Jehovah’s Witnesses: Is it possible that your governing body could release “new light” on blood transfusions?

Rustic B,

It is possible, and arguably probable that Watchtower will again change aspects of its blood doctrine. Few positions held by Watchtower have changed as much as those related to blood.

At the moment Watchtower’s blood doctrine does allow Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept autologous blood transfusions so long as removal of the blood and transfusion of that blood is arguably part of what Watchtower doctrine terms a “ current therapy”.[1] What Watchtower prohibits is pre-therapy donation and storage of autologous blood for transfusion. The reason for Watchtower’s distinction between those to procedures is left unexplained. I say unexplained because in each case blood is completely removed from the body and in each case the blood is held in refrigeration once outside the body for more than a few hours.[2]

Watchtower provides form documents for Witnesses to complete related to blood. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of these things, if not thousands. 99% of these things show Witnesses opt to accept anything and everything Watchtower doctrine will possibly allow a Witness to accept from blood. This tells me that if Watchtower decided tomorrow that it would no longer enforce its blood doctrine under pain of its organized communal shunning policy that the average Witness would embrace it and thank Jehovah for the change.

Something else very telling is a letter Watchtower sent to elders in 2000 expressing that in some cases large majorities of Witnesses had not taken time to complete documents related to blood that are important to making sure Watchtower’s blood doctrine is followed.[3] This is strong evidence that a large population among the Witness community does not hold Watchtower’s blood doctrine as a core tenet of faith. Again, this tells me that the change you suggest would be quickly and heartily embraced by the greater Witness community.

As for governing body members, they are as accountable to Watchtower policies as anyone else is in the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But then, unlike the typical Witness each governing body member has an immediate say-so in whether a given policy will be imposed, decommissioned or otherwise changed.

Marvin Shilmer

_____________

References:

1. “Basing their beliefs on the Bible, they do not deposit their own blood and later accept it as a transfusion. Each Christian decides for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy.”—[The Watchtower, Dec. 15, 2000 p. 30]

2. “The ANH blood is kept at room temperature for up to 6 hours to preserve platelet function. After that, it is placed in a blood cooler at 4°C to 6°C. ANH blood can be reinfused at the same rate as any other transfused blood.”—[Randy Henderson, Nickolas Jabbour et al., Live Donor Liver Transplantation Without Blood Products Strategies Developed for Jehovah’s Witnesses Offer Broad Application, Annals of Surgery, Vol. 240 No. 2, August 2004 pp. 350-357. Randy Henderson is a Witness.]

3. “Reports from the field indicate that only a small percentage of brothers have filled out the Society's DPA form. While many are careful to fill out and consciously carry the Advance Medical Directive card a much greater degree of legal protection is available when the DPA is carefully executed.”—[Letter to All Bodies of Elders in the United States, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, December 1, 2000]

@ bar.... has told us, "The Bible says nothing about "rank-and-file" Christians removing those who take the lead. Rather, it counsels obedience to those "governing" us. (Hebrews 13:17)

Any member of the governing body who became spiritually corrupted would be removed by the same process that any other Witness who becomes spiritually corrupted is removed."

First it is not biblical but then it is biblical, sounds like normal Watchtower double talk.

They have finished now with "New Light" as there has been too much of it, now the "Light is getting brighter" is how they are getting new information.

When science makes new discoveries, this somehow allows the Watchtower to re-translate, "Abstain for blood" to have new meaning and allow some factions of blood to be injected, but the translation still denies the injecting of other factions.

Just like their history of what is and is not allowed, they can not tell you from one minute to the next what the current rules are.

Here is the Watchtower’s history on the issue of blood

# 1940 Blood transfusions are acceptable

# 1945 Blood transfusion are not acceptable

# 1956 Blood serums should be treated as blood and are banned

# 1958 Blood serums and fractions acceptable

# 1959 Storage of own blood unacceptable

# 1961 Blood fractions are not acceptable

# 1964 Blood fractions are acceptable

# 1974 Blood serums are personal choice

# 1975 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are not acceptable

# 1978 Hemophilia treatments (Factor VII & IX) are acceptable

# 1982 Albumin is acceptable

# 1983 Hemodilution is acceptable

# 1990 Hemodilution is not acceptable (Blood Brochure)

# 1995 Hemodilution is acceptable

How could they know what is current??

In the realm of humanity, nearly all things are possible, but not all things are probable.

What you cite as the impetus for corrections or refinements to the blood policy is not a matter of spiritual "new light," but increased understanding of medical science.

The Scriptural principle remains the same: "Abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:28, 29)

Nobody is summarily disfellowshipped for accepting a blood transfusion.

The Bible says nothing about "rank-and-file" Christians removing those who take the lead. Rather, it counsels obedience to those "governing" us. (Hebrews 13:17)

Any member of the governing body who became spiritually corrupted would be removed by the same process that any other Witness who becomes spiritually corrupted is removed.

I'm not a JW anymore, but I'll answer about what I've found out about since I left.

I think you possibly know already, though, so maybe it's a wasted answer.

The answer is change from within - the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood group.

I don't think that they could or would remove the Governing Body members, though, as they seem to be content to stick with them so far, even though they *already* disagree with them.

I mean...I wouldn't care much, this has nothing to do with the foundation of my faith. and yeah, the governing body is gonna be there for a little while.

August 2004 - Volume 240 - Issue 2 - pp 350-357

Original Article

Live Donor Liver Transplantation Without Blood Products: Strategies Developed for Jehovah's Witnesses Offer Broad Application

Jabbour, Nicolas MD*; Gagandeep, Singh MD*; Mateo, Rodrigo MD*; Sher, Linda MD*; Strum, Earl MD†; Donovan, John MD†; Kahn, Jeffrey MD†; Peyre, Christian G. MD*; Henderson, Randy‡; Fong, Tse-Ling MD†; Selby, Rick MD*; Genyk, Yuri MD*

AbstractObjective: Developing strategies for transfusion-free live donor liver transplantation in Jehovah's Witness patients.

Summary Background Data: Liver transplantation is the standard of care for patients with end-stage liver disease. A disproportionate increase in transplant candidates and an allocation policy restructuring, favoring patients with advanced disease, have led to longer waiting time and increased medical acuity for transplant recipients. Consequently, Jehovah's Witness patients, who refuse blood product transfusion, are usually excluded from liver transplantation. We combined blood augmentation and conservation practices with live donor liver transplantation (LDLT) to accomplish successful LDLT in Jehovah's Witness patients without blood products. Our algorithm provides broad possibilities for blood conservation for all surgical patients.

Methods: From September 1998 until June 2001, 38 LDLTs were performed at Keck USC School of Medicine: 8 in Jehovah's Witness patients (transfusion-free group) and 30 in non-Jehovah's Witness patients (transfusion-eligible group). All transfusion-free patients underwent preoperative blood augmentation with erythropoietin, intraoperative cell salvage, and acute normovolemic hemodilution. These techniques were used in only 7%, 80%, and 10%, respectively, in transfusion-eligible patients. Perioperative clinical data and outcomes were retrospectively reviewed. Data from both groups were statistically analyzed.

Results: Preoperative liver disease severity was similar in both groups; however, transfusion-free patients had significantly higher hematocrit levels following erythropoietin augmentation. Operative time, blood loss, and postoperative hematocrits were similar in both groups. No blood products were used in transfusion-free patients while 80% of transfusion-eligible patients received a median of 4.5+/- 3.5 units of packed red cell. ICU and total hospital stay were similar in both groups. The survival rate was 100% in transfusion-free patients and 90% in transfusion-eligible patients.

Conclusions: Timely LDLT can be done successfully without blood product transfusion in selected patients. Preoperative preparation, intraoperative cell salvage, and acute normovolemic hemodilution are essential. These techniques may be widely applied to all patients for several surgical procedures. Chronic blood product shortages, as well as the known and unknown risk of blood products, should serve as the driving force for development of transfusion-free technology.

I would do exactly what you said make it a conscience decision