*Reply to GB Letter to H2O

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on October 31, 1999 at 01:15:55 {MDPAlM8llYMRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: Reply to GB Letter to H2O posted by Rick on October 30, 1999 at 21:24:12:

Hello Rick,

Sometimes simplicity evades us.

I don't think there is any problem with dealing with the "abstain" references in Acts. That policy can easily be taken in the context that it is presented, and that is the dietary setting of eating meat. Quite simply:

1) The "abstain" requirement could be applied to animal blood only not human blood transfusion; and

2) It can be made exception to, even if considered a rule or law, by medical emergency. That is, the Sabbath law and other "ritual" laws were set aside when there was a medical emergency.

Thus this mandate can be in place for the proper draining of blood in our diet when that is possible; otherwise, if not possible, we need "make no inquiry on account of our conscious" if we suspect blood in our foods, etc. such as eating at the home of an unbeliever.

Even so, that rule can apply to animal blood in meats eaten only, and not to human blood used in a medical emergency.

On the other side of the fence, your scenarios are quite to the point and you should place Jesus into the situation. That is, his disciples were dying.
Their imperfect bodies were dying and so what did he do about it? He said: "Eat my flesh. Drink my blood!"...and live!

So how is it that Jesus doesn't hesitate to give his blood for his disciples to drink to save their lives and he'd object to a blood transfusion provided or received to likewise save a life?

Extreme measures must be taken in order to save life and Jesus was providing those "extreme" measures. But it directly approved of his disciples drinking his blood in order to do so. So any rules involved were set aside for this "medical" emergency. The precedent for providing life-saving blood was established by Jesus himself.

Of note, this was not violating any DIETARY blood regulations for things sacrificed or things strangled, etc.

Things need to be put into the proper perspective and you understand so well that saving of life takes precedence over a dietary rule that wouldn't likely be applied to human blood, blood transfusions, or a medical emergency anyway.

Acts 15 and blood transfusions can exist side by side without any problems, since Acts 15 crosses over several thresholds in the first place to be applied to blood transfusions.

But there is another problem that I see and that is that JW's think their blood policy has served them well in protecting many from blood-bourne diseases such as hepatitis and now the deadly AIDS virus. I see that as a valid point. Caution must still be exercised in the use of blood transfusions for medical reasons because it is still potentially risky. I certainly feel a bit protected by their pointing out the dangers of blood transfusions, and enough well-known hemophiliacs dying of AIDS is strong enough reminder that blood transfusions are indeed risky still.

This would tend to diminish the concept that the WTS is just denying life to persons who would otherwise be "saved" without complications of blood transfusion.

So I have a question for you, since you understand the concepts involved.

If you were hiking with a friend who had AIDS (a hemophiliac) and you injured yourself and lost a lot of blood and he was your blood type and his blood was the only available to save your life at that moment. Would you allow the transfusion? Or would you rather run the risk of dying?

What if you were already quite old? Or had cancer with just a few years to live anyway?

You see, maybe Acts, loosely applied, has been a protection in a sense since it draws attention to at least the complication of blood transfusions, at least making us more cautious.

So based upon that, a "relaxation" of the blood policy to one of "personal choice - at your own risk" seems a reasonable adjustment for the Society, especially since they already are using blood by-products anyway.

But here's something you can do. Why not write up sample Society "explanations" for their change in their blood policy. You know, what they could actually tell witnesses regarding a change, such as:

"After some consideration of this issue and the concerns of many regarding blood transfusions and the Society's policy regarding the fulfillment of Acts 15, it has been determined that Acts 15 specifically was focussed on the dietary habits pertaining to blood at that time and that the Apostle Paul would not have had blood transfusions of human blood during medical emergencies in mind.
That being the case, as is the policy of the Society not to overreach into the areas of personal choice when not clearly indicated in scripture, persons who pesonally choose the incredible risky procedure of blood transfusions in cases of medical emergency will be considered to have done so before Jehovah based upon their own choice of conscience. That being the case, no judiciary or disciplinary measures within the congregation will be exercised against any making that choice. However, others who feel that conscienciously applying a strict obedience to Acts 15 in all areas regarding blood, may likewise choose to abstain from blood transfusions for religious (i.e. doctrinal) as well as prophylactic reasons. In either case, this would be the choice of individual Christians which should not draw the judgment of others within the congregation. That is, we are not to look down upon vampir...I mean, persons who decide to take blood transfusions in medical emergencies if their conscience allows them to do so." :>

Make it easy for them. I think they can get out of this without losing much face. They are losing far more respect now with their two-faced blood policy anyway.