Email Rolf J. Furuli:
Sir.
What is important for the readers of a medical journal is the ethical side of the treatment of Jehovah's
Witnesses. This naturally includes a descriptive account of the beliefs of the Witnesses regarding
blood, but hardly a normative discussion, i.e. an exchange of opinions whether that belief is correct or
not. By having an idea of the reasons why the Witnesses refuse blood, an important premise for a
balanced assession of the ethical questions is established. It appears that I have not been able to
communicate effectively the reasons why I and my fellow Witnesses refuse blood to the
(pseudonym?) Thomas Daniels. While I hope this is my last letter in this chain of exchanges, I will try
to correct this situation.
PRINCIPLES ARE ETERNAL - LAWS DO CHANGE
There are very few laws that govern the Christian way of life, but many principles. A principle is a
'fundamental truth', and fundamental truths in connection with God never change (Malachi 3:6). Laws
are often an application of one or more principles in a restricted situation. This is the reason why
three of the laws mentioned in Acts 15:28, 'to abstain from fornication, things strangled and blood'
are based on the very same principle, namely, 'God is the source of life' (Psalm 36:10). For example,
in order to give a child the best possible environment for growing up to become a balanced and
happy human being, sex between persons is restricted to marriage. For instance, a couple living
together without being married, may have a more stable relationship and show more love for one
another than some married couples, but they are not willing to take the final step, a legal marriage
where they are permanently bound to one another. Thus any children may not have the best possible
environment, and the Witnesses therefore view sexual relations inside such a union as fornication.
The different situations of ancient Israel and the Christian congregation may also help us realise the
difference between laws and principles. It is obvious that principles will be applied differently
(materializing in particular laws) in a society which is restricted to a particular area (Palestine), where
the literal temple of God stands, and where the laws of God regulate both the secular and religious
life, than among the Christians who are spread around the world, who have no literal temple, and
who are bound by the secular laws in their country. However - and this is very important - principles
whose application are not affected by the differences between Israel and the Christian society will
materialize in exactly the same laws in both societies. For instance, the principle that only the Creator
deserves worship is not affected whether the people of God is a nation with literal borders and a
temple, or whether they are spread around the globe and worship without the help of anything visible.
Some of the laws of Moses, therefore, are binding for Christians, not because they are a part of the
Mosaic law, which is abolished, but because they build on principles which are not affected by the
situation in which the people of God is.
THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD ARE BASED
Connected with the principle 'God is the source of life' is another principle, namely, 'the life of all
creatures belongs to God' (Ezekiel 18:4). Based on these two principles the 'use' of life has been
and is greatly restricted: 1) life should only be given to others inside marriage, 2) the life of human
beings should not be taken (except when it is directly commanded by God), (Genesis 9:6), 3) when
animals were slaughterd for food, their life, represented by their blood, should by treated in a way
showing that the life is given back to God (Leviticus 17:10-12)(1). Thus in ancient Israel the blood of
humans should not be spilled except when God commanded it, and the spilled blood of humans
should not be used for anything at all. Animals could be slaughtered for food, but their blood should
not be used. There was, however, one exception: blood was used on the altar because "it is the
blood that makes atonement" (Leviticus 17:11). In Israel animals were sacrificed for the sins of the
people; in the Christian arrangement Jesus was offered once and for all (Hebrews 10:10).
Blood has represented life in the days of Noah, under the Mosaic law, and in the Christian order. This
means that the regulations of the use of blood (based on the mentioned principles) are not affected
by the situation of the people of God. This is shown throughout the Bible where the only legitimate
use of blood (2) is on the altar (animal sacrifices in Israel and the sacrifice of Jesus in the Christian
order). All other uses are prohibited, not by a long list of prohibitions, but simply by the fact that blood
belongs to God and that he has stated that it should be poured out on the ground.(3) So, because
God is the source of life and life belongs to God, we are not allowed to give life to others through
procreation except inside marriage, we are not allowed to use blood in any way to sustain our life by
eating it, and we are not allowed to use blood for any purpose.(4)
THE CHRISTIAN LAW AGAINST BLOOD
In Acts 15:28-29 we find some of the laws given to Christians "to keep abstaining from things
sacrificed to idols, and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". There are no
qualifications found in the context, so if the text is taken at face value, every prohibition is absolute
and without exceptions. Some have argued that the commandments were just given for a short
period, others say the word "blood" means only blood from animals, or only blood which is offered on
the altar, and others say that the law only relates to taking blood through the mouth, and still others
say that the laws should not be kept if life is at stake. I respect other peoples' right to make their own
interpretations and follow their own conscience, but I would just like to point out that all these
interpretations restrict the law, and there is nothing in the words themselves or in the context which
justifies that. Thus something is taken away from the word of God. As for me, and I think for my fellow
Witnesses (though I am not a spokesman for others), I dare not make any exceptions because such
are not stated.
Let me elucidate this standpoint. The view that the laws in Acts 15:29 only includes actions which
were known in the first century, has no founding. For instance, it is evident that sofisticated ways of
committing fornication or sacrificing to idols invented in the 20th century is included. This can be
ascertained if we realise that the laws are built on principles which are eternal. But let me be more
specific. To participate in a sacrifical meal in connection with the worship of an idol is obviously
included in the command to abstain from 'things sacrificed to idols', but what if we do not eat the
meat but are present at the meal and participate in all the other things? Or, do we break the
commandment if we function as a vaiter and serve the sacrifical meal but we don't eat ourselves? Or,
what if we let the worshipers rent our house and we arrange for the meal but do not participate
ourselves? Obviously it is not only the act of eating that would violate the command, so it is not the
matter, 'meat' that it important, even though it is the medium by which the wrong acts are done.
We may also use 'things strangled' and 'fornication' as examples. If I were completely isolated and
the only possible food was a strangled animal, could I eat it without breaking God's law? Or what
about fornication? Is it prohibited in certain situations, but not other situations, if for instance the man
and the woman are in love? Or what about artificial insemination with semen from a man with whom
the woman is not married? The text in Acts 15 is without exceptions, so the laws must be applied
without any exceptions.
The examples above, particularly the one discussing 'sacrifice to idols' can illuminate Daniels'
problem. After quoting my words, "The focus, therefore, should not be on the purpose of using blood,
but rather on the question 'What is included in 'blood' (haima)?' Everything which is 'blood' is
forbidden.�, he writes: "Suddenly it is the matter, blood itself that is important, and not the action, its
associative context or purpose. On the surface, at least, this seems to be terribly inconsistent and
even self-serving.. " (5) The solution is very simple. To take blood or blood components into the body
do not physically pollute the body, except in the cases where disease is transmitted, but the act of
disobedience in connection with the sanctity of life is connected with the fluid 'blood'. Therefore it is
important to ascertain whether a particular component 'is' haima in the Biblical sense of the word,
because only by using what really is 'blood' is God's law violated. While the matter, blood, is
unimportant in itself, breaking the law 'to abstain from blood' cannot be done if the matter, blood, is
not present.
STATISTICS AND THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT
In a letter Daniels criticises my application of the words of Dr. Kitchen (6). His analysis of Kitchen's
article is sound, but he seems to have missed my primary point. The quote was used as one piece
of evidence to show the falsity of the claim that 'abstaining of blood' on the part of the Witnesses has
resulted in the sacrifice (killing) of hundreds, perhaps thousands of children. Two of the premises
behind this claim are that blood transfusions do not kill anyone and that refusing them kills great
numbers of people. Both premises are wrong, and the mentioned article shows that. I need not
quote more articles to substantiate this, because it is commonly known that transfusions of blood
often transmit disease (i.e.there are between 1000 and 10-million potential carriers of Creutzfeldt-Jacob
disease in the UK(7)), and may even in a short time cause the death of those being
transfused.
It is true that for a person with an extremely low hemoglobin level, there is little comfort in statistics
showing that blood transfusions may kill; what is important for that patient is her situation. However,
the Witnesses have been pioneers in the treatment of such situations. Here in Norway we have been
publicly commended for this work. The HLC has over and over again stressed the following point for
doctors: �If you have blood at your disposal you will think and behave differently from what you would
if blood was ruled out. So why don't you acquire the knowledge of bloodless surgery before a crisis
occurs and do some planning in case of a crisis?� An effective bloodless treatment of patients with
extremely low hemoglobin or platelet levels must be based upon knowledge and planning. One
'bloodless team' at a hospital in Oslo has for years ordained injections of EPO and intravenous iron
in the patient during a period of 30 days before the operation. Thus the hemoglobin level becomes
artificially high and is increasing. The blood loss is evaluated continually, and if it drops to a certain
level, the operation is halted, the patient is given some days to recover, and the operation is
completed later.
When statistics are applied to the Witnesses in order to compare death rates and survival rates, the
fact should be remembered that, due to the standpoint and active work of the Witnesses, doctors
have learned a lot and have invented many new methods in the treatment of patients with low blood
levels. This has greatly increased the prospects for such patients. So, while it is correct that "Group
statistics have little to do with the ultimate causes or mortality associated with individual cases and
patients." (8), it is also true that 'traditional group views of the mortality of patients with extremely low
hemoglobin levels have little to do with the survival rate of Witness patients in this situation who are
treated with the latest methods which have been developed'.
(1) Note that in the days of the tabernacle it was not enough to pour the blood out on the ground, but it
should be poured out at the entrance of the tabernacnle (Leviticus 17:3-9). This shows that the
pouring out of the blood was a religious act; it indicated that the life was given back to God.
(2) By the words �use of blood� I mean of course the use of the blood of other creatures and not my
own. The arguments of Daniels that I use my own blood and therefore am inconsistent when I say
that blood cannot be used, are strange indeed.
(3) Those who opt for the use of blood, claiming it has a biblical backing, should be able to point to
places in the Bible showing that the use of blood is allowed.
(4) While I in principle see no difference between eating and a blood transfusion, my custom is not to
use this in conversations regarding blood, because it does not cover all situations. For me, the
absolute prohibition of any use of blood is the ultimate reason for refusing to take haima into my
body, and this I convey to others.
(5) Daniels, T. (a) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37, 5 February 2001.
(6) Daniels, T. (b) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37, 5 February 2001.
(7) The Medical Post, Novembeer 24, 1998, p. 5.
(8) Daniels, T. (b) http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37, 5 February 2001