General Chat

I picked this up from JWD forum. The writer appears to be a former JW.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/152400/1.ashx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Wife was invited by her cousin to come back to the meeting on Tuesday since she had not been to one for over a year. The reason? "There's going to be a special anouncement regarding blood for all publishers, you should come!!" Although I was angry she agreed to go, I was curious to know what this was about....Elders gave her a copy of MY Blood card. It is now one page long!!! Not really a card anymore!! It comes with 2 other pages of details. The back of the card now has a MENU like a pizza shop. You need to tick which blood fracton you approve of.

Section 3. "Regarding minor fractions: I refuse all { } tick
OR I will except certain fraction: Albumin { } Immumoglobin { } Clotting factors Hemoglobin { } Haemin { } Intererons { } Others _____{ }
{Take your pick do you say yes to all {weak Witness} or no to all {right-wing strong Witness what is "others" mentioned here??}

Section 4. "Medical procedures" : "I accept { } I might accept { } I refuse { } Tick ONE
Cell salvage {Blood salvage} - Blood is recovered {sucked} from the wound and cleaned and returned to the body. { } { } { }

Hemodilution- "Blood is DIVERTED INTO BAGS and replaced with expanders...at the end of surgery returned to patient." ???? { } { } { }

There is also a section 5. Regarding do you want to be revived if in a coma or vegettative state. Yes { } No { } I guess alot of Brothers will be needing section 5 !!!

Heart lung / dialisis - Blood given oxegen/cleaned put back into body. { } { } { }

Epidural blood patch- Blood is injected in to the membrane of spinal cord to seal a puncture. { } { } { }

Plasmaphersis- Blood removed to filter Plasma. Plasma substitute added, Blood is returned to patient. Using other patients blood is un-acceptable to christians. { } { ] { }

Labelling or Tagging - Some blood withdrawn mixed with medicine return to body. The LENGTH OF TIME OUTSIDE ONES BODY MAY VARY. ?????? { } { } { }

Platelet Gel - Some blood withdrawn made into a solution....this is applied to surgical sites and wounds. Note: Some formations a clotting factor is taken FROM COW'S BLOOD. { } { } { }

Section 7. - "I give NO ONE {Except agent apointed} authority to override my instructions. Family members, relatives, may disagree with me...does not diminish the strength or substance of my refusal of blood or instructions."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How things have changed!
The above is only a part of what has to be filled in now.

Imagine what would happen in an emergency. You are lying there bleeding to death while the doctors and elders read through this complicated document.

I can just see doctors having to go through everything on the list, and thats just one page of it.
Originally the "blood card" was just that a card saying "No Blood" you could just keep it in your wallet, or slip it in a pocket.

Now a JW has to carry 3 pages of information around with them.
If it gets any worse they will need a folder.

Also in may confuse doctors etc.
They get one JW with "I Accept" ticked on their form.

Another may have "I Might Accept"

Another may have "I Refuse"

A doctor who treats a JW with "I accept" may think thats what all JWs now accept and treat others the same. Not knowing that they could be an "I Refuse".

Also can you imagine in the congregation there will be those who "I Accept"
and those who "I Refuse".

Will one group consider themselves superior to the other?

Will Elders use what you have chosen to decide how "spritually strong" a JW is?

Can you imagine a JWs husband/wife/child dies, because they refuse blood.

But another JWs husband/wife/child, survives because they accepted certain fractions etc.

Yet both will be seen by the Watchtower as having obeyed their directives over blood.

I forsee problems with it all.

I have kept coming back to this thread to read through the posts and I would personally like to applaud you all for the debate and the manner in which it has been conducted

Well done, it is so refreshing to see a debate that hasn't turned nasty even with the difference of opinions on here

Just like to clarify that I was a JW for 20 years before I decided for various reasons to leave. My children was brought up as JW's and my mother was a JW 33 years, so I can only speak from experience.

Athena

Well done, I think you have made some balanced, excellent comments here. This, as Sue has said has been the nature of this thread, although very emotive in the most part it has been carried out in a civilised manner with points of view being expressed and explanations given.

My best wishes remain with Emma's husband, her two children and her family.

Lyn x

Hello again!

Have just been having a read through some of the recent posts (didn't realise this thread was still active as I haven't checked in a while) and after reading some of the posts by "ibsexy" and a few others, I just wanted to clarify a few things because I'm worried that readers may misunderstand a few points.

Firstly, the statement "Don't worry, JW's will change their mind about blood transfusions" followed by the BBC news quote from 2000 headed "Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban", needs to be addressed.

That news heading is quite misleading, for a start - but then that is the Press for you. The law prohibiting blood being ingested in any way, shape or form remains fully in place. How can JWs revoke a law that was instilled by God? (It would be like them suddenly announcing that fornication or murder was now ok in some circumstances!!). No, this was just a headline catcher by the Press. Further on in the article they do explain properly that it is merely the "automatic disfellowshipping" that has been adjusted. But to a JW, disfellowshipping and disassociating oneself would be regarded as the same thing, so that is irrelevant.

Ask any JW their view on blood transfusions and whether they would accept one and I think you'll find they will answer a fervant "No".

Of course, each person is different, with different levels of stamina, spiritual strength and faith, so at times the odd few may relent at the last minute and break this law (although, as mentioned, those are by far in the minority). It doesn't necessarily mean that they have renounced their faith, simply that their imperfections and weakness of the flesh have gotten the better of them at that moment in time. With heartfelt repentence over a period of time they will usually be welcomed back into the congregation and reinstated, although whether their own conscience ever recovers is another thing.

Obviously, the JWs want to keep the congregation as spiritually clean and law-abiding as possible so that they do not end up like other religions, where anything seems to be acceptable. They may seem overly strict on a lot of things, but this is what makes them stand out as different from a lot of other faiths - the fact that they won't overlook a wrongdoing and won't allow ungodly practices to contaminate the congregation is a good thing and prevents them being labelled "hypocrites". There would be no point in teaching the Bible to others if they weren't taking it all seriously themselves, after all.

Also, we need to remember that although certain laws don't change, often the understanding of a law is made clearer in time.

For example, with regard to the quotes regarding JWs not allowing transplants in the 1960s as it was feared to be cannabilistic - transplants at that time were a fairly new thing. Obviously, with some research and guidance from God it was brought to their attention the fact that those organs being transplanted were not being digested and used as food for the body (unlike a blood transfusion as that is solely to nourish the body) and, therefore, transplants are acceptable (these organs are usually flushed clean to remove any blood). They are a bit like the engine parts of a car, rather than the fuel that keeps the car going!

So, yes, over the years certain things are made clearer as more research and discussions are carried out and that is what you would expect to happen.

As an example of this, years ago, I think before I was born, some JWs used to smoke. It was only years later when research showed the health implications of this that the JWs could see it contradicted bible teachings, so that was something new brought in to their daily lives, a no-smoking "policy".

Another thing I spotted on here was a remark about the JWs love for fellow members being "conditional". No, this is also incorrect. Their love is unconditional - even if a fellow JW is disfellowshipped they will continue to love them and pray for their return.

I was just sitting here thinking about Emma and it just occurred to me that even in her death she is still "preaching the good news" through all the various forum discussions going on around the world on this subject. Although these discussions may not change the viewpoints of every reader, I feel pretty sure that somewhere, someone will be curious enough to continue these discussions with the next JW that knocks on their door.

Well, I've got some work to do so will say bye for now.

Take care all - regards, Athena

Take care, Sue.

I think that considering the very emotive subject we've managed to stay remarkably civilised about this one.

Hope everyone is OK.

Must go to bed.
Night folks

Sue
x

Sorry Sue - maybe that came out the wrong way so apologies.
I just got the over-riding impression as I read that some people had their own thoughts and were not prepared to listen to others - sorry if I got that wrong.

Not sure that's entirely fair Errol as most of this discussion has been done politely, and with efforts made to understand.

However it is true that what some see as facts others see as fiction.

Sue

I think we are mixing fact and fiction here!
We are also falling into the trap of bending the truth to suit.
Let us stick with actual facts and not become bigots.

I got a beautiful card from my daughter this morning with a little reminder of just how much she loved and admired me after having been in intensive care a few years ago when my family were told it was touch and go and given really dirty looks and spoken to in a very dry and cold manner (because of MY choice)
I felt sadness, hurt and anger that my family had been treated this way, I dont know what else to say on the matter only that i would never want to hurt my family or cause quarrels between family or friends over a choice i made, the question is should i have taken the blood to make the nurses in the Victoria Infirmary feel better about themselves, when telling my family it was touch and go (which they knew) and then telling me the same in the manner they did I say to myself, was this meant to frighten me or bully me in some sort of way into taking the blood.
I then remind myself that this was the Friday and i was out of Intensive care on the Sunday evening.
I can still see and hear the anger from one nurse when on the Saturday i used the buttons on the bed to move myself into a better position and was angrily told off for this, only they were allowed to press the buttons according to her, I have a wee laugh now and again about the fact that i must have been a disappointment to her.
Take Care Everyone, I think i will go to bed now xxx
I am not a Jehovah's Witness but i have a very high respect for them and the faith they preach, especially when they give up their own time to go round and try to teach others about the bible in all sorts of weather and to some right horrid people when they could choose to be at home or at work making extra money.

ibsexy

You appear to have such a knowledge of how the JWs work, have you had any connections yourself?

I see what you are trying to say about Emma BUT, it wasn't her husband that prevented her having the transfusion it was Emma having the determination to stick by her bible based principles.

As I said in an earlier post, really the matter of whether or not a person should or should not be disfellowshipped and whether the witnesses have changed their view of people who would accept blood transfusions is in fact immaterial in this case.

I feel sure that there is more to this story than the media are giving us. If, as I said earlier a cell saver machine was available at the hospital and a trained operator was at least on call, then the issue of Emma having a blood transfusion would not have been raised. The cases of JWs losing their life becuase they refuse blood transfusions on religious grounds are very rare. Bear in mind, there are many people who are not JWs, haven't had any previous connection with JWs who would absolutely NOT have a transfusion. I mentioned earlier that the anaesthetist involved in one of my biggest operations said himself he most definitely would not want a blood transfusion intra-operatively. During the surgery, it is the anaesthetist who makes the decision as to whether or not a patient needs blood not the surgeon.

In Emma's case, this wasn't surgery but a haemorrhaging after a birth which is more common than many think, as I said earlier my sister went through this problem, refused a transfusion and was treated quickly and correctly and is here to see her daughter grow up. The role of the cell saver machine is to harvest lost blood and cleanse and purify it before returning it back to the patient eilminating the need to transfuse when further assistance is given by iron, antibiotics and erythropoietin which is the body's natural way of repleneshing red blood cells.

I find it quite disappointing that you are determined to call down the JWs organisation as thoroughly as you do. The lengths you have gone to with all the quotes you have cited imply your dislike of JWs as an organisation. As a suggestion, would it not be better to commend this young lady for making the stand she did, bearing in mind that there are many non-witnesses who would refuse blood, instead of knocking her faith and trying to point out flaws in her beliefs and the organisation she and her family are involved in. There are many, many religions who, if they were under scrutiny, fall way short of of being perfect and change and adapt to suit the current trends. Another point to consider, there are many people throughout history who are considered martyrs after having lost their lives for something they fervently believe in.

You have your opinion and you are entitled to express it and as such I therefore feel I have the right to redress the balance.

Best wishes
Lyn x

What I meant was he would regret not allowing her to have a blood transfusion as he would be no longer part of the religion.
She died when a blood transfusion may have saved her. Unfortunately the JW's love and friendship is conditional if she had a blood transfusion and survived she would have been reproached and disciplined by their elders for going against their beliefs

ibsexy, How can you say Emma has died for nothing if her husband chooses to leave the truth?

Lyn

Thanks for that

xx

I told you so!

Wednesday, 14 June, 2000, 15:00 GMT 16:00 UK
Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban



Transfusions will no longer lead to expulsion

By the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent Jane Little
Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement have revoked a strict ruling that their members automatically face ex-communication if they accept blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses: facts
An unorthodox Christian sect
Based in New York
6m members in more than 200 countries
Founded in 1884
They took the controversial decision at a secret meeting in New York, following years of recrimination from ex-members and non-Jehovah's Witnesses over the ban.

The religious community insists that receiving blood is still wrong.

But under the changes, transfusions have been relegated to "non-disfellowshipping events" - in other words you will not be thrown out of the religion if you have one.

That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refused blood.

Only last week, a British Jehovah's Witness who lost pints of blood in a machete attack, renounced his faith at the last minute so that he could have the transfusion which saved his life.

Climbdown or procedural change?

But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.

He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.

If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.

But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.

Jehovah's Witnesses, who number six million worldwide, have suffered years of adverse publicity over blood transfusions.

It now looks like they quietly want to downplay this issue and to emphasise less controversial elements of the faith.

Don't worry the JW's will change their mind about blood transfusions like they did about haemaphiliacs taking clotting factors from blood in 1987 saying it was up to the individuals conscience.

Lets hope Emmas husband doesn't change his mind about being in the truth or she would have died for nothing.

Pink

Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding your statement regardidng JWs and animal blood. I can assure you that my intention has never been to criticise anybody on this thread but rather respond to questions and give explanations to the best of my ability to the various issues raised so I therefore also send my apologies for appearing to criticise you for offering your opinion.

This has been such an emotive subject which, when you look back has been carried out in a well spirited manner and the last thing I would want to do would be to offend or as in your case misquote or misinterpret a statement made.

Lyn x

To understand their reasons, you have to understand their mindset.

Until recently [in the last 10 yrs or so],any JW who had a transfusion would suffer the penalty of disfellowshipping/excommunication. This meant that JW would NOT be allowed to speak to them, eat with them or associate with them in any way, shape or form. All family contact would be lost and friends would not be allowed to associate with them.

When the JW's sought legal recognition in Bulgaria, it was initially refused because of the issue of Blood Transfusion and their refusal to allow it.

They then back tracked and stated that it was a FREE choice of the individual. This "free choice" though has a penalty attatched.

As an active JW, this woman or her husband could have allowed it BUT in doing so, they would have automatically "disassociated" themselves from the group. The act of disassociation means that you no longer recognise yourself as one of Jehovah's witnesses.

This may seem "ok" to people who are not JW's but to a JW, the "punishment" for this is the same as being disfellowshipped/excommunicated. Loss of friends and family.

SEE BELOW:

Blood Transfusions allowed in Bulgaria


According to informed sources the Watchtower has now made blood transfusions a matter of choice!
In a legally binding document they agreed to allow, free choice on blood transfusions for Jehovah's Witnesses and their children, without any penalties for the choice to take blood.

This took place at the 276th Session of the European Commission of Human Rights (Council of Europe) held at the Human Rights Building in Strasbourg from 2 to 13 March 1998. The findings of which can be seen on the European Commission on Human Rights website.

The case in question was KHRISTIANSKO SDRUZHENIE "SVIDETELI NA IEHOVA" (CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) v. Bulgaria (Application No. 28626/95).

The case concerned the refusal to reregister the Watchtower association pursuant to a 1994 law, and the alleged suppression of its activities and those of its members. In settlement, the Bulgarian Government agreed to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for civilian service for conscientious objectors, as an alternative to military service, and to register the association as a religion. The Watchtower undertook, with regard to its stance on blood transfusions, to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute, providing members with a free choice in the matter, for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the Society.

If the Watchtower is to keep its promise to the European Commission, it must officially revoke the instructions found in The Watchtower, 15 January 1961, p.64.

"The receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshiping if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God's requirements. As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping."
=========================

Please bare in mind also that they at one time used to forbid their members from receiving transplants. They considered this caniballism:

This is a quote from the Watchtower magazine:

"When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others.

There are many such quotes in their literature such as the above one found in the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967, p. 702.


Of course, now they allow transplants.

I need to comment on this statement......

To say as Pink did that JWs are 'hypocritical because they will eat animal blood' is not true either. JWs will not even use cochineal for food colouring because it contains blood neither will they eat black pudding, exactly the same reason. Certain cuts of meat that are from animals that are not bled properly will not be eaten by JWs.

You are quick to criticise me here for asking QUESTIONS! If you read my statement properly (I have copied it into this reply) you will see that I was commenting on the fact it was stated that not all JW's are vegetarian, no one had said they were Kosha and hence me saying it was hypocritical nonsence.


======================================

MY PREVIOUS COMMENT WAS
So are we saying that JW's find it acceptable to against this statement

In the bible it clearly says that blood is sacred and belongs to God - and early Christians were forbidden from partaking of anything that contained any type of blood, whether that be animal or human. In fact, if God views mere animal blood as sacred (hence the need to drain its life blood before eating the flesh) then how more so that of a human?

and eat the blood of an animal when they don't NEED to, but they won't accept blood of a human when they DO NEED it?

======================================

I still find it beyond belief that someone would not accept blood, but would eat meat and buy products where blood has been present in, such as leather, and I stick with that opinion. And yes I get cross with vegetarians that will wear leather too!

You have a right to defend your position but I also have a right to defend mine