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

It is important for us to try and understand the motives for this recent change in policy. Since the WTS, in typical fashion, obfuscates its intentions, careful analysis is required.

First of all, we believe that a great deal of consideration was given to this change and that, secondly, there must have been a strong motivation for the change to have been made.

It bears noting that the WTS continues to disfellowship unrepentant JW’s who commit fornication, adultery, smoke, use illegal drugs and so forth. So it is noteworthy that they have singled out blood transfusions as one sin to be treated differently.

Let’s evaluate what we do know:

1. In a June 14, 2000 statement to the media, the WTS explained that an individual who accepts blood transfusions “willfully and without regret…indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step.” This was not a press release per se but a “statement to the press”.  It is no longer present at the WTS media site.

2. WTS spokesmen in both the U.K and the U.S.A. have repeatedly described this as a procedural change and strongly emphasized that Jehovah’s Witnesses have not changed their basic position on blood transfusions.

3. No official record of this change exists at the local congregation level. No announcement has been made to the membership. No statement has been published in official publications. The only documentation available is the statement to the press and quotations from WTS spokesmen in various news journals.

4. Circuit overseers have received correspondence from the WTS and are notifying local elders on their next regularly scheduled visit regarding the change.

5. HLC members have received a letter that advised them that nothing had changed, flatly denying reports in the Times and making no mention of the procedural change.

Let’s consider possible motivations for this change:

1. The WTS is tightening their grip with regard to the blood issue. They want to make it easier for elders to deal with offenders and have streamlined the process by making the sanction of enforced shunning practically automatic.

Such a motivation does not seem reasonable. The June 15, 2000 Watchtower made significant concessions on the blood issue permitting Jehovah’s Witnesses to use all blood fractions of the primary components including hemoglobin, thus opening the door to hemoglobin based blood substitutes that both look and function much like blood. Most AJWRB members believe that this signal can be interpreted to mean that the WTS has full intentions of eventually completely dropping the ban on blood. To tighten up enforcement of the policy simply doesn’t make sense.

2. The WTS wants to improve their standing with European governments.

If so, then why would they immediately instruct the London Times that nothing has changed. Would such widely read statements to the press be consistent with such a goal? It seems unlikely.

3. The WTS is worried about litigation over the blood issue.

This is a real possibility. However, it must be noted that no significant litigation has occurred regarding the blood issue that we are aware of. Nonetheless, this procedural change does create something of a legal firewall between the WTS and those shunned over the blood issue and perhaps more importantly those who might have lost a relative who supported the WTS blood policy? The WTS could now argue that is was completely voluntary on their part, that there were no controls or sanctions from the WTS although the congregations may have interpreted their actions as indicating that they didn’t care to be Jehovah’s Witnesses. This argument seems weak though the WTS may well believe that this adjustment will place the legal burden on the local congregations. They may be trying to send a signal to individual JWs that they personally need to own this doctrine and choose to support it, otherwise they cannot by definition be a Jehovah’s Witness.

4. The WTS is moving towards additional reforms in the blood policy.

This is a real possibility. It makes a great deal of sense and actually ties in with point number three since as we have noted, litigation has not been much of an issue up to this point. However, the WTS may believe that should they abandon their blood doctrine some members or relatives who have lost members of their families over the blood issue may sue the WTS. The WTS may well believe that they must first legally attempt to  “distance” themselves from the enforcement aspect of the blood doctrine before they can finally discard it.

5.  The WTS doesn’t want elders serving on judicial committees hearing extensive defense from informed dissident Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Another possibility that cannot be discounted is that the WTS is concerned about elders having to sit and listen to an extensive defense that can be offered by well informed dissident members. They are well aware of the fact that the elders have no plausible answers to many of the issues raised by dissident Jehovah’s Witnesses and that these situations have led to some elders’ resigning. This new policy would not allow a member to defend his conscientious choice to use blood or one of the forbidden blood products and hence elders, both on the original and appeal committees, would be spared having to hear damaging facts that expose the hypocrisy of the WTS’s position.

It appears that explanations three, four and five are the only plausible motivations for the WTS’s actions at this time and number four seems to make the most sense.

Some additional issues are naturally raised as to how this new procedure will actually be implemented. In the past disassociation has been used in conjunction with participation in the military, voting and joining another church.

In the first two examples, disassociation rather than disfellowshipping serves to protect the WTS from governments that would look harshly towards an organization for expelling citizens who were doing their “patriotic” duty. With someone who joins another church, it is almost a matter of formality.

Many of the WTS comments regarding disassociation draw attention to getting two witnesses to the fact that a person no longer wants to be a Jehovah’s Witness or having them put their wishes in writing. These are typically situations where a member is accused of some other gross sin but doesn’t want to meet with the judicial committee. Perhaps they have not been associated for some time and simply tell the elders to go away and leave them alone. In such cases the elders will typically try to get a statement from them in writing that they no longer consider themselves one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Will local elders attempt to get a Jehovah’s Witness who has accepted a blood transfusion to sign a statement that they no longer consider themselves a Jehovah’s Witness? This seems unlikely. It’s not as though the member is refusing to meet with them or has not associated for some time.

It appears, rather, that if the WTS is serious about trying to use the enforced shunning of disassociation as a means to deal with violators, they will be treating the situation in a manner similar to when a member joins the military, votes or joins another church. In these cases the sanction is practically automatic.

Essentially, it is the role of the judicial committee to decide if the member’s behavior constitutes an act that could be categorized as disassociation. The only exception would be where the member in fact presents a letter or states before two witnesses that he no longer considers himself to be a Jehovah’s Witness.

It will be interesting to see how local congregations actually handle such matters and if they grasp the subtle nuances of the WTS revised blood policy. Additionally, it is unclear how this policy makes provisions for those who “in a moment of weakness” accept blood and then later “regret their action”. The press statement says this would be considered a “serious matter” but they would be offered spiritual assistance.

This too seems incompatible with the historical use of an enforced sanction categorized as disassociation. Will the WTS now also offer “spiritual assistance” to those who regret voting, joining the military or another church? Will they begin reproving brothers who sign up for two years in the army and then regret their choice? That seems very unlikely. In the past the role of the judicial committee has simply been to ascertain what the facts were, create a record in case the person ever wanted back in, make an announcement of disassociation and notify the WTS. Is this a new “kinder, gentler” disassociation policy variant reserved only for blood cases?

How will elders perceive this adjustment? It may well be that some will see this as an opportunity to deal more harshly with dissident JW’s who accept blood transfusions or forbidden components of blood. Other elders may see this as an indication that the WTS is not as serious about blood as it once was. Others will just be confused. There is likely to be wide variation in perception and disposition of cases involving blood.

It is almost as though the WTS is washing their hands of the matter, not wanting responsibility for enforcement of their own policy. They may believe that purposeful ambiguity is necessary to build a legal firewall.

While it remains unclear what the WTS ultimate motivations for this change are, what is clear is the need for heightened efforts on the part of hospitals and physicians to maintain confidentiality regarding the medical care of their Jehovah’s Witness patients.

Additionally, an important part of AJWRB’s work may be to further educate both the medical community and Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves of the need to avoid any disclosure of confidential medical information.

Unless it becomes abundantly clear to AJWRB that additional reforms are forthcoming with all reasonable speed, we will turn the spotlight on the unscrupulous methods used by the WTS and its local representatives to breech medical confidentiality of Jehovah’s Witness patients and coerce them into supporting the WTS’s blood policy. We believe that we can demonstrate to the medical community, the governments and the courts that the WTS and its local representatives have made deliberate and calculated efforts to violate its members right to privacy and medical confidentiality.

This is merely one area where AJWRB is prepared to apply additional pressure as needed. It is our sincere hope, however, that such additional measures will prove to be unnecessary.