SHORT CHRISTIAN READINGS SELECTED FOR FORMER JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES
ARE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS A VIOLATION OF GOD'S LAW?
Author Unknown
(edited)
Which one of us has not read or heard of the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to take blood transfusions? They claim that "it's forbidden in the Bible." Watchtower Societypublications discussing the blood issue do indeed use scripture, but are these scriptures used correctly?
Jehovah's Witnesses use for their guide a booklet called, "Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood." They begin by quoting Genesis 9:4:
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."
Read this scripture again -- carefully. Rather than prohibiting the eating of blood, this verse clearly forbids the eating of UNBLED MEAT! ("flesh with its life - its blood") Animals were to be slaughtered and their blood drained, insuring their death, and then the bled meat could be eaten, but on no account were God-fearing people to eat unbled meat. This scripture in no way deals with the eating of blood alone - the blood was to be poured out, and the flesh was to be eaten. Nothing more is implied.
What does eating animal flesh have to do with blood transfusions?
Jehovah's Witnesses are told that "eating blood" is the same as "transfusing blood" since transfused blood bypasses the stomach and goes directly into the bloodstream to nourish the body. The Watchtower Society quotes for support of its theory, Genesis 9: 5,6, which reads:
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
These verses are clearly discussing murder or manslaughter, for it involves the taking of life, and the person whose blood was shed died. This is hardly the case with blood transfusions. The person donating the blood does not die and the person receiving the blood very often has his life saved.
Animal blood was to be completely drained before the flesh was to be eaten. Humans, with or without their blood, were at no time to be eaten! Therefore, this scripture can in no way be applied to the eating or transfusing of blood, when read in context.
Another scripture that the Jehovah's Witnesses like to point out is Leviticus 17: 13,14:
"And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."
Christians are NOT under the Mosaic Law! Nowhere in the book of Genesis (which covers human history prior to the Mosaic Law) is any command given to "pour the blood of animals upon the ground." Also, there is no such command to be found in the New Testament. Only in the Law of Moses can such a command be found. Yet Jehovah's Witnesses who claim they are not under Mosaic Law have to appeal exclusively to that Law in order to deny their members the right to store their own blood to save their lives.
One of the simplest facts of human biology proves that a transfusion does not constitute the eating of blood. When you eat anything it is taken into the stomach where it is digested and then is passed through the intestines into the blood vessels where the blood then carries the digested food into the bloodstream to nourish the body. This is the DIGESTIVE system.
In a transfusion, the blood that is transfused travels through the bloodstream until it arrives at the intestines where it picks up any digested food that has passed through the intestines and carries that food throughout the body. This is the CIRCULATORY system. Transfused blood is not food itself - but the carrier of the broken down food.
WHAT HAPPENED IF SOMEONE DID EAT BLOOD?
This is a good question since the Witnesses equate the eating of blood with the transfusing of blood. The account in I Samuel 14:32 records how the Israelites ate sheep, oxen and calves "with their blood." Saul offered up a sacrifice to God, there was no punishment inflicted, and God went on to bless them. How different from the Watchtower organization who disfellowships those taking blood and denies them eternal life.
WHAT IF A JEW ATE BLOOD?
What did happen if a Jew, under the Law of Moses, broke the Law by eating blood, i.e., an unbled animal? Leviticus 17:15 clearly states the penalty:
"And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean."
Eating "flesh with its blood" brought about only the mildest of reprimands under the Law! How different from the harsh stand of Jehovah's Witnesses, who would sentence their members to eternal death for the same offense!
But what happened if a Jew was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath? The answer is at Numbers 15:35:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp."
Which sin was more serious: breaking the Sabbath - or eating blood?
WERE GENTILES UNDER THE LAW ON BLOOD?
Jehovah's Witnesses state in their publications that since the law forbidding the eating of blood was given to Noah, that the law is binding on all mankind and not just the Israelites. Does the Bible agree with this or was the law just for natural Jews? In Deuteronomy 14:21 we find that the Law on unbled flesh states:
"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. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."
We see that the law on eating unbled flesh and pouring out the blood applied ONLY to the Jews since aliens and foreigners (Gentiles) were free to eat it. Since most Jehovah's Witnesses are Gentiles, their avoidance of eating blood becomes downright ridiculous!
Since the Gentiles were free to eat the blood in the unbled meat, wouldn't it follow that they would also be free to "eat blood" in the form of blood transfusions?
It is interesting that Orthodox Jews today, who are the undisputed experts on Jewish Law, freely receive blood transfusions and also donate blood to save the lives of others. If it were forbidden under God's Law, they would never do it. Bible scholars find the "interpretation" of the Law by the Jehovah's Witnesses to be an easily recognized distortion.
ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES TO BLOOD
There are two references to blood used by the Jehovah's Witnesses:
Acts 15:20: "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
and, Acts 15:29: "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."
As we examine these scriptures from Acts 15, we must consider the context or setting. All of the prohibitions mentioned together here are concerned with the temple practices of the heathens who, in their idolatrous worship services, offered prostitutes to the idols after fornication rites, used animal blood in their rituals, and strangled animals during their frenzied ceremonies. For a Christian to participate would, of course, be blasphemous and would constitute idolatry. Christians were to abstain from such things entirely.
Other Bible scholars hold the view that these prohibitions are restating the principles found in the Law - i.e., for the Christian to avoid idolatry, murder, unclean foods and fornication. Both of these views are correct. What is not correct is for Jehovah's Witnesses to take one phrase, "abstain from blood," and try to apply it to the modern practice of blood transfusions. It is a blatant misuse of scripture.
JW HISTORY OF BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
The first denunciation of blood transfusions did not appear in Watchtower literature until the issue of the Watchtower 7-1-45 pp. 198-201 in which the practice was labeled as "pagan and God dishonoring." In the October 22, 1948 issue of the AWAKE! magazine it stated in no uncertain terms that "according to God's law, humans are not to take into their system the blood of others." It took the Society the next 13 years to decide that a person receiving a blood transfusion was worthy of disfellowshipping from the Organization and subsequent eternal death. (WT 1-15-61 pp. 63,64)
CURRENT TRENDS AND THE "AIDS" ARGUMENT?
The leadership of the Watchtower Society has ruled that Jehovah's Witnesses may take certain "components" of blood, such as:
-- Factor VIII and Factor IX (hemophiliac preparations)
-- Immune globulins
-- Albumin
-- Circulating blood
But the Witnesses must refuse other components, such as:
-- White blood cells
-- Plasma
-- Red blood cells
-- Platelets
-- Stored blood
This is important because doctors nowadays administer such compounds rather than whole blood. As it stands today a JW hemophiliac in danger of bleeding to death can take the blood components he needs. But a JW accident victim in danger of bleeding to death must refuse the different blood components needed to survive in his case! So contradictory Watchtower rules allow some to take blood fractions while others continue to die.
Their inconsistencies go even further. A JW cannot store his own blood to be used in a later surgery. However, he can lay on the operating table and have his blood leave his body, proceed through a heart-lung machine, and re-enter his body. No scriptures are cited to show the difference between the two. Blood leaves the body in both cases and returns later.
The Jehovah's Witnesses feel that they have been vindicated for their unpopular stand against taking blood transfusions because AIDS or hepatitis is transmitted by blood. This argument, like most of theirs, is flawed. Why? The AIDS virus is transmitted in ALL body fluids, not just blood. How many people have died as a result of AIDS-tainted blood, compared with JW deaths from refusing blood?
Also, Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, just like the rest of the population, can get AIDS from contaminated blood products that they are allowed to take. The Society acknowledges that the Witnesses taking such blood products face health risks involved in an injection made from others' blood.
HOSPITALS UNDER SURVEILLANCE
Ever since the Watchtower Society banned blood transfusions for its followers, JWS have assembled to keep watch at patients' bedsides and to remove children through hospital windows - all with the aim of blocking blood transfusions. Except for the occasional organized distribution of booklets to doctors, the Watchtower Society usually left parents, spouses, and JWS themselves to carry the burden of defending their stand before doctors and judges. However, that situation has changed.
The November 22, 1993 AWAKE! magazine reveals a major new offensive spearheaded from Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn, NY. It says the Jehovah's Witnesses "are being assisted to obey Jehovah's perfect law on abstaining from blood ..." (p.24)
Committees of specially trained JW elders now enter directly into hospitals and courtrooms to intervene in the Witness patient's behalf. These "Hospital Liaison Committees" are armed with persuasive literature - medical, legal and sociological. Their basic tool is a 260-page loose-leaf handbook titled "Family Care and Medical Management for Jehovah's Witnesses", updated constantly with new information on blood substitutes, alternative treatments and patients' rights, plus evidence that JWS are good parents.
One aim, of course, is to stop judges from declaring JW children wards of the state for the purpose of giving them needed blood and to stop doctors from seeking such court orders. Adult JW compliance with the blood ban is also enforced by the watchful elders.
The same issue of the AWAKE! magazine gives the impression that transfusions are really unnecessary and that informed doctors can secure the healthy recovery of the patient through alternative treatments. The article presents recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) as a wonder drug eliminating the need for blood transfusions. However, in the Watchtower magazine of October 1, 1994 it is admitted that EPO contains a relatively small amount of blood plasma albumin! (p. 31)
This news comes as a shock, no doubt, to JWS who accepted injections of EPO through the advice of the 1993 AWAKE! magazine, believing that they were receiving a "bloodless treatment." They must now face the fact that organization has misled them.
CONCLUSION
Just as the Jehovah's Witnesses have erred in the past concerning organ transplants and vaccinations, causing hardships to their members, so they are in error now concerning transfusions. Their harsh stand cannot be upheld by the scriptures. The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 4:15:
"But where there is no law, neither is there violation."
Many feel that a change will come in time. Who then will bear the blood guilt for the many lives lost through the refusal of blood transfusions up to the time of change?
*************************** *****************************
Why Did These Kids Die?
By David Reed
(edited)
"Youths Who Put God First"
Photographs of more than two dozen handsome boys and beautiful smiling girls brighten the cover of the May 22, 1994 AWAKE! magazine, making it an issue easy to place with unsuspecting millions of householders who answer the knock at their doors of Jehovah's Witnesses. Only upon opening the May 22, 1994 AWAKE! magazine do readers discover that the appealing photos represent kids who died in obedience to the Watchtower Society's ban on blood transfusions.
Posed together in a group portrait in the foreground of Awake!'s cover are three extremely photogenic youngsters. Fifteen-year-old Adrian Yeatts died September 13, 1993, after the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Canada, declared him a "mature minor" and rejected the Child Welfare Department's request for court-ordered transfusions.
Twelve-year-old Lenae Martinez died in California on September 22, 1993, after the Valley Children's Hospital ethics committee ruled her a "mature minor" and decided not to seek a court order.
Twelve-year-old Lisa Kosack died (no date given) in Canada after holding off transfusion therapy by threatening that she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood."
Individual photos of 23 other attractive youths fill the background on Awake!'s cover. These other youngsters are neither named nor discussed, but the implication is that they too all died refusing blood products.
The feature articles on "Youths Who Put God First" fill the first fifteen pages of the May 22 Awake! -- nearly half the issue. More than a third of this space is devoted to handsome, dimple- cheeked Adrian. The story relates cute anecdotes from his early childhood and reveals him to be a sensitive, intelligent, lovable boy anyone would be proud to have as a son. At age eleven he rescued three orphaned raccoon babies he found alongside the highway and escorted them to a safe home at an animal shelter. The kindness and respect he showed for a mentally challenged girl in his class at school -- the butt of other children's jokes -- endeared him to the girl's mother.
Adrian was fourteen when doctors found a fast-growing tumor in his stomach. A series of autopsies revealed a large lymphoma in his abdomen, plus evidence of leukemia in his bone marrow. Oncologist Dr. Lawrence Jardine at the Dr. Charles A. Janeway Child Health Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland, prescribed aggressive chemotherapy accompanied by blood transfusions. When it became clear that Adrian, at his parents' urging, refused the transfusions, child welfare workers went to court seeking protective custody.
Watchtower lawyers produced a strongly worded signed affidavit from the teenager: "The way that I feel is that if I'm given any blood that will be like raping me, molesting my body. I don't want my body if that happens. I can't live with that. I don't want any treatment if blood is going to be used, even a possibility of it. I'll resist use of blood."
On July 19, Justice Robert Wells of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled the boy to be "a mature minor whose wish to receive medical treatment without blood or blood products is to be respected." With only weeks to live, the brave young man fulfilled a few wishes. He visited the Watchtower branch office at Georgetown, Ontario. He went to a Blue Jays baseball game and had his picture taken with part of the team. On September 12 a handful of Jehovah's Witnesses held a special service in the hospital's physiotherapy room and baptized Adrian in one of its steel tanks, thus officially inducting him into membership, and he died the next day.
Why did young Adrian take this course? The AWAKE! article mentions that he "felt that his Biblical hope of eternal life would be threatened" if he agreed to a transfusion. (page 5) Like other JW children he had been taught that death on a hospital bed was to be chosen over "an even graver risk, the risk of losing God's approval by agreeing to a misuse of blood." His parents no doubt followed the organization's instructions to "review these matters with their children" and to "hold practice sessions in which each youth faces questions that might be posed by a judge or a hospital official." (THE WATCHTOWER June 15, 1991, page 15) In other words, Adrian was thoroughly indoctrinated.
Virtually all JW youngsters receive this training to one extent or another, but not all end up in circumstances that require them to go through with it. How many actually do? The caption for Adrian's cover photo states that "thousands of youths died for putting God first" in "former times" and adds that "they are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue." Nowhere, though, do the articles specify exactly which "former times" are referred to. (AWAKE! May 22, 1994, page 2) Nor are any statistics provided on whether the number of Jehovah's Witness youths dying "today with blood transfusions the issue" similarly runs into the thousands, or not.
Most hospitals and courts nowadays grant adult JWs the freedom to refuse blood products even when it means certain death for them. On the other hand, when the patients are babies or young children, physicians secure court orders almost automatically. A battle continues to rage, however, as the Watchtower Society attempts to persuade medical and legal authorities to view JW kids in the 12-through-17-year-old range as "mature minors" who should be allowed to die.
Courts are caught in a dilemma when faced with ailing youngsters determined to resist blood therapy with whatever strength they are able to muster. Some teenagers and pre-teens are simply repeating well-rehearsed arguments drilled into them at congregation meetings and at family study practice sessions. Others have become persuaded in their own minds that it would be wrong or immoral for them to accept blood products. All know that they face disgrace before their peers, loss of parental approval, and disciplinary action from the organization if they accept the forbidden blood products.
Some doctors hesitate to force blood products on such youngsters for fear that the resulting emotional stress might offset the medical advantages. They do not want to see their patient deprived of needed blood products, but they also hesitate to force a treatment that would leave the youngster feeling violated, polluted, guilt-ridden, and lacking the will to live.
Why, though, are parents willing to sacrifice beloved children on the altar of organizational doctrine? Little meets the eye when outsiders puzzle over the unnatural actions of Witnesses in the hospital or the courtroom. Specially trained JW elders serving on "hospital liaison committees" quickly step in to make the organization's voice heard alongside the patient and his or her family. The elders appeal to the broader issues of patients' rights and personal conscience, but they make no mention of secret Watchtower judicial committees that enforce blood transfusion rulings on JW parents. Doctors and judges are largely unaware of the intense indoctrination Witnesses undergo daily.
In the New Testament account, when confronted with objections against his healing a man who was ill on the Sabbath, Jesus knew that his opponents took a much gentler view of religious restrictions when their own vital interests were at stake, so he asked the Pharisees, "Who of you, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" (Luke 14:5 JW New World Translation) The parallel question to JW parents would be, "Who of you, if his son is bleeding to death, will not immediately give him a transfusion?" Yet, Witness parents in case after case have shown themselves willing to sacrifice the lives of their offspring, as well as their own lives.
Onlookers are troubled when they see eighty people die in a burning cult compound at Waco, Texas, or nearly a thousand ingest a poisoned beverage under the direction of Rev. Jim Jones at Jonestown, Guyana, but we manage somehow to dismiss these incidents with the thought that the world has always had its share of kooks and lunatics. When a hundred or a thousand of them assemble together to perform their lunacy in unison, they grab world attention for a brief time but are soon forgotten. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, deserve closer scrutiny because although their people are just as committed as those who died at Waco and Jonestown, they are not huddled together in a small group in some far off cult compound. More than 12 million people attend JW meetings, and they are living in our neighborhoods, shopping in our stores, sending their kids to school with our kids, working alongside us at our jobs, quietly going about their business in our midst -- like a timebomb waiting to go off.
Vaccinations and organ transplants previously banned, now allowed.
During the 1930's and 1940's Watchtower publications denounced vaccination as a procedure that was not only worthless but actually harmful from a medical standpoint, and that was morally wrong from a religious or biblical standpoint. The latter, of course, was the deciding factor for Witnesses. The organization had made clear to them that "Vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood." (GOLDEN AGE [former name of AWAKE! magazine], February 4, 1931, p. 293)
So JWs routinely refused vaccinations for themselves and their children. If the inoculation against smallpox was required for admission to public school, some would have a friendly doctor burn a mark on the child's arm with acid to make it look as if the youngster had been vaccinated. Others went so far as to have papers made out, falsely certifying that the child had been vaccinated. JW publications dropped the ban on vaccinations in the early 1950's, and today they recommend the procedure and credit it with curbing disease.
Jehovah's Witnesses received important new medical instructions in the November 15, 1967, issue of THE WATCHTOWER. An article in the "Questions from Readers" section on pages 702-704 presented a new ruling handed down from Brooklyn headquarters to the effect that "sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human ... would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people" and condemned by God. The article explained that organ transplants were "simply a shortcut" to cannibalistically chewing and eating human flesh.
This pronouncement, in effect, banned organ transplant operations for Jehovah's Witnesses. No longer could a JW with failing kidneys accept a kidney transplant to keep him or her alive; nor could one losing vision receive a cornea transplant. Bone marrow, skin, or anything else taken from another person could no longer be received in a medical procedure. The transplant issue immediately took its place alongside the blood issue as a life-or-death matter for Witnesses hospitalized for illnesses or accidents.
However, the Watchtower Society's ban on organ transplants lasted only a bit under thirteen years. In 1980 it was quietly repealed. The March 15, 1980, WATCHTOWER said, on page 31, "there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue." Recent Watchtower Society publications applaud transplants as procedures that have "helped" people. (AWAKE! August 22, 1989, page 6)
A cult?
Certain studies in the field of psychology have revealed a significantly higher incidence of mental illness among Jehovah's Witnesses compared with the general population. JWs cry "persecution" and dispute such claims. Although featured prominently in the book titled THE FOUR MAJOR CULTS by Anthony A. Hoekema (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ., 1963) and listed among cultic groups in COMBATTING CULT MIND CONTROL by Steven Hassan (Rochester, VT: Park Street Press, 1988) sect leaders deny that label. THE WATCHTOWER of February 15, 1994 acknowledges, "Occasionally, anticult organizations and the media have referred to Jehovah's Witnesses as a cult" (page 4) but then argues to the contrary.
Children in crisis.
In any case, the children of Jehovah's Witnesses carry burdens and face daily stresses not encountered by others. When classmates salute the flag, celebrate a birthday, exchange Valentine cards, or sign up for extracurricular activities after school, JW kids face conflict between personal inclination and their sect's rigid prohibitions. Some obey to the letter, while others live double lives, but all experience inner conflict trying to sort these things out.
Youngsters with both parents in the sect live under constant pressure to meet demands ranging from reciting prepared material before church audiences to selling Watchtower literature from door to door. Those with one non-Witness parent in the home or in a non-custodial visitation relationship hear frequent reminders that this parent belongs to Satan the Devil and faces a violent death at the hands of God's executioners.
What Can YOU Do?*
Professional ethics and legal restrictions usually limit the influence that outsiders can have on the children of Jehovah's Witnesses--no matter how much one's heart goes out to such entrapped youngsters. But there are a few things you can do.
In some circumstances older teenagers trying to break free may be directed to helpful literature, counselling, or support groups.
Kindness, acceptance, and genuine loving attention can help even the very young to question the teaching that outsiders belong to the Devil and serve Satanic interests.
Learn more about Jehovah's Witnesses so as to be better equipped to deal knowledgeably with them.
*From the tract "Jehovah's Witness Children -- Kids Under Cultic Stress" by David A. Reed.
(NOTE: Much of this material has also been incorporated in the new book BLOOD ON THE ALTAR by David A. Reed, Prometheus Books, 1996.)
**************************** *****************************
New Watchtower Blood Transfusion Policy
By Jason Barker
(Note: This article was published in 2000, and as is true of all WatchTower Cult teachings, but especially those related to blood transfusions, are subject to change.)
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has long forbidden blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses. The issue is so serious, in fact, that Witnesses believe a blood transfusion "may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."[1] Witness parents are expected not only to prevent their children from undergoing a blood transfusion,[2] but even to prevent family pets from receiving blood.[3] In order to prevent their being administered blood transfusions while unconscious, each Witness is required to carry a card that states:
I direct that no blood transfusions be administered to me, even though others deem such necessary to preserve my life or health. I will accept non-blood expanders. This is in accord with my rights as a patient and my beliefs as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I hereby release the doctors and hospital of any damages attributed to my refusal. This document is valid even if I am unconscious, and it is binding upon my heirs or legal representatives.[4]
The Watchtower Society forbids blood transfusions because the procedure allegedly constitutes eating blood, which is forbidden in the Bible in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15:28-29. They contend that receiving blood intravenously constitutes eating, just as people can receive food intravenously.[5]
A large number of Jehovah's Witnesses, including many children, have died due to their loyalty to the Watchtower Society. The May 22, 1994, issue of Awake! featured the stories of five children who died after refusing blood transfusions. These stories, similar in tone and rhetoric to the child-martyr stories of the Victorian era, depict children who inspired respect and acceptance for the Society as they happily sacrificed their lives to uphold the Watchtower's regulations. Unfortunately, however, the reality of the situation is often far grimmer. In a particularly horrifying example of how seriously Jehovah's Witnesses take the Society's prohibition, Paul Blizard, a former elder, tells of his experience when his daughter needed a transfusion. After Blizard accepted a court order requiring that his daughter receive a transfusion, an elder said, "I hope your daughter gets hepatitus (sic) from that blood."[6] Blizard, his wife, and even their daughter were then shunned by their congregation for not smuggling the girl out from the hospital to avoid the transfusion.[7]
While many Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to refusing blood transfusions, recent developments in the Watchtower Society's policy on blood indicate that individuals who face a similar crisis today may not need to sacrifice their lives to prove their loyalty to the Society.
Recent Watchtower Controversies Concerning Blood Transfusions
1998
In 1998, in order to receive legal recognition from the government of Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society signed an agreement with the Bulgarian government in which they stated that "members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."[8] A press release distributed in 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society's stated position: "In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah's Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to 'public health.'"[9]
The Watchtower Society's perspective on the agreement can be found in a press release it distributed on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: "The agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives."[10] This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: "The terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses."[11]
The position of the Watchtower Society was clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society had no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or "excommunication or disfellowshipping."[12]
2000
Widespread speculation on the Society's position vis-a-vis blood transfusions began in May with the publication of the June 15, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, in which the Society reiterated that Jehovah's Witnesses may receive blood fractions in their medical treatment, but still may not receive transfusions of whole blood.[13] Speculation increased with a rumor - spread on the Internet - that the Governing Body had met on May 24, 2000 and decided that Jehovah's Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions would no longer be subject to investigation by judicial committees.[14]
The most significant development that spurred such speculation was the June 14, 2000, article by Ruth Gledhill in the London Times, "U-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses."[15] Jehovah's Witnesses, according to Gledhill, are now allowed to accept blood transfusions. Gledhill quotes Paul Gillies, Watchtower spokesperson in the United Kingdom:
It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness.[16]
Witnesses who receive a transfusion and are unrepentant, however, will be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the Society.[17] In response to Gledhill's article, the Watchtower Society issued the following press release:
An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.
If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he 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 represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
Jehovah's Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions. Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious convictions.
Contact: James N. Pellechia, telephone: (718) 560-5600[18]
The Society, in its press release, specifically states that there has been no change in doctrine, and lists several practices that it also claims have not been changed. While it is true that the doctrine has not changed, several of the ways in which the doctrine is lived by Jehovah's Witnesses have changed dramatically.
Changes in Accepted Blood Fractions
While forbidding the transfusion of blood and "major" blood components, the Society has long allowed the consumption of such "minor" blood components as albumin and immunoglobulins; these components are permissible because blood is thus used in "small quantities."[19] These "minor" components were allowed because they are derived from plasma (a serum that is ninety percent water), which is separated from the cellular components of blood (red and white cells, and platelets) that were not allowed.[20] The Society has explicitly condemned receiving cellular blood components in medical treatment. Regarding the biblical prohibitions to abstain from blood, the Society writes, "Witnesses view them as ruling out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs [i.e., red blood cells], and plasma, as well as WBC [i.e., white blood cells] and platelet administration."[21] In a medical journal Watchtower physicians recently stated, "Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept whole blood, or major components of blood, namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma. Also they do not accept hemoglobin, which is a major part of red blood cells."[22]
The article in the June 14, 2000, issue of The Watchtower reveals a significant change in the Society's policy toward receiving blood fractions derived from blood cells (it should be noted that the Society continues to forbid receiving whole blood, or complete blood cells[23]). Whereas past transfusion of fractions of blood components would have resulted in disfellowshipping, the Society now concludes, "When it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself."[24] In support of their new position, the Society notes that a fetus receives bilirubin - a fraction of red blood cells - from its mother through the placenta. Because the fetus receives this fraction from an external source, the Society concludes that it is therefore acceptable for adult Witnesses to also receive fractions from blood cells.[25]
Despite the Society's claim that their policy has not changed, comparing the article from the current Watchtower with previous statements proves that the Society is now allowing blood components that were previously forbidden. Furthermore, the potential impact of the change on Jehovah's Witnesses is quite significant. As the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood state, "The new policy will open the door to JWs accepting many additional blood products and eventually blood substitutes that are hemoglobin based."[26]
Changes in Punishment for Receiving Transfusions
The Society claims that Jehovah's Witnesses who receive a blood transfusion, but afterwards are repentant for receiving the treatment, will not be subject to excommunication. They further claim that this is not a change in their policy.
In contrast to this statement of stability, the penalty for receiving a blood transfusion, be it whole blood or fractions of primary components, was severe: "The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping."[27] The circumstances under which the individual received a transfusion, or the repentance afterward, were irrelevant to the punishment incurred: "[Receiving a transfusion] is a violation of God's command to Christians, the seriousness of which should not be minimized by any passing over of it lightly as being an optional matter for the conscience of any individual to decide upon."[28]
Furthermore, the pressure of a life-or-death situation was also not a factor: "Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency."[29] This policy is vividly illustrated in the previously mentioned example of Paul Blizard and his daughter. Rather than being forgiven for the transfusion, the Blizards were shunned by their congregation.[30]
The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses can now receive blood transfusions - within limits - without necessarily being disfellowshipped is encouraging for observers of the Watchtower Society. This encouragement must be tempered, however, by the ambiguity of the Society's new position. There are currently no standards for determining whether a Witness is truly repentant for receiving a transfusion; this determination is therefore left to the discretion of individual elders. While some elders may show great compassion toward victims of medical emergencies, other elders may continue to hold to the position that blood transfusions are inexcusable under any circumstances. In the latter case, the Witness will likely be considered by the elders to have disassociated himself. Futhermore, because appeals for judicial decisions can only be made to the same congregational judicial committee that voted for punishment,[31] there is little hope that a Witness could successfully appeal an involuntary "disassociation."
A further concern is the way in which the Society will attempt to "help the [recipient of a transfusion] regain spiritual strength." This vague statement can be interpreted in different ways. A compassionate elder could attempt to convince the Witness that, while receiving a transfusion did not meet the ideal for Watchtower behavior, it is nonetheless a forgivable "offense." Unfortunately, the ambiguity of this statement also opens the door to potential abuse. The Witness could be repeatedly told that he or she has committed an act of cannibalism; the Society has even said of transfusion recipients (quoting a seventeenth-century writer) that we should "abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood."[32] Such teaching could result in terrible psychological and spiritual trauma for the Witness.
There is a very likely punishment to help Witnesses "regain spiritual strength." A letter reportedly sent by the Society to all the local branches allegedly dictates that Witnesses who receive transfusions should not serve in any "'privileged capacity', such as an elder, ministerial servant or pioneer."[33] Such a restriction - if true - means that while Witnesses who receive transfusions will not be disfellowshipped, they will be treated as second-class members of their congregations. Furthermore, if the recipient (or his or her caregiver) is in such a privileged position, it is likely that the Witness will be forced to resign that position, leading to public disgrace.
Conclusion
Reports that the Watchtower Society now allows blood transfusions have been excessive. While repentant Witnesses will be forgiven for undergoing the procedure, the Society continues to teach that blood transfusions are a violation of God's prohibition against eating blood. There are nonetheless good reasons for rejoicing in the current changes in Watchtower policy. Jehovah's Witnesses now have an expanded array of medical treatments that are accepted by the Society, and they also have the possibility of being spared the abusive practice of disfellowshipping if they receive a transfusion.
Despite these positive changes, non-Jehovah's Witnesses still have valid reasons for concern. The Society's prohibition against transfusions remains in place, guaranteeing that very conservative Witnesses will continue to refuse all treatments involving blood fractions (the Society even says that such individuals' "sincere, conscientious stand should be respected"[34]). This attitude - which will almost certainly be perpetuated by some elders - will lead to continued deaths within the Watchtower Society.
In an attempt to show Jehovah's Witnesses that the position of the Society is both unreliable and inaccurate, Christians should attempt to do three things.
First, show Witnesses that the Society HAS in fact changed its teachings. By referring Witnesses to the quotes that show the Society's previous stand regarding receiving fractions of primary blood components, the Witness will be able to see - from the Society's own words - both that the teaching has changed, and that the Society is being dishonest in claiming that its teachings and practices remain unchanged.
Second, teach Witnesses that transfusions do not constitute eating. Contrary to the Society's position, receiving a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Food is "eaten," either through oral consumption or intravenous infusion, and then digested in order to provide the body with necessary nutrients that can only be obtained externally from the body. Norman Geisler explains: "Eating is the literal taking in of food in the normal manner through the mouth and into the digestive system. The reason intravenous injections are referred to as 'feeding' is because the ultimate result is that, through intravenous injection, the body receives the nutrients that it normally would receive by eating."[35] Blood transfusions, on the other hand, are simply the replenishment of an essential substance that is normally resident in the body. James Sire states that "a transfusion replenishes the supply of essential, life-sustaining fluid that has otherwise drained away or become incapable of performing its vital tasks in the body. A blood transfusion is not even equivalent to intravenous feeding because the blood so given does not function as food."[36] Because the physiological process involved with consuming and digesting food differs dramatically from the circulation of blood, the Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine is easily seen to be incorrect.
Finally, teach Witnesses the Biblical perspective on transfusions. As stated above, the Bible explicitly condemns eating blood. The Noahide covenant forbids eating blood,[37] as do the Mosaic covenant and the ruling of the Jerusalem council.[38] These scriptures notably forbid the consumption of animal blood. Leviticus explicitly states that the blood of "beast or fowl" is to be poured out before the flesh can be eaten. Ironically, while the Society outlaws transfusions on the basis of Leviticus, they allow Witnesses to consume animal fat, which was similarly forbidden to the Israelites.[39] Blood transfusions were not practiced at the times of the biblical writings, and thus are not directly addressed by the Bible. For this reason orthodox Jews, who rigorously follow kosher laws, allow transfusions while forbidding oral blood consumption. Jews and Christians have, through objective analysis of biblical regulations and medical evidence, determined that eating and digesting animal blood in no way resembles the intravenous replacement of human circulatory fluid. The Society's broad interpretation of the passages above is in reality a case of eisegesis: the Society is using its doctrine to interpret the Bible, rather than using the Bible to inform its doctrine. Many people have endured untold suffering and death because the Watchtower Society does not "abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; that [they] may approve things that are excellent" (Philippians 1:9-10).
[1] Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1961), p. 55. Emphasis added.
[2] Ibid., p. 54.
[3] "Questions From the Readers," Watchtower, February 15 (1964), p. 127.
[4] Card on file.
[5] Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1977), p. 18.
[6] Leonard Chretien, Witnesses of Jehovah (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 1988), p. 197.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Information Note No. 148, [Online]. URL http://194.250.50.201/eng/E276INFO.148.html.
[9] Press Communique, Issued by the Secretary to the European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 28626/95, [Online]. URL http://www.dhcommhr.coe.fr/eng/28626CP.E.html. Emphasis added.
[10] Copy on file.
[11] Ibid.
[12] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[13] See "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, June 15 (2000), pp. 29-31.
[14] See Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Breaking News," New Light on Blood, June 11 (2000) [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/breaking.html.
[15] [Online]. URL http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/06/14/timfgnusa01004.html.
[16] Ibid.
[17] In Watchtower terminology, a disassociated person voluntarily withdraws his or her membership as a Jehovah's Witness.
[18] Copy on file. Italics in original.
[19] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, June 1 (1990), pp. 3031.
[20] Ibid., p. 30. The inconsistency in allowing these minor components, which to obtain require large quantities of whole blood to be separated, is examined in Jason Barker, "Bulgaria and Blood," The Watchman Expositor, 15.3 (1998), pp. 18-20.
[21] How Can Blood Save Your Life (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1990), p. 27.
[22] Richard Bailey and Tomonori Ariga, "The View of Jehovah's Witnesses on Blood Substitutes," Artif Cells Blood Substit Immobil Biotechnol, 26 (1998), pp. 571-76. Quoted in Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood, "Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again," New Light on Blood [Online]. URL http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/change.shtml.
[23] "Questions From Readers," June 15 (2000), p. 29.
[24] Ibid., p. 31.
[25] Ibid. Interestingly, in a 1990 article about transfusions, the Society used the fetus as an example for allowing the reception of plasma fractions; they did not, however, mention bilirubin or the possibility of receiving fractions of red blood cells. See "Questions From Readers," June 1 (1990), p. 31.
[26] "Watchtower Blood Policy Changes Again," [Online].
[27] "Questions From Readers," Watchtower, January 15 (1961), p. 64.
[28] Ibid.
[29] How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 4.
[30] Chretien, p. 197.
[31] Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1991), p. 124.
[32] Thomas Bartholin, quoted in How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 6.
[33] "Breaking News," [Online].
[34] "Questions From Readers," June 15 (2000), p. 30.
[35] Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask (Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 1999), p. 434.
[36] James Sire,Scripture Twisting (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press, 1980), p.86.
[37] Genesis 9:4. [38] Leviticus 17:11,14; Acts 15:28,29.
[39] Leviticus 3:17.