Can Jehovah's Witnesses have their own blood stored?

Question

Can Jw's save their own blood to be transfused if they should need it later, since they are not allowed to use toe bolld of anyone else?.....Say you know that you are going to have surgery.

plasma cells?

concience?

no?

This is a biggie for you ...is there no unity in answer?...What does the WBTS say on this?

So....You follow ...some...of the Mosaic law, but not all?....What or who determines what you will follow?...

KEIICHI.....I have never been to a church...that condoned any of the sins mentioned in Romans......JW's have a warped view of other Christian faiths and what they allow....

Real Christians don't excomunicate for sin, they show love and mercy and leave the rest in Gods hands.

RACYKITTY....we have a fine example of a good upstanding Christian Witness...you GO girl.

Racykitty...looked at your questions....you had better not get baptized...you would be disfellowshipped before the water dried.

Answer 1

The JW argument deals with "continuous circulation" ideas. Just where in the Bible is such a principle contained? The cell saver units carry on the circulation of blood outside the body, putting it back into the body it came from. Fine. Stored blood gets put in a fridge until it's needed and goes straight back into the body it came from. What's the difference? Where in the Bible does it say blood has to be kept in motion, at body temperature, before it's liable to be poured out on the ground?

The absurdity of this position is clear to all but the JWs. I have a friend who works in surgeons' theatres as a nurse, and who advises that the next change in the JW blood stance is going to be 'permission' for JWs to store their own blood prior to operations. The last time it was debated by the JW Governing Body, the status quo was maintained by one vote. Next time it comes up for voting, it will likely go through. Until then, how many JWs will die for lack of being able to use THEIR OWN BLOOD? And all due to ONE VOTE?!? Democracy (of less than 15 men) under the guise of theocracy - that's what I call blood-guiltiness. They will answer to God for it.

Answer 2

I have no idea, but guess that maybe they are looking at the Factors as not directly derived from blood storage? Although that would not seem logical to anyone with any common-sense, we're talking here about a religious group whose leader, many years ago, took a simple passage in the Bible and made their own interpretation of it. That the meaning of the passage was misunderstood (perhaps because of ignorance or poor education) is of no account, now, because it has become an established tenet of their religion. Luckily, in the UK, doctors have the power to override parents' wishes if their child's life is at stake. If an adult chooses to die rather than have a blood transfusion, then that is their right - and so it should be. Far be it from me to decide what another person should believe, but there must always be some mechanism in medicine to prevent them condemning their children to die because of their own beliefs.

Answer 3

No. If the blood is kept in a continuous circuit with the body (cell saver, etc.--many others, but off hand, cell saver is the only one I can think of--it's late, and I'm tired), it can be used. But storing your own blood means that the blood is no longer a part of the blood flow; it should be "poured out" as the Bible puts it.
You know, we have a video on the blood alternatives we can use. It shows doctors from all over the world (non-JW) who are willing to do bloodless surgery. One doctor's statement always stands out in my mind--He said that the only doctor who was unwilling to perform a bloodless operation is either a careless or ignorant doctor. That always stood out in my mind as ironic when so many people claim that we "kill our children" by refusing blood. If a doctor who has performed hundreds of bloodless surgery says that he never had patients die (including children) from refusing blood, who are all of you to claim that he must be wrong despite his credentials?

Answer 4

No
God’s determination is that blood represents life and thus is sacred. He commanded that no human should sustain his life by taking in blood.
Though Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law, the Bible says that it is “necessary” for us to ‘abstain from blood,’ viewing it as sacred. (Acts 15:28, 29) This is understandable, for the sacrifices under the Law foreshadowed Christ’s blood, God’s means by which we can gain everlasting life.—Hebrews 9:11-15, 22.

Jehovah's Witnesses can now have operations that require no blood transfusions. It is called "bloodless surgery" and people of all faiths are now taking advantage of this new life-saving procedure. We have a bloodless surgery unit here in Tampa, Florida.
Eventually, blood transfusions will be a thing of the past. Modern science and technology are on our side.
LOBT

Answer 5

Everyone, regardless of religious affliation; has the right to decide what med., treatment he wants to receive. Or not accept.
You can't make a person accept truth. Especially when the person, is out to slander you or your affliation.
Amorromantico02- I don't think I've ever heard (read) a more concise and informative answer.
I'm not a baptized Witness.
But, nonetheless; they r correct. No Dr. will tell u, u will live.
In case of an EMERGENCY- it's more IMPORTANT to EXPAND the VOLUME. And they (Dr.'s) don't have to use dead blood for this; and the other methods are SAFER for YOU!!
Do You ppl actually KNOW how dangerous it is to use SOMEONE Else's blood. And GROSS!!!
I would NEVER PUT DEAD BLOOD IN MY SELF, EVER.
That even sounds So Disgusting.
Do THE RESEARCH!!!
Check out JAMA. That's a fairly trustworthy publication.

suzanne--U R nasty & unforgiving and babbling out chur mouth heresay. 3rd party gossip.
jwfacts06--All u care 4 is being verbally abusive. You're dangerous and illogical. Your name oughta be Saul; LOL look @ your name.
v.g.--we could just name u the idiots pawn. Or if u like we could use babylon's harlot; no, that's to mean. We'll leave that one for the itchy asker. sorry v.g.
girl2000--1st paragraph, ur on the $! U go gurl! Ur Right! Freedom of choice!!! YEA!! the 2nd paragraph-Well, let's put it this way, We will Put Some Dead blood in YOU & we'll wait it out and see how well YOU fair? Uh? uh? sounds tasty huh?
what's your name man....D.H.; YOU speak as though your a Great Authority on this; & we KNOW YOU ain't. In your #3 you said
"great advancement" that's lauding....and yet you yourself won't use it; U'd rather stick to the archaic ideas. o.k. buddy. Got your #.
And YOU! itchy asker, ya, YOU; u R itchin' for a fight!
You got 1! I'm So SICK OF YOU You do Nothing But slander, lie, twist ppl's words to try and prove your lies.You r mean, deceitful, wicked, nasty, rude, obnoxious, rotten, stank!, cruel, vile,YOU! sure ain't "a real Christian," Now! that's Real!
If I could vomit on u I'd do it in a N.Y. second! You Hate!!!! on the Witness' like nothing I've seen before. Get a life! Not one of them has said hurtful lying things to or about u and yet, You continue to harass and poke at their beliefs. Does it make You have more self-esteem? to belittle others? to lie about and ridicule the beliefs of others. And if they r right all along... God's Gonna Get Cha!!!! not me; I'm only telling it like it is; Keepin' It real! Baby!!!! All Day Long! XO
I was warned about YOU! Lemming/ Dyslexic P.
U ugly spot on the human race in the world. Since I hit the ugly spot (thats you, in case u didn't know) do I win a prize!?
I'll ask Jehovah in my prayers tonight.

and btw; the Witness' r kind, loving & gentle ppl; they may not appreciate the words I used. I pray each 1 realizes, I'm only trying to put the words out there, cuz it needs to be said. Sometimes u have to fight fire with fire. U R all so loving n thoughtful, u wouldn't do what I just did. It had to be said.
I'm not a baptised Witness; maybe 1 day. But, I 've found the teachings to be true. And I've checked up on the 411.

Answer 6

If there is any doctrine that highlights how little Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible - and regularly their own doctrine - this has got to be it, as shown by the mixed and incorrect answers.

Jehovah's Witnesses MUST NOT use their own stored blood, it is not a conscience matter. If the elders find out that they used stored blood they will be disassociated and shunned.

w89 3/1 p. 30 "Jehovah’s Witnesses, though, DO NOT accept this procedure. We have long appreciated that such stored blood certainly is no longer part of the person. It has been completely removed from him, so it should be disposed of in line with God’s Law: “You should pour it out upon the ground as water.”—Deuteronomy 12:24."

Lets think of how contradictory this is. Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use blood fractions. What are these made from? The stored blood of other people! Yet they are still not allowed to use their own stored blood, even if they will die as a result.

See http://jehovah.net.au/blood.html for a full examination of this dangerous and illogical doctrine.

Answer 7

No, we can't.
Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.

Answer 8

According to the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out on the ground as water and covered over with dust. (Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; 15:23; 1 Chron. 11:18, 19) This is because life is in the blood and such shed blood is held sacred before God. (Lev. 17:11-14)

So, in accordance with the scriptures above, the practice of donating blood to be stored for some future use conflicts with the method of handling blood prescribed by the Bible.

As for the idea that the commands concerning blood was ONLY meant for the Mosaic law, why was there a reminder of it in Acts 15:29 if that idea is true? If one does not wish to believe JWs understanding about this, then one is welcome to read the below quote:

"This law was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to NOAH and his sons, LONG BEFORE the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, AS BEING AN EARLIER LAW OF GOD, IMPOSED NOT ON THE SONS OF ABRAHAM ONLY, BUT ON ALL NATIONS." -The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184)

Answer 9

Link below to letters from an elder to the Governing Body requesting clarification on blood issues so that he could properly address them as a spiritual leader...

This correspondence transpired over the course of several years. At the end of the exchange, the elder resigned his position. Text and links for these letters are included.

Edit: re Moto and the no-disfellowshipping on the first offense comment--
You are incorrect pal. What they say and what they do are not the same thing. I personally know of people who have been df'd for taking blood. One woman I met at work told me her mother had been df'd when she (the woman telling me about it) was just a baby. She was raised by a woman who lived with the knowledge that she was being shunned. In fact, as a girl, she said, she thought she was automatically disfellowshipped too.

Live or die, this is a nasty, unforgiving "teaching" that ruins lives.

Answer 10

Great question. Even if a person's conscience allowed him to have his own blood transfused, that person would be subject to disassociation and shunning for his "sin".

So how does it make sense to say that each individual uses his own conscience?

How many of you Witnesses will store your own blood, if and when the Watchtower truly makes it a "matter of conscience"? Which means that you could do it and not be sanctioned by the congregation.

Probably the same amount as NOW will accept transplants, since the WT made it acceptable.

Yet supposedly it was "the Bible", not the WT, that made vaccinations and transplants unacceptable in the first place. So did the Bible change?

edited

Actually, moto, you just proved my point. That a Witness who acted according to the dictates of his own God-given conscience and accepted a transfusion of his own blood would be disfellowshipped. Even if he was a perfect Witness in all other ways. Why would he be disfellowshipped? Because he could not repent of something he conscientiously felt wasn't wrong.

If you think Jehovah's Witnesses have freedom of conscience, you had better think again.