News | Physicians | Reform | Science | Watchtower | WT Victims Memorial
|
|
| Home
|
About | Bible
|
Experiences | History
| Letters | Links
|
Misc |Members
News | Physicians | Reform | Science | Watchtower | WT Victims Memorial |
We are told that it takes one and a third pints of whole blood to get
enough of the blood protein or "fraction" known as gamma globulin
for one injection. And since from the foregoing it must be admitted that
such use of human blood is highly questionable, what justification can
there be for the use of gamma globulin? Further, those interested in the
Scriptural aspect will note that its being made of whole blood places
it in the same category as blood transfusions as far as Jehovah's prohibition
of taking blood into the system is concerned. - See Leviticus 17:10
- 14; Acts 15:20, 28, 29.
- Awake! 01/08/1954 p. 24 (Emphasis added)
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 by means of antibodies, the same as the drinking of blood or the taking of blood or blood plasma by means of transfusions? - N.P., United States.
No, it does not seem necessary that we put the two in the same category,
although
we have done so in times past. While God did not intend for man to
contaminate his blood stream by vaccines, serums or blood fractions, doing
so does not seem to be included in God's expressed will forbidding blood
as food. It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether
one accepted such types of medication or not.
- The Watchtower 09/15/1958 p. 575 Emphasis added.
The following three quotes are from the booklet "Blood, Medicine and Law of God" released in the summer of 1961. It left some Jehovahs' Witnesses confused since it appeared that the WTS had once again changed its position on blood serum.
Is it wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood
or plasma or red cells or others of the component parts of the blood? Yes!...The
prohibition includes "any blood at all." (Leviticus 3:17) It has no
bearing on the matter that the blood is not introduced to the body through
the mouth but through the veins. Nor does the argument that it cannot be
classed with intravenous feeding because its use in the body is different
carry weight. The fact is that it provides nourishment to the body to sustain
life.
- Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, 1961, pp. 13, 14 Emphasis added
But regardless of the method used to infuse it into the body and regardless
of whether it is whole blood or a blood substance that is involved, God's
law remains the same. If it is blood and it is being used to nourish
or to sustain life the divine law clearly applies...Mature Christians...
are not going to feel that if they have some of their own blood stored
for transfusion, it is going to be more acceptable than the blood of another
person...Nor are they going to feel that a slight infraction, such as
momentary storage of blood in a syringe when it is drawn from one part
of the body for injection into another part, is somehow less objectionable
than storing it for a longer period of time
- Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, 1961, pp. 14, 15 Emphasis added
Jehovah's witnesses do not argue that blood transfusions have not kept
alive patients who otherwise might have died. We do not take it upon ourselves
to conduct an objective debate of the advisability of the use of blood
in medical therapy. The point is not for us to determine. God himself
has ruled on the matter, and it would be presumptuous for us, in the
name of medicine or humanitarianism or anything else, to open the issue
to debate, to pit human wisdom and experience against the law of God....Although
Jehovah's witnesses will not eat blood as a food, nor in medical use consent
to any kind of blood transfusion or, in place of it, an infusion of
any blood fraction or blood substance, this does not rule out all medical
treatment.
- Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, 1961, pp. 38, 39, 40 Emphasis
added
The following Questions From Readers article in the Watchtower appeared a few months later:
Since the Bible forbids the eating of blood, how are Christians to view the use of serums and vaccines? Has the Society changed its viewpoint on this? - J. D., U.S.A.
The Bible is very clear that blood could properly be used only on the altar; otherwise it was to be poured out on the ground. (Lev. 17:11 - 13) The entire modern medical practice involving the use of blood is objectionable from the Christian standpoint. Therefore the taking of a blood transfusion, or, in lieu of that, the infusing of some blood fraction to sustain one's life is wrong. As to the use of vaccines and other substances that may in some way involve the use of blood in their preparation, it should not be concluded that the Watch Tower Society endorses these and says that the practice is right and proper. However, vaccination is a virtually unavoidable practice in many segments of modern society, and the Christian may find some comfort under the circumstances in the fact that this use is not in actuality a feeding or nourishing process, which was specifically forbidden when that man was not to eat blood, but it is a contamination of the human system. So, as was stated in The Watchtower of September 15, 1958, page 575, "It would therefore be a matter of individual judgment whether one accepted such types of medication or not." That is still the Society's viewpoint on the matter. - Gal. 6:5.
However, the mature Christian is not going to try to find in this a
justification for as many other medical uses of blood substances as possible.
To the contrary, recognizing the objectionableness of the entire process,
he is going to stay as far away from it as he can, requesting other treatment
where such is available.
- The Watchtower 11/01/1961 p. 670 Emphasis added
This article did little to end the confusion but
the message seemed to be that vaccines are an acceptable contamination,
blood fractions are wrong, and substances made with blood were objectionable.
In the coming months, members would ask for and receive more clarification
from the Watchtower Society.
As to blood transfusions, he knows from his study of the Bible and the
publications of the Watch Tower Society that this is an unscriptural practice.
(Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28,29) Now it is up to him to carry his own load of
responsibility in applying what the Scriptures have to say on this matter.
One day he may go to the hospital for surgery. There he explains his position
to the doctor. "All right," the doctor says, "then we will use plasma."
Or the doctor may tell him, "What you need is red cells to carry oxygen.
We have red cells that we can use. How about that?" The Christian may not
be well versed in medical matters. Shall he call his congregation servant
or the Society? That should not be necessary, if he is prepared to carry
his own load of responsibility. He need only ask the doctor: "From what
was the plasma taken?" "How are the red cells obtained?" "Where did
you get this substance?" If the answer is "Blood," he knows what course
to take, 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. Someone may argue with you that the Scriptures are
referring to the "eating" of blood but that blood is not taken into the
digestive system during a transfusion. True, but the fact is that by a
direct route the blood serves the same purpose as food when taken into
the stomach, namely, strengthening the body or sustaining life. It is not
the same as a vaccine given to a healthy person to build him up, just as
food is given to nourish him.
- The Watchtower 02/15/1963 pp. 123, 124 Emphasis added
1964 - Blood serums spoken of negatively
...an effective human serum against lockjaw has been developed...Now
some of it will be from human blood!
- Awake! 05/08/1964 p. 30 Emphasis added
The Society does not endorse any of the modern medical uses of blood,
such as the uses of blood in connection with inoculations. Inoculation
is, however, a virtually unavoidable circumstance in some segments of society,
and so we leave it up to the conscience of the individual to determine
whether to submit to inoculation with a serum containing blood fractions
for the purpose of building up antibodies to fight against disease. If
a person did this, he may derive comfort under the circumstances from the
fact that he is not directly eating blood, which is expressly forbidden
in God's Word. It is not used for food or to replace lost blood. Here the
Christian must make his own decision based on conscience. Therefore, whether
a Christian will submit to inoculation with a serum, or whether
doctors or nurses who are Christians will administer such, is for personal
decision. Christians in the medical profession are individually responsible
for employment decisions....In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering
of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor's
own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher
or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage
to a worldly person.
- The Watchtower 11/15/1964 pp. 680, 681, 682, 683 Emphasis added
The fact that serums are prepared from blood makes them undesirable
to Christians because of the Biblical law against the use of blood. However,
since they do not involve the use of blood as a food to nourish the body,
which the Bible directly forbids, their use is a matter that must be decided
by each person according to his conscience.
- Awake!, 08/22/1965 p. 18 Emphasis added
Serums or antitoxins are used. These are obtained from the blood of
humans or animals that have already developed the antibodies for fighting
the disease. Usually the blood is processed and the blood fraction (gamma
globulin) containing the antibodies is separated and made into a serum.
When this is injected into the patient it gives him temporary passive immunity.
This is temporary, for the antibodies do not become a permanent part of
his blood; when these pass out of his body he is no longer immune to the
disease. It can thus be seen that serums (unlike vaccines) contain
a blood fraction, though minute....What, then, of the use of a serum
containing only a minute fraction of blood and employed to supply an auxiliary
defense against some infection and not employed to perform the life - sustaining
function that blood normally carries out? We believe that here the conscience
of each Christian must decide.
- The Watchtower 06/01/1974 pp. 351, 352
Certain clotting "factors" derived from blood are now in wide use
for the treatment of hemophilia, a disorder causing uncontrollable
bleeding. However, those given this treatment face another deadly hazard:
the Swiss medical weekly Schweizer Med Wochenschrift reports that almost
40 percent of 113 hemophiliacs studied had cases of hepatitis. "All these
patients had received whole blood, plasma, or blood derivatives containing
[the factors]," notes the report. Of course, true Christians do not use
this potentially dangerous treatment, heeding the Bible's command to 'abstain
from blood.'
- Awake! 02/22/1975 p. 30 Emphasis added
Are serum injections compatible with Christian belief?
What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease,
such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies,
hemophilia
and Rh incompatibility? ...This seems to fall into a 'gray area.'...Hence,
we have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each
individual on a personal basis....How concerned should a Christian be about
blood in food products? ...This may call for a degree of care....Christians,
individually, must decide what to do.
- The Watchtower 06/15/1978 pp. 29, 30, 31. See the opposite view in
Blood, Medicine and the Law of God, 1961, p. 11; Awake! 02/22/1975 p. 30
Emphasis added
Yes. The antibodies that make up the shot are harvested from the blood of individuals who have become immunized or sensitized to the Rh factor.... .Genetically-engineered RhIG not derived from blood may become available in the future.
Can the Christian conscientiously take RhIG?
....This journal and its companion, The Watchtower, have commented consistently on the matter*. ....some Christians have concluded that to them it does not seem a violation of Bible law..." The decision whether to take RhIG remains finally, though, a matter for each Christian couple to decide conscientiously.
Footnote:
*See The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, pages 30, 31; June 15, 1978, pages 30, 31; and How Can Blood SaveYourLife?, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. - Awake 12/8/94 p. 27. Awake 12/8/94 p. 23-26 -Emphasis added
Note: The writer of this article seems to be unfamiliar with the history of the WTS' blood serum policy. Incidentally, the injection requires that the patients blood be cross matched and typed, and they generally receive the same type of wrist ban worn by other blood transfusion recipients.