What sanctions are brought to bear on Jehovah's Witnesses who?

Question

are faced with the choice of having a blood transfusion or being disfellowshipped? What happens in the hospital when the patient is advised by the Elders? What counsel do the Elders give? What is the policy of the Watch Tower Society on blood transfusions in the UK as compared with their policy in Bulgaria, for example? Why the differences? And why the silence?

Very good weblink to the BBC provided by PediC Again. Thanks. JOYfilled raises an interesting point about her mother's position as one of the 'elect' before the transfusion and her reduced status after it.

Just Me - thanks for your input. I too, respect the rights of others to act according to their conscience. That's why I asked if any sanctions were brought to bear on JW's who disagreed with the society. Their policies are not transparent as evidenced by the answer below you. And I am listening, very carefully.

The bottom line is the JW policy has not actually changed. The JW who choses to have a blood transfusion will either have to resign, or they will be 'sacked'. Same result. This is a very real sanction because JW's who are cast out of the fellowship will be shunned - even by family members. It is enough of a sanction to interfere with freedom of choice.

Answer 1

From 1960 onwards the Watchtower Society used disfellowshipping as a major sanction, until the Bulgarian government got them in a corner and made them sign a legal agreement in 1998 not to sanction their Bulgarian members who accepted blood treatments. This news leaked out (no thanks to the Watchtower Society) and so they eventually had to change their language and tone down their (written) policies. Here's a little comparrison to demonstrate the point. Consider this 1961 written policy:

'...the receiver of a blood transfusion must be cut off from God's people by excommunication or disfellowshipping... if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God's requirements. As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation [i.e. JWs] he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshipping.'

That's as clear cut a sanction as it's possible to get. Bear in mind, shunning follows this sanction and JWs believe that to be disfellowshipped when Armageddon starts is to die eternally.

Now fast forward to 2000 and read the JW Public Affairs Office (New York) statement to the media on 14 & 15 June. They were trying to tone down an apparently big change in their blood policy (following the Bulgarian situation becoming known). It appeared as if sanctions were being dropped but were they? The Society said that they would no longer disfellowship a JW who accepted blood 'in a mopment of weakness' but then repented. Those who took blood without later repenting would no longer be put out because they would have effectively disassociated themselves from the religion. So, sanctions WERE dropped?

NO, because JWs are STILL expected to shun those who disassociate themselves. This is stated in te 15 April 1991 Watchtower. the Society continues to write articles about refusing unacceptable whole blood components (and leaving it up to JWs consciences about nblood component fractions) yet without a word written on sanctions having been eased. That's because it's only a theoretical change. In practice, there is no difference. JWs who truly repented of having unacceptable blood treatments were never likely to be disfellowshippped anyway! But if they don't repent and are viewed as having left, they are liable to be treated like lepers and shunned. They might just as well be disfellowshipped. No hope is held out of them surviving Armageddon whilst in that state. It's only the Bulgarian episode that obliges the Society to say what they are now saying.

Consider the recent case of the JW mother who died after giving birth to twins. Her JW husband refused to over-ride her decision not to have blood and she hemorrhaged to death. Both sets of grandparents are JWs. The twins will be brought up as JWs. The poor husband has sacrificed his wife on the altar of the JW blood stance. He cannot now leave! He has invested too much! If he realises later that what he did was wrong and leaves, he will have absolutely no family or friends to support him. He will be shunned. He may never voice such points but you bet he's already thinking about them! What choice does he have? How can he now bring up his twins without any family or friends' support? His entire life is the JW religion. He's burned his boat, so to leave will be to suffer sanctions. What choice does he have?

Elders on hospital liaison groups ensure that JWs do what they are supposed to do. The rulings are now so complicated (with blood fractions being allowed but all of them put together being unacceptable) most JWs cannot work out what's right and what's considered wrong. That means a JW hardly has privacy and confidentiality to do what his conscience dictates if the Elders get involved! The counsel the Elders give is exactly what New York tells them to give.

Answer 2

Dear Grey Tower,

With the tragic story of the mother who bled to death in the UK, I'm wondering if my own jw mother lost her place among the "144,000" simply because a blood transfusion was forced upon her against her wishes by my dad, a non-jw.

Mom had been hospitalized for a couple of weeks at 7 months to keep her off her feet. On the day she was to be released we had one of those 100 year blizzards. Mom was hemorrhaging and her own doctor couldn't make it to the hospital to do an emergency C-section so a doctor who lived near the hospital did it. In the chaotic situation my dad called his friend from childhood who just happened to be a judge and got a court order for the transfustion.

I have pondered all these things before but it is only these past two days that I realize that the blizzard prevented the jws from getting to the hospital to take a stand against Dad and prevent Mom from receiving the transfusion.

Not only did my mom live but so did my premature brother.

But regarding sanctions Mom was not disfellowshipped, however from what I can gather, it cost her her place among the "144,000". She and I never discuss this because I never became a jw. I had been assured by other jw relatives that Mom was one of the "144,000" so something major had to have happened.

For His glory,
JOYfilled

Answer 3

No sanctions are brought to bear upon JW's who choose to accept blood; it is very much a matter of conscience. Spiritually, though, it can be horribly damaging for them to accept blood.

There would have to be much more involved than simple acceptance of blood for a JW to be disfellowshipped.

It is common practice for those who do not want blood transfusions to include in their medical records a suitable, signed document to that effect. This is because it has never just been JW's who have problems with accepting blood.

It is also common practice to apoint a card-carrying spokesperson, named in the above-mentioned document, and who is typically (but not necessarily) a relative, to speak on behalf of a JW who cannot speak for him or herself and who, under law, has the final say about whether or not blood is given.

I am a signatory of such a card, not because I am religious - I am an atheist - but because I have absolute respect for the right of others to make these choices and make these decisions, and that under no circumstances should others trample all over them.

Should push come to shove I would honour the wishes of this person even if it results in their death.

Elders only counsel people in that situation if asked. And if asked, Elders simply repeat the doctrine that explain why blood transfusions are unacceptable.

The JW's operate under very transparent policies. If you really want to know more just get in touch with them and ask. They will be more than happy to explain as much or as little as you want to hear.

If there is a silence it is because you're not listening.

Answer 4

I can't see anyone these days being told: "You must have a transfusion or you will die," given the advances that have been made in medical science in relation to alternatives to blood and bloodless surgery. So, a Witness should never have to find themselves in that situation.

Witnesses do not refuse transfusions because of a fear of disfellowshipping, in fact I've never heard of anyone being disfellowshipped because they took blood. Witnesses refuse blood because it is unscriptural to take it, they obey God as ruler rather than doctors and they take heed of recent reports on the very real dangers of blood transfusions.

There is no 'policy' on blood transfusions. I wouldn't call Acts 15:19, 20, 28, 29 a policy. Jehovah's Witnesses obey that command no matter what country they live in.

----------

The disassociation of the person would come before taking the transfusion so they would not fear any sanction because to them they would have nothing to lose. Those who do refuse a transfusion do so because they want to obey God even though it may not be convenient for them to do so.

Answer 5

Sadly, anti-Witnesses have been foisting their ignorant accusations about this for a decade, seemingly without any interest in the rather obvious truth of the matter. Jehovah's Witnesses in the UK believe the same as their brothers in Bulgaria or any other country.

An individual Jehovah's Witness might choose to ignore Acts 15:20,28,29 (et al) and accept a blood transfusion. This has been the case for decades.

Doing so in any country will not result in any congregational "investigation" or "sanctions" and there is no possibility that the person could be disfellowshipped for that. Such a person has already disassociated himself. The congregation need not necessarily react to the actions of the one who has chosen to disassociate himself.

It is not a "congregation" or "religion" (per se), but rather individuals who would likely choose to avoid associating and fellowshipping with their former brother.

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_07.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19880415/article_01.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/19970101/article_01.htm

Answer 6

This is a Big BIG secret! you will probably have your question removed for just asking it.

When I was a witness, it didn't matter what the government said, God had the final say on all things...Just like all those brothers who died in Malawi! I guess there are less Black Brothers, in Bulgaria, so the Governing Body will not make them die for their faith.

Answer 7

They are forced to be a mother to their twin babies.

And might even be sentenced to having to think for themselves.

The JW elders have this young brainwashed woman's blood on their hands, and it is their selfishness and intransigence which mean that new born twins will grow up without a mother, knowing that she put her beliefs before their welfare.

Answer 8

This has bearing on your question:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/790967.stm