# ****Blood Transfusion

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

Posted by Friend crtd [Friend] on November 24, 1999 at 08:06:33 {BlpRHB6gpcrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: ***Blood Transfusion posted by AF on November 23, 1999 at 21:17:00:

AF

> Then known scientifically by who? By the medical community? Of course not, as they already knew that the Society's claim about blood nourishing the body just as food does was idiotic. By the Society? Using the word "scientific" to describe anything written by the Society is usually a contradiction in terms. Either way you look at it, your statement is wrong and is tortuous in the sense of "devious tactics". I don't think you meant to be devious here, but that's the way it comes off.

I was specifically referring to what was then known/understood by the Society and all those JWs writing the Society asking that blood be banned. If they genuinely misunderstood what were then critical aspects of blood and blood transfusions then an improved understanding is legitimate basis for an improved teaching. There is nothing devious about telling what has happened.

As for who was ignorant, JWs equated gaining nourishment from blood with eating blood. Back then—and rarely today—blood components were used where nutritional effects were sought. One such instance had to do with cancer related cachexia. In those cases malnutrition would sometimes become so severe that edema would become a significant problem. To counteract that problem physicians would transfuse human albumin solutions to increase protein concentration. Doing so would help alleviate the edema. Today physicians have better means of providing such patients with the needed nutrients thus only physicians who are out of-date use the treatment. The inconsistency here is obvious, that human albumin solution is on the approved list of blood components. Nevertheless, this one example demonstrates why many JWs back then and today have severe reservations about accepting blood on the premise that nutrition is gained which translates into eating blood, a forbidden practice.

Advances in knowledge regarding blood and uses for blood have been universal. JWs have had opportunity to learn as has everyone else, including physicians.

> : Up to now those holding counter views have remained faithful to their dedication to God by loving their fellow worshippers to the point of willingness to sacrifice their lives to avoid hurting the faith of others. (1 Cor. 10:28,29)

> I can hardly believe what I'm reading here. It may be true that some JWs act this way, but certainly not all -- which is what your statement categorically says. No one has conducted a scientific poll on this, but it seems to me, based on what those who have quit the JWs partly because of disagreements about blood have stated, that once a person rejects the Society's policy on blood he also rejects the Society as a spiritual authority. Therefore those who strongly hold counter views are not going to worry about any side effects of disobeying a manmade rule that kills people unnecessarily. I seriously doubt that you can come up with a single example of a JW who died because of not taking blood but who disagreed with the blood policy and refused blood only because of the "negative" effect this would have on other JWs. Perhaps you meant something different, but as it stands this is an example of "devious tactics".

My expression “those holding counter views” was intended to refer to persons still maintaining association with JWs as JWs that nevertheless hold a divergent view on this subject. Further those in question have, by their perseverance, manifested just what I said, “willingness to sacrifice their lives to avoid hurting the faith of others.” It is a very serious statement and very real.

I think your portrayal is twisted, though I cannot explain why you would do so. Context prohibits that I was speaking of all JWs or anyone who had left association with JWs. I can hardly accept that you really believe what you wrote here.

> One thing is clear to me: when you're advancing criticisms of past WTS policies and making suggestions for improvement, you're clear and direct. When you're engaging in apologetics for their past mistakes, you wax indirect and unclear, and your arguments often become tortuous. This is nothing different from what I've been telling you for as long as we've been communicating.

Where we agree you feel my criticisms are clear. Where we disagree you feel my criticisms are unclear. So what is new? The symptoms you describe are more likely caused by our disagreements than our arguments. Complex arguments appear simple to the one offering it and complex to the one lacking understanding. In this case my argument is simple—which I will make more clear at the end of this post—but prejudice otherwise forces that I give somewhat tedious explanations.

> : 4. Based upon continuous consideration of scriptures as they relate to blood and giving attention toward medical discoveries our understanding today of blood is far greater than what it was just a few years ago.

> This is tortuous in the sense of "circuitous" because it gives the impression that this "far greater" knowledge of "medical discoveries" is a big deal. In truth it isn't, because the basics have not changed at all since the blood ban was introduced in the early 1960s.

Knowledge of blood as a substance is far greater in the JW community today than is was 10-30 years ago, which is a big deal to JWs. Knowledge of blood applications is far greater in the JW community today than is was 10-30 years ago, which is a big deal to JWs. One basic that has changed has to do with nutritional benefits from blood transfusions. That is is a big deal to them is what the comment addresses. Please note that the statement is, “…our understanding today of blood is far greater…” That article is not targeting a medical audience but rather a religious audience that has made some medical applications.

> Furthermore, the Society's understanding of the scriptures they use to support the blood policy has not changed a bit.

Which is the real problem to those wanting scriptural instruction and is what the article addresses.

> "Those admissions" will raise a big red flag for the typical JW reader.

It is intended to draw attention to the fact that our position on blood has in some respects been in a state of flux since day one. It has developed and grown based upon knowledge. Past growth should help that people understand and accept continued growth. The problem is that 1) change has not sufficiently kept pace with increased knowledge and 2) that scriptural explanations have been insufficient or lacking entirely.

> : 5. Today because of increasing knowledge and understanding of blood it is the course of wisdom to also continue considering how we apply what we have learned. (Prov. 22:17)

> This is a bit tortuous in the sense of "indirect" because the reader cannot tell from context whether you're talking about "increasing knowledge" on the part of the medical community or the JW community. It's another feelgood sentence.

The preceding paragraph refereed to this increasing knowledge in these terms:

- “Based upon continuous consideration of scriptures as they relate to blood and giving attention toward medical discoveries our understanding today of blood is far greater than what it was just a few years ago.”

- “As our knowledge increased of different techniques for handling blood or using blood we have made adjustments to our understanding and subsequent actions regarding use or handling of blood.”

  I think that provides adequate context that specifically the article addressed the increasing knowledge of JWs. Nevertheless, your reading of inadequate context is noted.

  > [Paragraph 6] feels tortuous to me in the sense of being terribly indirect.

  The thought for conveyance is that relentless exposure to serious consequences has led to just as serious a dependency on the Bible, our understanding of the Bible and our continued evaluation of the Bible. It intends to focus heavily though subtly on the aspect of continued evaluation. Again, your reading is noted and appreciated.

  > [Paragraph 10] and the next several blocks of argumentation are fine examples of tortuous arguments trying to deal with older tortuous arguments. It's pitting one unprovable argument against another. The bottom line is that it's the word of the Society's leaders against others.

  I disagree with that reading. Paragraph 10 focuses more closely on what Noah was prohibited from. It may not include every variant interpretation you desire, but that is not the intention nor is it needed. If you focus enough to solve a problem then for that problem your focus is adequate. Late, with the intent of providing information, it is fine to address various other details. But doing so when it is not needed just makes fixing an existing problem appear more complex.

  Presently JWs understand that Noah was prohibited from eating blood, period. Actually Noah was prohibited from eating blood he had unilaterally seized. Taking by unilateral seizure versus accepting a donation is as different as legal remuneration versus receiving a gift.

  > [Paragraph 16 is] another tortuous argument advanced to cancel an older tortuous argument. No proof can be given; only an appeal to what sounds more reasonable to a reasonable reader untainted by Watchtower training.

  No, that paragraph does far more than cancel; it redirects entirely. Past interpretations have understood a prohibition. That paragraph not only cancels the notion of prohibition; it advances the notion of supporting an act previously considered illegal. I think that paragraph will be the toughest one to swallow for many JWs, unfortunately. As for proof, the only proof needed is that of an interpretation that is as or more defensible than that previously held. I think you agree that this interpretation, though that’s what it is, is more reasonable and more defensible.

  > : According to the Apostolic Decree, doing such a thing is a serious violation of God’s law for Christians. (Act 15:28,29) . . .

  > Again you need to deal with counter-arguments to this claim, which you're quite familiar with.

  Keeping simple the question of blood acceptance or not requires dealing with present perspective. I agree that another article should explore the application of the Apostolic Decree toward modern day Christians, but that is a subject to itself. If you can show that the Apostolic Decree does not prohibit accepting donated blood then the question of whether that Decree is applicable to modern day Christians becomes moot to the question at hand. Including more about its applicability only complicates the question under discussion. I hardly see how you can disagree.

  I appreciate your time toward my request for further comment.

  Here is a that breakdown of argument I promised:

  Present JW view:

- Through Noah God prohibited that humankind eat any blood
- The Apostolic Decree reaffirmed the Noachian prohibition on eating blood
- Blood transfusion is eating blood

  Conclusion: Accepting a blood transfusion is breaking God’s law.

  1st Suggested view:

- Through Noah God prohibited that humankind eat seized blood
- The Apostolic Decree reaffirmed the Noachian prohibition on eating seized blood
- Transfused blood is not seized blood

  Conclusion: Accepting a blood transfusion is not breaking the law God gave through Noah.
  2rd Suggested view:

- Through Noah God prohibited that humankind eat seized blood
- Eating blood is digesting blood
- Transfused blood is not digested

  Conclusion: Accepting a blood transfusion is not breaking the law God gave through Noah.

  3rd Suggested view:

- The Bible equates blood with life
- The Bible encourages donation of our temporary life to give temporary life

  Conclusion: the Bible encourages donating blood for purposes of giving life.

  Suggested arguments 1 & 2 independently reverse the present view of JWs. Besides agreeing with accepting blood transfusions, suggested argument 3 supports donating of blood.

  Friend

  Follow Ups:

  - *****Blood Transfusion Farkel 08:44:40 11/25/99 (0)

  Post a Followup

  Name:
  E-Mail:

  Subject: *****Blood Transfusion

  Comments:

  Optional Link URL:
  Link Title:
  Optional Image URL:

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