I'm becoming confused with the debate on blood. I always understood the issue to be a moral one and more about Jesus sacrifice. All the standards that I have based my life on are being eroded away. “Abstain from,” is being interpreted as meaning just abstain from eating blood as food. But does the Bible really forbid the use of blood for medical purposes?
If it was a mistake for Jehovah’s Witnesses who lost their lives because of refusing blood, was it also a mistake for those who took bullets for others in the concentration camps and gave up their lives? Has it all been for nothing?
Most likely the reason this issue has come up in your mind at this time is due to the recent publication of an essay critical of the Watchtower’s policy on blood. (Excerpts of the essay were posted on e-jehovahs-witnesses.com)
It is well to keep in mind that there are usually always two sides to every issue. And on an issue as controversial as the Watchtower’s blood policy, there are sure to be many critics. As Christians, though, our task is to tune out the cacophony of controversy as best we can and determine what Jehovah’s will in the matter is.
It is worth noting that the author of the recently published essay lost her mother, who happened to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses; supposedly, because she refused a blood transfusion. I say “supposedly” because we don’t know the circumstances surrounding her death.
At any rate, the author obviously is not an unbiased observer. Furthermore, Baylor University is the largest Baptist university in the United States and the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston obviously trains student doctors in the use of blood. So, let’s not lose sight of the obvious personal point of reference of the author of the essay.
The essay, entitled "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation," critically examines the brochure “How Can Blood Save Your Life?” And, among other things, she accuses the Watchtower of overstating the risks of blood transfusions. But is that really true? Have the risks been overstated to terrify Jehovah’s Witnesses? That is merely the essayist’s opinion and not a fact of law. One can alternatively argue that the blood industry and the medical establishment have consistently understated the risks of blood transfusions. For example Pulmonary News Dot Com points out some of the inherent risks. Back in the 1980’s thousands of people were given transfusions that were contaminated with HIV.
The National Academies’ website states: “In the early 1980s, more than half of the 16,000 hemophiliacs in the United States and more than 12,000 blood transfusion patients were infected with HIV through contaminated blood. Some of them unknowingly gave the virus to their spouses, partners, and newborn children.”
There is no doubt that the numbers of persons who have died from transfusion related complications far outweighs the numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have died for lack of blood. The truth is that blood screening techniques are only effective for known pathogens. There is always the risk of newly emerging diseases infecting the blood supply before they can be identified. And in some parts of the world blood is not screened because of the expense in doing so.
Uninformed persons may be of the impression that the Watchtower has callously stood by while thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses die on the operating tables because of refusing blood transfusions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Besides the fact that the numbers of Jehovah’s Witnesses who have died is most likely grossly overstated; the truth is, to their credit, the Watchtower has single-handedly changed the way that many in the medical establishment view the matter of blood transfusions.
Instead of constant confrontations between doctors and patients, there is now a greater willingness on the part of medical professionals to accommodate and cooperate with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
This has come about because the Watchtower Society has trained hundreds of elders around the world to serve on Hospital Liaison Committees in order to educate the medical community regarding our views on blood. The result has been that doctors are much more open to alternative therapies that are not objectionable to Jehovah’s Witnesses. There are even surgical facilities devoted to bloodless medicine. For example, Motts Children’s Hospital, which is connected with Michigan University, practices bloodless surgery. The hospital even credits the HCL of Jehovah’s Witnesses for their cooperation. Here is a quote from their website:
“C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, in cooperation with the local Hospital Liaison Committee of Jehovah’s Witnesses, will provide training and on-site education for physicians, nurses, and affiliates in their offices and the hospital to ensure smooth operation of this program and its affiliates. Mott Hospital can provide speakers for continuing education programs relevant to the treatment of bloodless medicine and surgery patients as well as community education programs.”
But as all of Jehovah’s Witnesses should know, our refusal to take blood transfusions is not because of any perceived medical risks from doing so. Just the opposite, in fact. We are willing to take the risk of not accepting blood transfusions in order not to violate God’s law.
Can any lawyer, doctor, or self-styled Bible expert assure us that “abstaining from blood” does not include blood transfusions? Of course not. Each Christian, therefore, must make every effort to know what God’s will is in this matter. As Paul said: 'Go on perceiving what the will of God is.'
If some of Jehovah's Witnesses view the blood issue as a conscience matter, we still have to follow the dictates of our own conscience, not someone else's conscience. And even if, due to legal pressures, the Watchtower were to drop the prohibition on blood, that would not absolve Christians from the obligation of individually obeying God’s word either.
How important than to "make sure of all things," as the apostle admonished.
For more information see No Blood Dot Org
_
3 comments:
I appreciate your answer to that question. I should like to point out that author of that article was female. You may wish to edit your response accordingly.
Thank you for pointing that out. I make the appropriate corrections.
Thank you for explaining this blood issue....but don't you think, the WTS is going way to far, as they DF someone for making a decision of their own conscience?
That is where the point goes wrong, so far as i can see!
Greetings JeDa from the netherlands
Post a Comment