will the watchtower change its position on blood transfusion?

Question

that the Watchtower Society has a very bad track record regarding
changing its position on medical issues. Take vaccinations as an example. The
Golden Age magazine (1931) said that a “vaccination is a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood.”15 Vaccinations
were hence forbidden by the Watchtower Society for twenty years. However, the
Watchtower Society dropped this prohibition in the 1950s, and since this time
children in the sect have been openly vaccinated.16 The August 22, 1965 issue of
Awake! magazine even acknowledged that vaccinations seem to have caused a decrease in diseases.17 One must wonder how parents of children who had died as
a result of not being vaccinated felt when the Watchtower Society suddenly
reversed its position.
We find another example in the Watchtower’s change of position on organ
transplants.18 The November 15, 1967 issue of The Watchtower magazine said that
organ transplants amounted to cannibalism,

and are hence not appropriate for
Christians.19 The next year’s issue of Awake! magazine agreed that all organ
transplants are cannibalism.20 Hence, organ transplants were forbidden for some
thirteen years—during which time many Jehovah’s Witnesses died or suffered
greatly as a result of not having such a transplant. But then the Watchtower Society

changed its position when the medical benefits of such transplants became a
proven fact. The March 15, 1980 issue of The Watchtower magazine said that
organ transplants are not necessarily cannibalistic21 and began allowing them.
In view of the above factors, former Jehovah’s Witness David Reed
comments: “Given the Watchtower’s track record of prohibiting vaccinations for
over twenty years, then reversing itself, and later banning organ transplants for
thirteen years before again changing the interpretation, one can only wonder how
long it will be until the Society reinterprets the Bible verses it now uses to forbid
transfusions.”22

You might want to ask the Jehovah’s Witness some or all of the following
questions:
• Did you know that the Watchtower Society prohibited vaccinations
in the early 1930s, but then reversed its position and began
allowing them in the 1950s?
• Did you know that the Watchtower Society prohibited organ
transplants in 1967, but then reversed its position in 1980 and began allowing them?
• How do you think Jehovah’s Witness parents whose children had
died as a result of not having a vaccination (or organ transplant)
felt when the Watchtower Society reversed its position?
• In view of the Watchtower Society’s inconsistent track record on
medical issues, do you think it is possible that the Society may
reverse itself on the issue of blood transfusions in the not-toodistant
future?

What do you think accounts for the Watchtower’s inconsistency on
medical issues?
• Is such inconsistency fitting for a “prophet of God,” as the
Watchtower Society claims to be?

Answer 1

Achtung, you seem to be confused by the question - I think he's saying that the 'bad track record' is the fact that they have changed their thinking, even though it is probably his view that the thinking changed for the better.

The problem is not that they now allow vaccinations and organ transplants. The problem is that they forbid them in the first place. As they later acknowledged, there is more than one line of reasoning that can be pursued in these matters. So it is wrong to go beyond the scriptures in the first place and draw hard and fast conclusions about matters that are not clear in the Bible.

The same is true of blood transfusions Although the Society's point of view certainly has some validity, it is not the only point of view to consider. The WT dogmatically applies certain scriptures in a way that could reasonably be - and is - interpreted differently by other honest and sincere people.

So since the Bible is unclear about these matters, it should actually be a matter of following one's conscience, not a man-made tradition. The Pharisees were religious leaders with authority over the people, but was it right for them to burden the "rank and file" and inflict their own opinions on them, in matters that weren't covered by the Law? The Society's 'track record' is not good in that they tend to go beyond the scriptures, then have to reverse themselves in order to take the position that they should have taken in the first place.

In answer to the question, however, I think the answer is likely Not any time soon. It is similar to the Catholic view on celibacy - it's just too entrenched. Even if they WT leaders wanted to, they would face such criticism and lawsuits from people who have sacrificed their loved ones in obedience to them, that it isn't likely it will happen soon, if ever.

Vaccinations and organ transplants were much less entrenched and thus easier to change.

EDITED:

RESEARCH WOMAN:

Weren't there also "Biblical reasons" for rejectiing vaccinations and organ transplants?



LINNIEPOO

Certainly there's nothing wrong with updating after finding out new information. But there wasn't any new information. As TeeM correctly pointed out, the Scriptures haven't changed. Only the human point of view and interpretation changed.

That is the problem with the WT - they constantly put forth information that they present as "clearly" written in the scriptures when no such clear-cut direction exists. And they never learn from their mistakes, it seems, because even after they reverse themselves on a particular subject, it doesn't seem to keep them from presenting their opinions as absolute statements of fact, on other subjects.

By the way, I thought your reference to the Catholic church changing their view about eating meat on Friday, was a very appropriate comparison to the WT changing their position on all sorts of things. And what does the WT have to say about that? Do they say 'The Catholic church should be commended for having the courage and humility to reverse their position on this non-Biblical tradition. The light is surely growing brighter in the Catholic Church". Is that what they say? Or do they say this?


*** g70 4/22 p. 9 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***

If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a “mortal sin” can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand."

See any similarity?


TeeM

TeeM doesn't think that the WT will change their position because the "Scriptures haven't changed". Is that good reasoning? It implies that the Scriptures DID change about vaccinations, organ transplants, the 1874 parousia, the superior authorities, the superior authorities (again), and on and on and on.

Although JW's look into the Bible and read Watchtower interpretations, here is an interesting look at one of the Society's Dutch publications (Consolation) in 1945 before they got the word that the WT had recently banned blood transfusions. It's interesting because it shows that the Bible's command to "abstain from blood" is not "clear" as to whether it pertains to blood transfusion.

"God has never published a decree which forbids employing medicine, injections and blood transfusions. It is a human invention like the Pharisee's disregard for mercy and grace. TO SERVE JEHOVAH WITH ALL THE HEART DOES NOT MEAN TO PUT OUR INTELLIGENCE IN A BOX. Principally because there is a human life at stake. The life being of great value is holy to Jehovah.
- Consolation 09/1945 p. 29 (Dutch ed.) - Emphasis added.

Answer 2

I hope they do change it, and they have been moving in that direction. The change may produce some doubters, and hopefully some deserters, but the diehards will just go with the flow. I hope the change does happen soon, mostly because it will save lives. However I must admit it will be interesting to see the JWs here on Y!A go from attacking blood transfusions to fiercely defending them. I’ll also be glad to see the end of their misconceptions. “be careful...with AIDS and Hepatitis and several other diseases” The chance of contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion is about 0.0004%, that’s 1 in 225,000. To put that in perspective, you are over ten times more likely to be killed by an asteroid in the US than to get AIDS from a blood transfusion. “transfusion is not like eating...right??......then why dont you put poison in your vains to see if the effect is not the same that drinking the poison???” When you drink poison, it passes into your blood stream, so it is the same as injecting it. When you eat blood, it does not pass into your blood stream, you digest it. When you get a blood transfusion, you do not digest it. It doesn’t provide nutrition to your body; it serves the same function your own blood does. If your doctor said you can’t eat meat, does that mean you can’t get an organ transplant?

Answer 3

I appreciated your research in this matter. I hope you actually read the publications you’ve quoted. I would hate to think you are just repeating things you’ve read from apostates.

The bible says of such ones is that they have returned to the vomit, and the mud.

Then let’s not forget 1 Cor 15:33.

In answer to your question, no I don’t think the “Watchtower” will change it’s stand on blood transfusions. (Not because they were wrong but because the scriptures haven’t changed)

Your research has re-enforced my appreciation on how Jehovah is using his organization to keep his people free of this world’s traps and snares, and at the same time helped his people remain healthy.

In the use of vaccines, organ transplants, and any other procedures that “are now acceptable”
the Society explains that since there is no “clear” scripture to the contrary these procedures are a matter of conscience. Each Christian is going to have to stand before Jehovah with the decision they make.

I personally know one brother who was bitten on two separate occasions by a rattlesnake. In each occasion he refused anti venom, because of his conscience. (the brother is still alive and kicking)

From the tone of your question you seemed to imply that many, (hundred’s / thousands ?) witnesses die every year because they refuse a medical treatment. In my many years in the truth, and of the hundreds of brothers and sisters I personally know, and their family members, I only know of one instance where the person might have been save if they had a “blood transfusion” but even in this instance, the doctors couldn’t have guaranteed the outcome.

Lastly what we consider normal medical procedures today were not so in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. Did you know that in the 1860 & 70’s, doctors thought the yellow puss from infected wounds was the bodies natural curing “jell” and that they took it from one patient and placed it on the wound of others?

I again encourage you to keep researching, but please do your own and not that of others.

Answer 4

This so-called "question" flatly contradicts itself. The questioner loudly claims that 'Watchtower has a very bad track record on medical issues', but then the questioner goes on to explain that as the twentieth century progressed 'watchtower' began to approve vaccinations and began to approve organ transplants.

Is the questioner arguing that vaccinations and organ transplants constitute a 'very bad track record'? Why is the questioner so obsessed with a magazine?

Really, too many anti-watchtower activists simply spread any insult and portray every change through the worst possible prism with regard to this group.

Answer 5

What is wrong with updating when you find new information? Has not for example the Catholic Church changed its position on eating meat on Fridays. Have not most of the religions that helped with slavery or slaughtered Native Americans changed there position on these groups. How about the Ku Klux Clan aren't they religious people? (I mention them because what those good church going people have done is much more harmful than telling their people not to take a vaccine.) However the Bible does have indelibly written that Christians must ABSTAIN from blood. Please see Acts 15:28, 29.

Answer 6

Witnesses have biblical reasons for not using blood. The bible gave us this direction as noted below at Acts 15:17-20. The importance of blood was shown in the bible by the use of it in animal sacrifice which was pointing the way to Jesus ransom sacrifice making the way for forgiveness of our sins. The sanctity of blood was stressed in the bible, and today modern medicine recognizes the dangers of using blood and the benefits of not using blood. As time goes by these alternative methods are more available and are more widely known. Everything in the bible was given to us for our benefit although at the time it was not as clearly know as it is today; especially in the incidences of blood born diseases.

Biblical reasons:

Acts 15:17-20 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things, 18 known from of old.’ 19 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

Here is an excerpt from one of the articles below:
What Some Doctors Say


Dr. Joachim Boldt
'Bloodless surgery is not only for Jehovah's Witnesses but for all patients. I think that every doctor should be engaged in it.'—Dr. Joachim Boldt, professor of anesthesiology, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
"While blood transfusions are safer today than in the past, they still pose risks, including immune reactions and contracting hepatitis or sexually transmitted diseases."—Dr. Terrence J. Sacchi, clinical assistant professor of medicine.


Dr. Terrence J. Sacchi
"Most physicians have knee-jerk reactions with transfusions and just give them out liberally and indiscriminately. I don't."—Dr. Alex Zapolanski, director of cardiac surgery at the San Francisco Heart Institute.
"I don't see any conventional abdominal operation that in a normal patient routinely requires blood transfusion."—Dr. Johannes Scheele, professor of surgery, Jena, Germany.

Article: Bloodless Medicine And Surgery
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/1/8/article_03.htm

Videos:
Transfusion Alternative Strategies
http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcae/article_01.htm
No Blood Medicine Meets The Challenge
http://www.watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 7

JW's are allowed to take parts of blood that they don't consider to be a blood transfusion but have been taking blood this way. they again have blinded the minds of the cult members. They change their minds on the prophecy of 1914, remember the world was suppose to end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liers always tell another lie to cover the first lie.

Answer 8

If we live long enough --yes!



They need more members for even bigger profits!

They will even eventually start accepting the Trinity etc.
It is a matter of prospering financially!

Answer 9

No. And they still owe Marlboro cig company and the Company that makes cruise missles.

Answer 10

They make it up as they go.