Do Jehovah's Witnesses consider blood transfusions to be eating blood?

Answer 1

The “new light” on blood transfusions has changed considerably and often over the last few decades, for two specific reasons. 1) Inaccuracy of research on the issue from a scientific and medical standpoint, and 2) for legal reasons that implicate the Watchtower Society in the unnecessary deaths of many individuals whose lives could have been saved by a blood transfusion. In the early decades of this doctrine most of the changes were due to corrections on inaccuracies, but in recent decades the Legal Dept. of the Watchtower has had some influence on the doctrine itself. In addition, many countries that would have banned Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religion because of denying life-saving transfusions have been issued public relations statements that would seem to indicate that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not PROHIBITED from having blood transfusions, but do so as a PERSONAL CHOICE. (Of course, if they make the personal choice to HAVE a blood transfusion, they are immediately shunned and considered as excommunicated, but this is not mentioned in their PR campaigns.)

However, one should not assume that the powers that be in the Watchtower are in total agreement with each other. While I was at Bethel (1974 to 1980 as a Bethel Elder and floor overseer in the pressroom), it was well-known among insiders that the Service Dept., which handles matters such as policing the organization and disfellowshipping/shunning, was at times at odds with the Writing Dept., who were often more concerned with Biblical accuracy over controlling the masses. (See Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz, former member of the Watchtower’s Governing Body and nephew of Fred Franz.)

In recent years the Legal Dept. has had to butt heads with the Governing Body over many doctrines that have caused them legal problems with lawsuits and with the legal status of the organization in emerging democracies such as Bulgaria, Russia, etc. In order to retain such arcane teachings while appearing to allow their members much freedom in matters of doctrine and conscience, the Watchtower Society has had to publish one set of rules to their followers in their literature (and more importantly, by oral teachings not specifically spelled out in print), yet another to the public media and the governments. It is noteworthy to mention that the Watchtower is not averse to using what they call “theocratic warfare,” which is defined as not disclosing to the enemy what they are not deserving to hear (in this case, the enemy can be anyone who is not favorable to the Watchtower Society, such as “worldly “ governments and news reporters). In modern parlance this is known as “speaking out of both sides of the mouth.”

Gene Smalley has been loyal to the old-timers at Bethel and continues to be, and many of them will side with him over the Legal Dept. or with any threats to the blood doctrine. The Legal Dept. is a necessary evil to the Governing Body, only because they need to do business with the outside world, which they consider to be completely controlled by Satan the devil. So it is not surprising that Gene stood in the way of the WT attorneys that were assigned to handle blood cases to do what was right. Apparently the Governing Body listened to Gene and not to their attorneys. Even today the attorneys have a problem with the GB taking their advice.

Maybe when all the old GB are gone, there might not be any loyalty towards Smalley, who tends to make enemies of certain people. But I think it will take a huge win in a blood lawsuit filed against WT to really make a difference to even the new GB who are even more rabid than Ted Jaracz (head of the WT’s Service Dept.) is about obeying the blood injunction. Isn't he, Barr and Barber the last of the old GB? Barr as head of Writing would never turn on Smalley who he likes and is loyal to, but perhaps after Barr dies, things might change.

Barr was known to have said to be aware of Smalley's faults but has said Gene is a good man. Jaracz uses Smalley to work the PR for him and Carey Barber is so old he's like the walking dead at this point in time. [UPDATE: Carey Barber died in April 2007] So how could one expect such people to wise up to Smalley? He was so slick he even had senior GB member Lloyd Barry fooled, but the rest of the senior writers did not like him at all. If Gene wasn't with a GB member or his wife, or his secretary, he was always alone. Few except Ciro Aulicino in the Writing Dept. would talk with him, and then only when Gene would come to Ciro's office to find out which way the wind was blowing. Life at Bethel is like a soap opera, and I know from six years of personal experience there.

Jehovah’s Witnesses will avidly defend the modern day revisions of their blood doctrine. Yet few actually realize how much it has changed over the years, nor are they able to explain all the recent changes. It is simply too confusing to try and ascertain what the Watchtower is really asking of them. At present, one can transfuse virtually all components of blood separately, but not altogether at once. The hypocrisy and unbiblical nature of the doctrine is astonishing! It is sad that because of the ever-changing and confusing explanations of the doctrine as to what is a matter of conscience and what isn’t, many Witnesses (due to fear of being destroyed at Armageddon for disobedience) would rather not have ANY blood fractions transfused and take the risk of death, for they believe they will be resurrected in the “new system” when Jehovah destroys all the governments of their earth along with all non-believers.



Can one man be largely responsible for the death of untold thousands? You bet. I believe Gene Smalley is bloodguilty, along with the other members of the Watchtower’s Governing Body who have conspired to placate Gene and his pet doctrine. The history of authoritarian religions in our century, with their stringent rules and harsh penalties to those who don't comply, is evidence enough that it happens all the time.

Answer 2

Yes, although respect for life and the "life giver" that blood is plays into that principle.

I will say that modern medicine is advancing beyond the incorrect assumption that blood transfusions save lives. The growing resources, tools, techniques and research regarding bloodless medicine is gaining so much momentum that many medical professionals believe that blood transfusions are a thing of the past.

Contrary to popular belief, blood transfusions often kill the patient or prolong their recovery, since receiving another person's blood creates the same reactions in the human body as an organ transplant- the body tries to reject and rid itself of the foreign invader.

Witnesses have been instrumental in the demand for safe alternative treatments, including but not limited to cell saving machines, fraction treatments, self cauterizing scalpels and numerous blood thickening proteins.

Many non Witnesses have also jumped on the bloodless bandwagon after educating themselves on the risks associated with a blood transfusion.

As Jehovah's Witnesses we desire to please our heavenly Father Jehovah above all others. However, that does not mean that we discourage routine medical treatment or allow our families to simply die if they are stricken with an illness.

Instead, we strive to find the best possible medical care that we can that does not dishonor our God.

For more information please visit our ONLY official website: www.watchtower.org.

Answer 3

Yes, we do. If it is taken into the body, whether by mouth or through the veins, it is going into the body. God considers blood sacred. It is the life of a person and our lives rightfully belong to the one who gave us life---Jehovah.
We are not to transfer our life into the life of another. We do not have the right to do so.

Bloodless surgery is now being performed on Witness and non- witness patients with success . Operations done without blood are less expensive and patients recover much faster. Also there is no fear of contracting fatal diseases such as AIDS or Hepatitus.
Eventually blood transfusions will be a thing of the past. Modern science is on our side.

LOBT

Answer 4

No.

The bible (in the Apostolic Decree) commands Christians to "abstain from blood", which plainly is not limited to ingestion. As the questioner alludes, it is ironic that few self-described Christians even pretend to restrict themselves from eating and drinking blood whenever they wish to do so, in obvious disregard for this Scripture's most obvious application.

(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which would contain blood] and from blood.

(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which would contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.


Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.

A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?


Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 5

Let's say you broke your jaw and it had to wired shut for 2 weeks.

Would you lie in the hospital bed and starve?

or

What if you were like my nephew who had torn his stomach in three places and was told not to eat for 6 weeks while the tears healed.

How did he eat?

In both cases it was by intravenously.

So even doctors know that transfusions and intravenously are the same.

Answer 6

What part of Abstain do people not understand?

Does abstain mean you can't use it one way but you can use it another?

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: (Abstain) to hold oneself back from something regarded as improper or unhealthy

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they ABSTAIN from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] BLOOD.

Abstaining from blood is not just regarding idol worship. Blood is mentioned last in verse 20 after fornication and things that strangle.

Answer 7

No, not to my knowledge. They do belief that blood is sacred, so you shouldnt mess around with it.

This is bullspit however, since isnt life supposed to be the most sacred thing of all? And if blood transfusions can save lives, why not do so!!!