aware of this fact and continues to use this bogus argument as a basis for allowing some blood components while rejecting others.

AJWRB: I think you should do nothing and let any further changes happen the way they are supposed to in a progressive manner.  Do you really think that your site and reform are the reasons that JW have changed or lessened the bible based
ban on blood. It is through Jehovah,  not you that any changes may come. May I refer you to the latest Watchtower
study article were it states: "o god send us your light".

Regards,

ZW

While I am pleased to see these signs of modification I do not believe these are genuine. Certainly the AJWRB have made a difference but I still see foul play similar to the Bulgarian agreement. The language in the article can be used by the Bethel Public Affairs office to deny any reform has been made as well.

The insinuations of what 'some christians' or 'other Christian' would or could do are rather weak in comparison to the firm statements on that 'JW's do not accept primary components' in the same article. The article was designed to be free for interpretation but still to convey the WTS strong stance against  what they deem as primary components. The average
JW will not notice a change and will likely be lost in the articles slight of hand rigmarole. Nevertheless that is what we are here for to highlight the obvious changes and publicize such contradictions.

Please pursue all of the avenues mentioned in the list announcement in light that this is a dramatic change in their policy.
The same article compares the acceptance of 'primary components' to an acceptance of a liter of blood. The WTS now has basically accepted whole blood in this hazy article and most JW's will not realize it. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that but than again we are not dealing with brain surgeons. I'm sure Dr. Muramoto will benefit greatly in our joint cause with these recent developments.

Shalom,

Gus aka Agustin Astacio

I am not pleased to see these further modifications in the WTS blood policy. Not in any way, shape or form. I have stated before elsewhere that reform of WTS/JWs is impossible since so many reforms are necessary, we would end up with something which is _not_ JWs!!

Also to encourage reform is to support a blasphemous system which abuses its members and prevents them _leaving_ to become Christians [or to find a life] since they have been taught that God is directing their leadership to make these "improvements".

SHAME on you if you have had _any_ part inthis! Are you expecting _thanks_ for this?  When will you stop toadying to the Watchtower leadership? Would you have curried favor with Hitler? Or the Devil perhaps? There is only one suitable way to deal with these men and that is to expose them for the liars and hypocrites they are in the hope that _1000s_  of JWs will pluck up courage to _leave_ -- then the shunning policy will NOT be an issue because so many will be leaving that there will be too few left to effectively shun them! Toadying and "deals" with despots doesn't work.

First, I think you should stop sleeping with the enemy...Then follow through on your first four _good_ideas listed above without pulling punches to protect these evil men -- they will find out about your campaign soon enough.

Kind regards --keep up the good work of EXPOSURE --but NOT of "reform"!

Anthony Roberts Edinburgh

Our comments: While acknowledging the suffering that many have experienced as a result of WTS policies and abuses, AJWRB does not share nor endorse hostile views towards the WTS. We believe such attitudes are counter-productive and fail to address the basic reality that Jehovah's Witnesses are an established international religion that will function and likely continue to grow in membership in the decades ahead. Our agenda of reform has the potential to save thousands of lives, and we seek to appeal to voices of moderation within the WT community so that additional reforms can be made.

The first thing that jumped out at me was that the question itself asked if JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES accept any medical products derived from blood, and while they say that JWs do not accept blood, they continue the article referring to "Christians"...asserting that they alone are Christians...which always boils my blood.  They are very carefully manipulating the way "true Christians" (read: JWs) would and should and WILL do things according to the Society's dictates and whims du jour.
They point out that "medicine has changed over time"...is this suddenly the reason why they TOO, or rather "Jehovah" can now change over time?  I thought Jehovah was as unchanging as the shadow?  The original dictates for abstaining from blood, though originally Law Covenant issues (said Law being no longer in effect), that they point out as Jehovah's Laws on Blood and STILL
applicable are over 2000 years old...haven't THEY TOO changed over time and therefore are subject to review?

When exactly did the medical community start extracting portions of the Big Four (red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma) being as they now say they don't allow any of these subdivisions either...this cant be news to them.  And if they don't allow leukocytes from blood how can they allow breast feeding?  What's the difference?

I thought Factor VIII WAS platelets? They say that the bible does not give details about fractions...where in the bible does it say ANYTHING about the Big Four?  Whams the difference between breaking blood down into FOUR main parts or into 20 parts?  Parts is parts. Hasn't the Society specifically said in the past that they would not accept blood in whole OR IN PART?  If this is New Light then what's new about it if the medical community was splitting blood up 30 years ago?

Loves

Your reaction to the policy change will be published here.