Articles 
| Jehovah’s Witnesses Accept Blood – A Little Known Fact |
| Written by Kerry Louderback Wood |
| Wednesday, 08 April 2009 15:43 |
What medical professionals need to realize is that Jehovah’s Witness blood policy is both complex and ever-changing. What is allowed or forbidden is difficult for everyone, including followers, to understand. Currently, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to have a whole blood transfusion (or at least not one that is a whole unit’s volume), whole red blood cells, whole platelets, or whole plasma. They are not allowed to store their own blood in anticipation of surgery. But, as of October 15, 2000, followers are allowed to choose to take whole blood transfusions of their own blood as part of “current therapy”. October 15, 2000 Watchtower, Page 31- The Watchtower Society allows followers to personally decide on techniques "in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient . . . . A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test or current therapy." Jehovah God allows a lab to withdraw an unknown quantity of blood, walk it down the hall to be mixed with other substances and later transfused back into the patient. How is this different from pre-operative storage of one’s own blood? Does Jehovah God distinguish between lab work versus operations, or on quantity extracted and time outside the body? Hypocrisy. Jehovah’s Witnesses are now permitted to take all “fractions” made from blood, again by personal conscience. The Watchtower Society tells its followers that each fraction is a “minute” part of blood. The truth is that all of these “minute” fractions would equal a whole unit of blood if added together! Jehovah’s Witnesses are not told this fact. In short, the Jehovah’s Witness blood fraction policy is akin to not allowing apples to be eaten, but allowing apple pie, apple turnover, applesauce, apple juice, etc. Sometimes the Watchtower Society is not forthcoming with its followers as to what is permitted, especially when it’s a quick flip-flop of policy. My paper details two situations, both with Factor VII and in hemoglobin where the church’s official policy and official practice were divergent. In 1992, the Watchtower Society officially banned hemoglobin. Yet in 2000, a California newspaper reported that the church helped procure hemoglobin for an ill follower. In 2004 when my mother died, hemoglobin was still an officially banned product. After the publication of my paper, the Watchtower Society officially allowed hemoglobin. It is my understanding that hemoglobin is available in South Africa and the United States (through “compassionate use” program of the Food & Drug Administration). There are so many flip-flops in the Watchtower Society’s stance on blood, everyone is understandably confused. Did you know that from 1934 to 1945, the Watchtower allowed blood transfusions? In 1945, it banned the procedure and in 1961 it declared that followers would be excommunicated for taking a blood transfusion. The use of blood products went from allowed, to disallowed, to allowed again in a matter of years in the 1950s through 1970s. Hemophiliac treatments went through a similar flip-flop in the 1970s. Likewise, hemodilution was sinful in 1972, but allowed in 1983. Vaccinations were forbidden up until 1952, when the Watchtower Society reversed course. Now, virtually all Jehovah’s Witnesses will accept a vaccination, and many are unaware that it could be derived from blood. Organ transplants were favorable in the 1930s through the early 1960s, then demonized as cannibalistic in the late 1960s, only to be re-allowed in the 1980s. Only through reading the Watchtower Society's old literature, can you see that the only constant in the blood policy is change. I am saddened to think of the followers who died following a blood policy that later changed. Consent and the Jehovah’s WitnessConsent must be freely given, and not coerced. In every life threatening situation there is thought of the afterlife. The thought of hell fire or pearly gates is clearly not coercion. Coercion refers to the consequences that would happen in the present life. Jehovah’s Witnesses carry a blood card and some even have a detailed blood directive which goes through their choices of blood treatments. The signing of the cards is a yearly event done at an open church meeting officiated by an elder with other Jehovah’s Witnesses in the room. Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially those who are elderly or have no other family members in the religion, are encouraged to sign an extra copy for the elders to keep and to give an elder a healthcare power of attorney. Refusal to sign a blood card has consequences. Disfellowshipping happens when a follower willingly and unrepentantly accepts a blood transfusion for himself or for a family member (including a child). However, no sin is committed if a court of government authority requires the transfusion. Then, the follower’s hands are clean. I oftentimes hear from doctors that a parent “seemed relieved” when the doctor threatened to obtain a judge’s order to administer blood to the child. If a patient accepts a blood transfusion in a deathbed circumstance, he has automatically “disassociated” himself from the church. This change was made because Bulgaria’s government demanded that there be no disfellowshipping for accepting blood. http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/perjury.shtml. The truth is that a disassociated person is also shunned, and will only be allowed back into the church if he repents. If he agrees with his decision to take blood (i.e. would do it all over again), he is then disfellowshipped. Either disassociated or disfellowshiped, he is shunned by other Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses strictly shun the disfellowshipped and disassociated. Shunning means loss of family relationships and contact, loss of friends, and sometimes, loss of employment. Jehovah’s Witnesses can be disfellowshipped for not following the shunning rules. Parents are to shun adult children. No contact other than legal matters, no opening mail, no phone calls, no money sent, no participating in the child’s wedding or birth of grandchildren, nothing. Parents of minor children are to provide for the apostate child, but it is expected that all ties will cease upon reaching 18 years old. All other relatives are free to shun the minor child. Spouses are to not have any spiritual conversations with apostate spouses, and the church gives an understanding nod if the two decide to divorce. Children of apostate parents have very strained relations with their sinful parents and are encouraged to write the parent letters pleading for the parent to rejoin Jehovah’s Organization. Doctors and hospitals need to know that Jehovah’s Witnesses are highly encouraged to report on other Jehovah’s Witnesses who break a medical tenant. Jehovah’s Witnesses will do this to attain status with both Jehovah and with peers. They will tattle-tail even if it breaks medical or legal confidentiality laws. The Watchtower article, “A Time to Speak-When?” illustrates how Jehovah's Witness followers, including lawyers and doctors, are told that Jehovah's law is supreme over man's confidentiality rules. This theme is repeated throughout Watchtower literature. http://www.jwfiles.com/report-members.htm I can not emphasize enough the importance of protecting patient’s medical records and putting those records on a “need to know” basis. Medical records need to be protected, as any Jehovah’s Witness who can get access (including even a Janitor) may try to peek at the patient’s records. Hospitals and doctors will often see a deluge of visitors to the patient’s bedside, including a Hospital Liaison Committee Elder. Even if the visitors are banned from the room, they are often lurking outside in the hallways and other public places near the patient’s room. This is oftentimes an attempt to make sure there is no blood going into the room. I have heard countless stories from doctors that a Jehovah’s Witness will accept blood if there are no other Jehovah’s Witnesses in the hospital room or outside. I can not emphasize enough the need to discuss the blood issue with the patient while he is alone and to assure the patient of his confidentiality.
A sick follower has a lot to think about, much more than the afterlife. He is under extreme pressure to not accept a blood transfusion. This pressure starts with the signing of his blood card. If he accepts blood to save his life, he will likely lose his family life, his friends, and his job (if Witness operated). The patient knows that other Jehovah’s Witnesses will report, even if they are under a confidentiality oath, if blood is taken. He knows the consequences in this life if he is caught. Recommendations For Treating a Jehovah's Witness
Talk in complete privacy with the Jehovah’s Witness patient. Ensure the patient you will use bloodless and blood conservation and, if agreed, any Watchtower permitted blood fractions and blood therapies. Discuss the actual risks of blood transfusions and abstaining from blood or bloodless surgery. Address both the patient’s fears and expectations. Give concrete facts as much as possible. (i.e. a “1 in 3,000,000” chance of getting AIDS verses a “1 in 3” chance of dying or organ failure). Test the patient’s conviction of his medical knowledge. Ask him if he can explain: The difference between Watchtower allowed “current therapy” verses autologous or whole blood transfusions. Why he’s willing to die for a belief that the Watchtower might change tomorrow.
Assure the patient that strict confidentiality of their medical records will be observed. Brief all treating medical staff and set up records on “need to know” basis to keep non-treating medical staff out of records. Offer to give blood in the operating room or secluded location; away from family, friends, and Watchtower Hospital Liaison Elders. Before leaving the operating room, disconnect all blood administering equipment from the patient. In briefing family and friends, be careful to not mention blood or blood products administered. I believe that medical doctors should be the chief decision maker on whether children, teenagers, and people with reduced decision making ability need a blood transfusion. The minor patient may need to be sedated, as he has been taught from an early age to pull out the blood transfusion lines and physically resist with all strength the blood transfusion. The parent should not be present when the blood transfusions are administered, as the parent may try to remove the lines and cause the child mental anguish. Both the child and parents need to be informed of the danger to the child from such actions. The doctors should question the parents with the above questions to ascertain their conviction. In court, the child should be represented by State appointed, independent, non-Watchtower attorney. The Watchtower Society should stop ousting and shunning followers who willingly agree to have a blood transfusion. Only if given free will, can any person make a true attestation to his faith. Further, the Watchtower Society needs to apologize and correct the misquotes in its medical literature. The Watchtower Society needs to provide an honest argument to its followers, and not base their beliefs on trickery and illogic. The Watchtower Society needs to explain to its followers the vast allowance of blood fractions and their relation to whole blood as a unit. The Watchtower Society needs to explain to its followers the difference, if any, between “current therapy” and autologous blood storage. In short, the Watchtower needs to stop its own hypocrisy. Read more by Kerry at her blog here http://www.freeminds.org/blogs/kerry-louderback-wood/ Hits: 6816 Trackback(0)
Comments (21)
  written by jonathan , June 14, 2009 Can I translate this article into Chinese? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by dan , June 24, 2009 Refusal to sign a blood card has consequences. The consequence is disfellowshipping from the religion and shunning by all followers as a marked “apostate.”- This statement is partly incorrect. One doesn't have to sign it and there were many times that I didn't sign a new card for months before I got to doing so. I was never approached and asked to sign it so I do not know how the elders would have reacted if I refused so I can say that the quote above should be re-wrote. I left WT$ recently so I know things haven't changed in being forced to sign the "medical directive card". report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
 written by Shawn Holland , June 24, 2009 This article is incorrect. Vaccinations were not disallowed and organ transplants were not banned. The magazines may have written bad things about them but that is not a ban. If it were a ban, there would be continuous teachings against them. But there have not been. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
 written by kiko kalikot , July 04, 2009 this lady don't know what she is saying, if any one want to know about Jehovah's Witnesses they should ask one of them they are everywhere and easy to talk to. judge for your self if they are right or wrong. kiko report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -5
 written by Antonio Monteiro , July 07, 2009 The comment of Kiko is not truth. Their are not ease to talk. Once you pull them against the wall they simply ignored you. I received many of them in my house and debate the truth and I even invite to come again. But never come back. Has been more than 2 years that I am waiting a couple to return and continue the study. There is no way to find them. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
 written by Lester , July 08, 2009 I agree with some points but overall this article was not researched very well. To make matters worse, it was written in that "apostate" tone I so hate. If she did have any valid points they were voided by the undertone of exaggerations. Hellfire and pearly gates do not even apply in the case of JW's and we all know that. Forced to sign a card I am not sure of either. I agree with the writer about flip flops and things that don't make much senser but again sorry lady try again. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
 written by Dave , July 30, 2009 The author makes a valid point: "Only if given free will can a person make a TRUE attestation to their faith". Each JW is strongly encouraged to consider their own feelings regarding blood and fractions. Especially as of late, the 'doctrine' hasn't changed, but the intent of the information presented is less "you should do this" and more "You should consider this and make your own conscientious decision". Unfortunately, many JW do find considering this subject intimidating and many, therefore are making decisions regarding blood based more on fear and coercion rather than on what they have been CONVINCED of. That is scary (Rom 14:12), hopefully their responses at the time of their accounting will show they understood the basis for their decisions. Regarding the decision to use blood, our stance as JW is pretty simple. The Bible, which we believe is the expressed will of God, clearly states to avoid blood. I understand that modern medicine has caused many sincere people to reassess the validity of abstain from...blood (Acts 15:29) , but isn't it true that modern medicine's development of birth control and condoms could likewise cause someone to reassess the command to abstain from...fornication? The fact of the matter is that these are not laws based solely on pragmatism, but are moral directives. I'm sure every JW at some time or another has wished that command was not there....BUT IT IS. Then it comes down to FAITH...do I believe that my life (Now and 'to come') is in God's control and submit to what he says or do I believe that modern medicine has the only hope for life now and beyond (Please remember this would only come up with the issue of blood). You claim the policy stance of considering the use of blood in the ‘tagging’ process as a matter for individuals to decide and the stance that storing ones own blood for later use as unacceptable is “hypocritical”. Do WT executives do it or something? I think the stance shows the complexity of the situations presented nowadays in that they can’t make a clear determination regarding it, but leave it for individuals to decide, just as they do regarding blood fractions. The fact of the matter is, that new technologies create new circumstances that may require some decision about…take plethora of laws made, revised, scrapped, remade related to the internet. It is not so easy to interpret, for example, the Constitution in the face of all the new technologies and how they are being used. Likewise, interpreting the Christian’s ‘Constitution’ in the light of new and changing technologies also has presented a challenge to the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I don’t consider the policies to be hypocritical, just indicative of the world we living in. Whether a person is shunned for taking blood is determined the same way as a person who commits adultery or any other action expressly forbid in Scripture. If they are truly repentant and decided in fear or weakness, they will not be shunned, but reproved (re-convinced). At that time they can reassess whether they truly believe abstaining from blood is required to please God and make their determination based on faith, not fear.... (hopefully all do that anyway). If they aren't convinced, and it happens again (God forbid they would have another accident or disease requiring it), then their cries of repentance may be heard with a little more suspicion. Shunning seems to be a big issue with the author and I can understand the complexities involved in trying to apply the scriptural directive at 1 Cor 5:9-13. This directive was patterned after the Israelite way of shunning (Killing your relative by stoning). It is a fact of history that almost every Christian movement made attempts to practice shunning as a form of discipline...why? Because it is clearly taught in Scripture as means of Church discipline. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few Christian movements left that continue the practice established by the 1st century congregation. That should be food for thought. Best regards to all, David report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by jadestxi , September 01, 2009 She said, "I believe that medical doctors should be the chief decision maker on whether children, teenagers, and people with reduced decision making ability need a blood transfusion." Well, I'm sorry! After reading her under-researched statements, i rather be the decision maker, of my own destiny! I had to have a blood transfusion at one point in my life. The doctor was P'D-off that i refused every bit of it. I proved him wrong!!! Actually Jehovah is proving them both wrong everyday!!! I know that if you just listen to the Jehovah's word-the bible, you can't go wrong. As a matter of fact, you can go a long way! I refused a blood transfusion and i'm still here 19 years later to talk about it! And i don't have Aids!  wink  cry report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
 written by Wisdom Nigeria , October 14, 2009 This lady is a very clear example of the word she likes using "apostate" I thank you all to encaurage this defenceless religion. I am Wisdom writing from Nigeria. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -4
 written by jason , November 13, 2009 The original injunction in the bible was against the eating of carrion (source-Eisemann) and it is mad extrapoilation to apply this rule to blood transfusions. The whole shebang is mad however and anyone who defends the jw's has NO personal experience of their moralistic pontifications. A very bad cult that masks itself as being humble when in fact members are the most haughty people I have ever met, thinking that they alone are Gods chosen ones. The whole thing still makes me sick and I have been long gone from their clutches and mind controlling. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +6
 written by OzMoses... , November 16, 2009 hmmm...some good points from both sides, but I don't know of minors attempting to remove aparatus connected to their viens or parents doing it for that matter, nor the item about friends and family and liason commitee waiting in the hallway for the dual purpose of concern and to observe to see if blood is transported to the patient's room. That's a bit of a beat up. And you don't get disfellowshiped for not signing the blood directive....and no-one asked me or anyone else if they have signed it. Yes, the blood doctrine is not clear-cut and confusing. Eventually, those blood products that the JW's can use must have come from some-ones blood, that should've been given back to God...so what's the difference? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
written by OzMoses... , November 16, 2009 ...oh, and forgot to mention to jadestxi, ease up and get off your high horse. You are not showing any respect to those witnesses who did die because of their stance, nor are you showing any empathy for those with Aids. You're lack of humility is anything but christian. Be grateful and don't gloat over those less fortunate. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Sue Melin , November 23, 2009 None of the angered "witnesses" seem to have a problem with the Watchtower changing it's doctrine all the time. Even more disturbing is that none of them can tell the names of the leaders in the governing body. Hitler could have been one of the leaders, for all you know. So much for being informed, JWs report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +8
 written by J , December 17, 2009 Why are "witnesses" even reading this stuff? Why are they even on this website? Your religion is obviously not doing it's job, or else you would be "shunning" this "apostate" site... I seriously doubt any one of you saying negative things about this woman's mostly accurate article have had to go through the "shunning" process, you have no idea what it's like to lose everything in one announcement from a platform for making it known you intend to use your brain and are disgusted with JW's past... "Changing to keep up with the times"...really...I call that being FALSE PROPHETS....Deut 18:21-22....consider the following dates when reading that scripture: 1914, 1918, 1925, 1931, 1941, & 1975... It's not like they're going to come out and just say "We're wrong-you can have blood now"...you know how many lawsuits they would have against them??? It makes much more since for them to slowly integrate "new light", I mean, why change what works!? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
 written by Don , January 10, 2010 Going through this website just seems like retaliation becuase alot of everone on this site was df'd or disassociated themselves becuase of a df or shunning of a loved one. By the way i have been inactive for 7years and do not attend meetings or keep contact with witness. I do not believe they are misleading or haughty. People dont realize no matter what religion organization they are with there is going to be sin and double standards. I have never met a JW who thought they were perfect or "gods chosen one". Just my experience and what I have seen. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by richlo , January 16, 2010 keep abstaining from blood... Are we serious about that YWHW actually was telling them to abstain from HUMAN blood as if they were cannibalistic..every verse I have read in regards to blood always was talking about sacrificial blood - ANIMAL blood... Since when did PARTS of blood okay to accept? where in the bible does it mention this.. BLOOD is blood ! Also, transfusion is NOT EATING blood ..it remains blood..if we eat anything..the body breaks it down..Transfusion is not the same..PLUS...all we have to look at is the history of Israel on this note..they never preached this..they do recieve blood transfusion Get real...lol..this is rediculous "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled ... look at this carefully...this is IDOLS...blood STRANGLED..this is animal ..sacrificial..just look at the O.T... report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
 written by gem , January 22, 2010 What a shame that you have to stoop to the same ignorant level as the bloggers you seek to tear down. Why not let the Scriptures speak for themselves. The Apostles felt revulsion at the thought of drinking the (symbolic) blood of Christ. Yet, even if symbolic, Jesus gave his blood (life) for us. Taking a life by slaughter, against the will of another or an innocent animal is one thing. Returning the life giving blood to God is the right thing to do under the Jewish law. Offering an organ (including blood which is a liquid organ)is a matter of choice. Surely, the discussion rests, that accepting blood or any organ is a matter of conscience. If one decides to accept and another not.. that is between that person and their God. There should not be censorship by any body of men. Yes, accepting transplant from another is risky.. We all live with the consequences of our choice. Err on the side of love and mercy. Jehovah withheld the hand of Abraham from sacrificing his Son... what mercy.. does Jah really want us to forfeit life when sharing is offered by others? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
 written by Matt Sullivan , January 30, 2010 Why is this blood thing such an issue? If people want to take it, then take. If people don't want to take it, then don't. Medical issues are personal and not a congregational matter as you believe. No one is coerced or shunned because of a decision because others don't know about it. Keep private things private. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
written by gem , February 02, 2010 Bravo Matt: That is just as it should be. Each one must live with the consequences of the medical decisions they make. The point is: Take responsibility for your own decisions, and don't blame the poor practisioner if your decision is against informed advice. Relegate the whole thing to a matter for each conscience and don't villify those who accept treatment in all good conscience. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Victor Benitez , February 14, 2010 To those who are for blood or against blood transfusions: Every individual who has read biblical passages, regarding blood, could not possibly draw a definite conclusion, that the Bible, forbids blood transfusions. The only way, Watchtower members have drawn that conclusion, is for someone, or a group of people, who assume to have strong religious influence over the membership, assert the idea, that the members, are required to do so. If they don't agree with it, they are, cast out. Otherwise, it is, impossible, to draw, such a conclusion. What the J-dub, should do, is, ask himself: why hasn't the Hebrews or Jews of the past, or Jews of the present, ever come up with the idea that blood transfusions, are forbidden. The reason, is, quite transparent. The Bible; from the old and new testament, does not teach, such a thing. All you have do, is read it over, and over, and you, will not, find it. from Los Angeles report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
 written by Angie Osbourne , March 13, 2010 JW's are so wrong and misinformed on so many issues that the blood controversy becomes a mere particle comprising a unit. Take God's Name, for example. The chief priests, scribes, and pharisees during, before, and after the era of Christ recognized and revered the name of God, YHWH, from which we get "Jehovah." It was Christ's name they had a problem with,leading to their condemnation. And those who understand that all commandments regarding blood spoke to animal blood and the preparation of same for cosumption, or sacrificial blood, understand correctly. What I would like to know is this: how do modern Jews receive forgiveness without blood sacrifice? report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed