JW Insider

*** w75 9/1 p. 519 Insight on the News ***
It has long been known that heart-transplant patients have a higher-than-average amount of postoperative psychiatric problems. But it seems that the same is true with regard to some other vital organ transplants, such as kidney transplants. U.C.L.A. psychiatry professor Dr. Pietro Castelnuovo-Tedesco is quoted as saying: “An outstanding finding following transplantation is the not infrequent occurrence of serious emotional disturbance.” One study of 292 kidney-transplant patients showed that nearly 20 percent experienced severe depression after the operation, a few even attempting suicide. By contrast, only about one out of every 1,500 general-surgery patients develops a severe emotional disturbance.
A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called ‘personality transplant.’ That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came. One young promiscuous woman who received a kidney from her older, conservative, well-behaved sister, at first seemed very upset. Then she began imitating her sister in much of her conduct. Another patient claimed to receive a changed outlook on life after his kidney transplant. Following a transplant, one mild-tempered man became aggressive like the donor. The problem may be largely or wholly mental. But it is of interest, at least, that the Bible links the kidneys closely with human emotions.—Compare Jeremiah 17:10 and Revelation 2:23.
 
In the Awake! 10/221969, I noticed the attempt to make sure ALL transplant statistics showed more people dying than living. So much so that with kidney transplants they wouldn't give the actual survival rate, which had been above 50%, but instead Awake! found a segment of kidney transplant recipients (donor unrelated) where the survival rate was still below 50%. 


The point of most organ transplants is often not based on the idea of long-term survival. Most transplanted organs "wear out" often even kidneys after just a decade or so. No transplant offers any guarantee of long-term survival, they are merely procedures that often provide a temporary extension. In that sense they are like other potentially life-saving medical procedures. But a more complex decision than most other procedures.   

(Philemon 7, NWT)  For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the tender affections of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.
*** Rbi8 Philemon 7 ***
“The tender affections.” Lit[erally], “the bowels.”
 
Imagine if they had translated this literally?
(Philemon 7) 7 For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the bowels of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.

But that same article about how we as Witnesses were safeguarded from the cannibalism of transplants made some curious claims about blood that cannot be restated in the literature, now that transpants are OK.
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Yes, blood is a tissue, just as the heart and the kidneys are tissue. Because it is a “liquid tissue” this fact is not generally appreciated. Immunological forces, placed in the body by the Creator to protect it, oppose any foreign tissue and raise up antibodies to fight against it. That is why the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived.    
. . . . quoted in previous post . . . . 
‘If blood transfusions also violate the immunological principle, then why do they not prove as lethal as do heart transplants?’ you may ask. The reason is that blood is a temporary tissue. A temporary tissue? Yes, for in every second of time millions of red blood cells die and are replaced. So any ‘foreign’ transfused blood cells do not remain for long in the body.
 
Those arguments stuck with me for a long time, and I still have a bit of trouble accepting the idea of organ transplants because of it. Yet, if the WT was wrong about it --and they say they were wrong about it-- it's the same argument that would make some of us question the arguments about blood itself.

I have a feeling I must have come across in this thread as a promoter of whole blood transfusions. But I'm really looking for clarity myself. I also hate the idea of someone's blood pumped into my veins. There was a time when I would have died rather than allow that. But then I had children and realized that even though I had every right to die for my beliefs, I better be awfully certain of my reasons before imposing a similar death sentence on my children if the situation arose. 
Over the years, however, I have ended up visiting worldly relatives, friends and neighbors while they were hospitalized, and even visiting a hospital where my daughter worked as part of her college work in biochemistry and pre-med stuff. I still had that same sick feeling when seeing those packs of blood. But I realized that some of the JW arguments FOR medical use of blood make sense, and I learned that there were Witnesses taking blood that had required blood from hundreds of blood donors, and it made me wonder why Witnesses could only TAKE blood from worldly donors, and never offer anything back in terms of donated blood. 
Then the change in the WT's view of organ transplants happened the year I got married and started thinking about children, insurance, what to do if my wife had a serious medical issue, what she should do if I had one. 
It was a time I studied the situation hard, and we both (wife and I) came up with the idea that we are both willing to die for Acts 15, even when it comes to fractions, but that we could not impose our conscience on our children. We realized how most of us, as Witnesses, were always anxious to discuss the medical dangers of blood, and leave it at that, as if the dangers of blood alone made us so much better than all those worldly people who were risking their lives for nothing. Focusing on the dangers was supposed to be enough so that we never had to even think about the many more positive outcomes where blood actually saved a life. 
It reminded me of that same time period 10 years earlier, when many types of transplants were in early testing stages and had bad outcomes. The WTBTS focused almost completely on how many failures there were. 
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Life magazine, September 17, 1971, showed a picture on the front cover of six persons who had received heart transplants and who seemed to be well and happy at the time. But within just eight months after the picture was taken all six of these had succumbed to their body’s efforts to reject foreign tissue. The article told how “the rejection drugs triggered bizarre acts,” and that “their ballooning faces haunted one doctor.” The author of the article, who has written a book on the subject, Hearts, also reported that the death rate for heart transplants for the first three years was more than 85 percent. One surgeon, who transplanted twenty-two hearts, had every last one of his patients die. And while he dismissed the entire matter as “a procedure which we tried and—for the time being—discarded,” the patients were not able to be so casual about it. And here again, it might be noted, that the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah—that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism—proved a safeguard. How so? In that it spared them much frustration, grief and anxiety, which were experienced not only by the patients and their relatives but even by many of the assisting medical personnel.
 

… a sense of humor?

Yeah, I think my vagus nerve when haywire for a time. Call it a nervous breakdown, of which the best way to describe it is to being stuck in that ‘fight or flight’ moment of unease for 4 straight years, during which there was not a night I slept more than 4 hours. During that time, my blog disappeared; you know I am ill if my blog disappears. I credit the truth for overcoming this breakdown—not the truth in itself or I would not have succumbed in the first place, but for providing the solid foundation upon which to recover. The disorder runs in the family, and my mother and grandmother both fared worse than me, having never recovered once struck.
Now why go public with this, which I have not done yet in anything more than hints?
[Almost] no man has ever had greater love than this: that he should bear his soul for his buddy @George88. Several times in the past, George has said things like:
“While I do not feel the need to disclose the specifics, as there may be individuals here who lack empathy and would make light of my experiences while showing sympathy towards others like a coward would, the impact of these experiences has nonetheless been truly traumatic.”
I suggest you come out with them. You do not lesson yourself when you do that. You gain the upper hand. Just like how Paul came to say that he would not lead off with his strengths; he would rather lead off with his weaknesses, because in serving through those the Lord was glorified. People may be more magnanimous than you suppose. If anyone makes light of your experiences, they reveal more about themselves than about you.
This is because, apart from Alphonse, who does seem to like you, you give nothing of yourself. Worse, there is usually a tone of ‘rebuke from superiority’ in your comments, which brings out the best in no one. Giving of oneself is necessary to establish the human connection so that ones may feel inclined to bond with you. You don’t do it. You should. It would aid you to get past this problem you perceive, like Rodney Dangerfield, of getting no respect.
So I am showing you the way. Got any specifics more debilitating than mine? Out with them. It may help smooth relations with your fellows online, and possibly everywhere else. Moreover, in so baring my previous woes, I am expressing the confidence that you will not try to use such against me. If I am wrong in that, then I will offer you another lesson in how to cope with ill talk. But I am confident the need for this will not arise. You may feel as privileged, George, as the woman at the well—excepting only that she learned for the first time that her companion was the Messiah, whereas you have learned for the first time that your companion is a fellow yo-yo with prior issues.
When you return from enormous personal trial, it is a little like being raised from the dead. You know a little of how Job felt. It only benefits you going forward.

He may yet be vindicated. Search phrases such as ‘after heart transplant changes in personality.’ A lot comes up, most of it quite recent.

Yeah. I remembers some of those talks myself. The real whoppers were the talks given as second and third-hand accounts of men who shared what they learned from those talks. Some real eye-rollers there!
There is current research underway looking at tissue memory and what effect tissue-to-brain communication may have in patients the result of organ transplant. There is so much to learn about biological physiology. But suggesting an outcome of any such research before sound conclusions are achieved is a problem.

Emotional Regulation: The vagus nerve is a key component of the parasympathetic nervous system, which helps regulate the body's "rest and digest" response. It counterbalances the sympathetic nervous system's "fight or flight" response, promoting relaxation and emotional regulation. When the vagus nerve's control over the heart and digestive system is altered, it can affect the body's ability to regulate emotions effectively.
Heart-Brain Connection: The vagus nerve is involved in the communication between the heart and the brain, including the transmission of signals related to emotional states. Disruption of this connection may influence the way emotional information is processed and experienced.
Stress Response: The vagus nerve contributes to the body's stress response, and it plays a role in modulating the body's reaction to stressors. Alterations in vagus nerve function may impact how the body responds to stress, potentially affecting emotional responses to stressful situations.
Gut-Brain Axis: The vagus nerve is also part of the gut-brain axis, connecting the digestive system to the brain. This axis plays a role in mood regulation and emotional well-being. Changes in vagal tone (the activity of the vagus nerve) can influence gut-brain communication and may have emotional consequences.
While heart transplantation does disrupt the vagus nerve's direct connections to the heart, the body often adapts over time, and other autonomic mechanisms and neural pathways can partially compensate for this disruption. Additionally, emotional responses involve complex interactions among multiple brain regions and neurotransmitters, so the impact of vagus nerve alterations on emotions can vary from person to person.

I figured that George88 was coming at this from the verses he quoted. Still, It reminds me of an old teaching once promoted by a GB member at Bethel: that it's the natural, physical heart that is the seat of motivations. In a talk I heard him give at our Assembly Hall he would say that persons who have  been given heart transplants from a criminal have reported that they themselves now have criminal tendencies. It was common to see things like this in the "Watching the World" pages of the Awake! too. Later, when I worked for this brother, he had already been asked to stop giving that talk that promoted the physical heart as the actual seat of human motivation, but he asked me to always be on the lookout for any new information that might support the theory.
*** g71 11/22 p. 31 Watching the World ***
Disenchantment with Heart Transplants
◆ Since 1967 doctors have performed 166 heart transplants, but the initial enthusiasm is gone. Too many patients have died—more than 85 percent thus far. There were also bad side effects. There were depression, brief periods of being psychotic, memory lapses, sleeplessness and marked changes in personality. According to Life magazine, immunologists have concluded that “the heart is a peculiar, particular organ, not only a pump, but a creature of some internal, unknown majesty.”
*** w81 9/15 p. 15 Insight on the News ***
“Heart Overrides Everything”
● Heart specialists now believe that about one third of heart patients have emotional problems after surgery. This often begins about the second day following the operation and may last about a week. Some patients become delirious; some suffer from weird dreams and hallucinations; others have severe bouts with anxiety and depression. To deal with the emotional problems that some patients have after surgery, heart surgeons and psychiatrists around the world recently formed an international consortium. The consortium would like doctors and nurses to pay as much careful attention to a patient’s emotional state after heart surgery as they do to heartbeats.
The specialists speak of the psychological significance of the heart. For example, psychiatrist Richard S. Blacher of Tufts–New England Medical Center in Boston says of the heart: “It’s a very special organ. People commonly think of it as the seat of emotions. In our minds, the heart overrides everything.”—“Newsweek,” May 25, 1981, p. 63.
How true it is that the heart tends to overrule the head, the seat of intellect! In view of this, the heart, above all else, must be disciplined and trained to respond to Bible guidance. It must be taught to appreciate spiritual qualities. These qualities spring from God. “More than all else that is to be guarded,” says God’s Word, “safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.”—Prov. 4:23; compare Matthew 15:19.
 
*** g70 10/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
Personality Change
◆ According to a report that appeared on United Press International of August 18, 1970, the daughter of Philip Blaiberg said that he had experienced a complete personality change after undergoing a heart-transplant operation. 
Awake! 8/22 p. 29:

I figured that George88 was coming at this from the verses he quoted. Still, It reminds me of an old teaching once promoted by a GB member at Bethel: that it's the natural, physical heart that is the seat of motivations. In a talk I heard him give at our Assembly Hall he would say that persons who have  been given heart transplants from a criminal have reported that they themselves now have criminal tendencies. It was common to see things like this in the "Watching the World" pages of the Awake! too. Later, when I worked for this brother, he had already been asked to stop giving that talk that promoted the physical heart as the actual seat of human motivation, but he asked me to always be on the lookout for any new information that might support the theory.
*** g71 11/22 p. 31 Watching the World ***
Disenchantment with Heart Transplants
◆ Since 1967 doctors have performed 166 heart transplants, but the initial enthusiasm is gone. Too many patients have died—more than 85 percent thus far. There were also bad side effects. There were depression, brief periods of being psychotic, memory lapses, sleeplessness and marked changes in personality. According to Life magazine, immunologists have concluded that “the heart is a peculiar, particular organ, not only a pump, but a creature of some internal, unknown majesty.”
*** w81 9/15 p. 15 Insight on the News ***
“Heart Overrides Everything”
● Heart specialists now believe that about one third of heart patients have emotional problems after surgery. This often begins about the second day following the operation and may last about a week. Some patients become delirious; some suffer from weird dreams and hallucinations; others have severe bouts with anxiety and depression. To deal with the emotional problems that some patients have after surgery, heart surgeons and psychiatrists around the world recently formed an international consortium. The consortium would like doctors and nurses to pay as much careful attention to a patient’s emotional state after heart surgery as they do to heartbeats.
The specialists speak of the psychological significance of the heart. For example, psychiatrist Richard S. Blacher of Tufts–New England Medical Center in Boston says of the heart: “It’s a very special organ. People commonly think of it as the seat of emotions. In our minds, the heart overrides everything.”—“Newsweek,” May 25, 1981, p. 63.
How true it is that the heart tends to overrule the head, the seat of intellect! In view of this, the heart, above all else, must be disciplined and trained to respond to Bible guidance. It must be taught to appreciate spiritual qualities. These qualities spring from God. “More than all else that is to be guarded,” says God’s Word, “safeguard your heart, for out of it are the sources of life.”—Prov. 4:23; compare Matthew 15:19.
 
*** g70 10/22 p. 29 Watching the World ***
Personality Change
◆ According to a report that appeared on United Press International of August 18, 1970, the daughter of Philip Blaiberg said that he had experienced a complete personality change after undergoing a heart-transplant operation. 
Awake! 8/22 p. 29:

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00)
Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..."
That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/
Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. 
Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards.
In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles".
In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns.
In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".
 

It is confusing. The whole policy is a train wreck!
I can't tell you how many have approached me asking to help them complete their documents for them. Each one has the same concern. Each one wants to make sure their documentation lets them take as much as JW policy will let them accept. They don't want to mistakenly leave off anything they are allowed to accept. They're not reading the Bible and drawing conclusions. They're just doing whatever the society says they can do, and they're willing to accept anything the society lets them accept, because they want to live as long and healthy as they can.

I'm not even sure anyone is clear on the policy any more. All I get is "What should I do bro X?" and I say, read the scriptures, use your conscience and as long as you're settled in your mind and heart, that's all you can do. You can still be wrong, but then again everyone makes mistakes especially when things are ambiguous or they get complicated.

In the end I want non-blood medical management. Single unit transfusions are useless box-checking done to please the legalistic hospital administrators and to rack up line item expenses. Remember the hospitals and doctors are for-profit entities. My avoidance of blood in any form is more due to my ideas that it's not healthy for me physically, but even it if was good for me, like I had my own "blood boy" I would still not do it because of the history religious and otherwise. I suppose I might be likened to a jew who had never eaten pork and for whom doing so was gross. I might acknowledge that it was legal now since the mosaic restrictions aren't in place, but my brain would still be whispering "Yeah, so then why was it forbidden? Huh? Whatcha gotta say about that?"

Regarding red cells, here's just how pharisaical it is under current JW policy:
JWs are not supposed to accept transfusion of red cells. But it is left to each JW to accept fractions of red cells. Right?
Fractionation matters. Right?
Quantity doesn't matter. Right?
JWs are taught regarding red cells, it matters not whether this is eaten through the mouth or transfused through the veins. Right?
It turns out that fractionating red cells is a very easy thing to do. Here are two methods:
- Add tap water to red cells. Done. All fractionated. No red cells!
- Boil red cells. Done. All fractionated. No red cells!
Since it matters not whether this is eaten through the mouth or transfused through the veins, JWs can now eat either of the above fractionated products.
If that sounds absurd, it is. But that's current JW policy.
 
 

I get confused when I read things out of order.

I'm kind of split in half......I can't make my mind up. The thought of having someone's blood pumped into my veins, that dark red bag hanging from the IV stand, makes me feel physically sick. But that may be because of years of "indoctrination". (I don't mean that in a bad way....just that this is what we have been taught and believe).
The main thing is how does Jehovah feel about it of course. The admonition to abstain from blood seems pretty clear, I don't know how else one could interpret that....I mean I know this whole thread has attempted that, but then some of the arguments get too ridiculous and again, remind me of the cat parody....

I get confused when I read things out of order.

I get confused when I read things out of order.

It is hard to go wrong with an Eddie Murphy movie. Unless it is too foul to watch.
I feel a duty to screen movies for Many Miles who hasn’t seen that many.  The Amazon Eddie Murphy movie ‘Candy Cane Lane’ is okay and pretty funny, assuming you don’t spaz out over Christmas.
There is about a 20 year period of my life where I saw almost no TV, my ‘righteous years.’ There are shows that everyone speaks about of which I’ve never seen an episode, though a few I’ve caught up with afterwards, such as Psych.
Public television was unlimited and free for my kids, but for commercial TV they had to redeem ‘TV tickets’ we issued them weekly, and it didn’t allow for much. To be sure, I believe they found a way to counterfeit them, but the practice still served to shield them from much rubbish. 

The percentages I cited are of what was donated, which was circulating blood. So, yes, the percentage includes whatever water is party to that blood product. And, by the way, a red cell is mostly water too.

I'm not even sure exactly where MIles is coming from on this topic. I thought I was more in agreement with @xero and @Pudgy on this point that we aren't really abstaining from blood if we accept almost anything made from blood. I didn't think that this was "judging," because I'm in full agreement with anyone and everyone who accepts these components based on their conscience. I would not judge anyone for taking any component of blood that they deemed life-saving. I would rather err on the side of what Jesus said about how saving a life is more important than keeping the law. And, in a similar vein, I have no problem with anyone who decides that blood is too risky and potentially unhealthy in their situation and they would rather err on the side of "abstaining." And lastly, there will be those who are ready to give up their life even in a definite situation where they are completely aware than some form of blood therapy will extend their earthly life, and they still choose to abstain, even from the tiniest of fractions. For them: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. 
To be honest, I couldn't quite figure out how not judging others for taking blood therapies or transplants was making me a judge of others. I hope you didn't think that it meant I was judging those who would NOT take blood therapies or transplants. Perhaps it came across as too self-righteous because I invoked the example Jesus used and made it look like others were not listening to Jesus if they didn't accept something that might be life-saving. If that was your point, then I should have, of course, included the flip-side of what Jesus also said:
(Matthew 16:25, 26) . . .For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Really, what good will it do a man if he gains the whole world but loses his life? Or what will a man give in exchange for his life? 
I hadn't thought it necessary to repeat that part of the equation because that's already the subtext that is baked into all of our discussions about blood.