What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Pudgy]

Well … I will have to admit that I have never thought much about refusing blood for minor children and babies, only that when the issue came up for myself several times in the past it was the right thing for me to do, and because of it I defaulted to a much better quality surgeon that performed (to the best of my knowledge) perfectly, with no blood or blood fractions.

The first heart surgeon I called “Manny the Used Car Surgeon”, as he suggested he could operate on me using blood, but he would tell my family and congregation he didn’t.

He said this was standard for him.

I told him no blood or blood fractions under any circumstances and he looked at me like he didn’t understand English and said “Well, I’m NOT going to operate without blood!” I said “Well, that’s OK … I respect your conscience, but I expect you to respect mine”.  And I went by ambulance to a Heart Center 15 miles away, with six EMTs very busy keeping me alive, to where they WOULD operate without blood or blood fractions.

I woke up “20 years younger”.

Sometimes, yer flips yer coin, and yer takes yer chances. That was in 2010. I could just as well have bled out in 2010.

There is nothing that has ever lived that has not, or will not die …. including infants and children. Thousands die every minute.

Get used to the idea.

Don’t be such a Snowflake.

It’s the ONLY GAME IN TOWN.

Suck it up and keep going as best you can.

Cowards die a thousand deaths, the Valiant die but once.

…. and Jehovah can reverse that!

[Pudgy]

…. could be worse.

If you had been a chicken you may have been eaten before you were even hatched! 

In 2022 about 279 million potential baby chickens were.

EVERY DAY!

 

[Many Miles]

5 hours ago, Many Problems said:

It is worth noting that in earlier times, the scientific evidence supporting the matter of blood was not as extensive as it is today. Hence, it would be unfair to criticize the organization for something that was previously unknown.

In an earlier comment I stated the following:

"The notion that red cells provide nutrition when transfused has been debunked since the 1940s. The notion that plasma (including cryosupernatant plasma) could provide nutrition when transfused has also been known since the 1940s. This is not new information"

A review of my library found the above is mistaken in relation to the decade. I should have said this information was available since the 1950s.

This information was discovered, ironically, by medical researchers looking for means of feeding patients intravenously when they are unable to get it any other way.

- They found that a product that JWs of today can accept without fear of reprisal does provide decent nutrition; transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma and cryoprecipitate.

- They also found a product that JWs of today cannot accept without fear of reprisal does not provide any nutrition at all; transfusion of red cells.

[Pudgy]

17 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

- They found that a product that JWs of today can accept without fear of reprisal does provide decent nutrition; transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma and cryoprecipitate.

- They also found a product that JWs of today cannot accept without fear of reprisal does not provide any nutrition at all; transfusion of red cells.

The book “1984” was supposed to be a warning …. not an instruction manual.

[Many Miles]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

I dont know your story thus why you no longer have the same belief as us anymore concerning it.

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.

Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.

I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.

When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.

Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.

Compare these two articles:

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099

In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.

Those internal articles are just the tip. 

People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.

In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.

 

 

[Many Miles]

On 11/5/2023 at 2:15 PM, Anna said:

The question was: when is blood no longer blood? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and so the line was drawn at minor fractions because it was deemed that although derived from blood, it was no longer blood. 

Getting back to this, the statement above is based on reasoning put forth by the society. The underpinnings of it can be read here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017578?q=blood+broken+down&p=par

Religious position: Under pain of shunning, JWs cannot eat (transfuse) whole blood, white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma. But if the substance is none of these, then the individual JW can accept or decline according to their own conscience and without religious repercussion.

An extreme irony to the idea that we can eat of what comes from blood once it is no longer blood is made as simple as cooking blood under heat. Why?

When you cook blood under heat the remaining substance is neither whole blood, nor white cells, nor red cells, nor platelets, nor plasma. You can examine the cooked  material all you want. You won't find a trace of a red cell, or a white cell, or platelets, or even plasma. All that anatomy is totally gone under heat. What was blood is no longer blood, according to the society's reasoning.

In a tiny simple nutshell, that shows the current absurd state of our position on eating (transfusing) blood.

 

[Pudgy]

Using that same logic you can fry up a large pan of severed human fingers, noses and ears, annnnddd … once cooked they are not human fingers, noses and ears anymore. Especially if you pull the meat off with a fork, add some herbs and spices, and serve with a tasty salad, perhaps some fava beans and a nice Chianti. 

In a tiny simple nutshell, that shows the current absurd state of our position on eating cannibalized human body parts.

(…. satire alert for the agenda driven)

[Pudgy]

…

[Anna]

On 11/6/2023 at 11:21 PM, George88 said:

Based on scripture, what biblical foundations do you oppose, under the conditions outlined in the understanding of the Word, not your personal interpretation?

I do not oppose anything, I just think it should be a conscience matter, purely because the scriptures you are talking about could be interpreted a few different ways, as has been shown.

[Many Miles]

57 minutes ago, Anna said:

I do not oppose anything, I just think it should be a conscience matter, purely because the scriptures you are talking about could be interpreted a few different ways, as has been shown.

I'm with you. I don't oppose anything biblical. But we must take care not to frame a biblical statement as a "foundation" to include something that's not inherent to what the text actually says.

An example of this is the text of Genesis 9 where Noah is to told "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."

1) This was said of living animals that could be killed for food.

2) This was not suggesting that Noah could not make medicinal use of blood of these animals, so long as that medicinal use did not include eating that blood. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)

3) This was not said of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause, which are non-soulical. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)

4) This was certainly not said of transplanted human blood donated as a preventive or therapeutic medical purpose. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)

Our publications have applied a broad brush to the text when the text, as read literally, is said of a certain blood, which is blood of living animals. Out of respect for the life (soul) of an animal, an animal's flesh was not to be used as food unless the animal was killed, and in that case the blood of that killed animal was not to be eaten. To say the text means more is to transpose an idea onto the text.

 

[Anna]

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

The Watchtower disseminates magazines, books, and other resources with the aim of enlightening the general public. It is ultimately upon each person to determine whether they accept the teachings of God based on those materials

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 

"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"

"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

[Many Miles]

41 minutes ago, Anna said:

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 

"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"

"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:

"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen

Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.

Yet:

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen

Wait. What?

Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!