Jehovah’s Witnesses’ strange questions and doubts regarding blood
 |
 |
Jehovah’s Witnesses write that the did not have any issue with blood even until 1945:
Some persons, however, object to changes in viewpoint, changes in understanding of certain scriptures or procedures. For example, since the 1940’s Jehovah’s witnesses have refused to give or accept blood transfusions, whereas prior to that they did not take this position. (The Watchtower August 15, 1972 p. 501).
However, when in 1944-1945 the Watchtower Society introduced the ban on blood transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses began to feel uneasy any time the topic of blood came out. Therefore, they had started to rise multiple questions related to it. They ask about animal’s transfusion, blood in medicines, fertilizers, meat and fish. They deal with the issue of leeches and lecithin and the human umbilical cord and placenta.
It seems like Jehovah’s Witnesses would be most pleased if humans did not have blood in their veins at all, or even… if blood and its constituents would not be found anywhere in nature. Unfortunately, it is the other way round.
The followers of the Watchtower Society continue to feel guilty and rise endless questions about blood and transfusion. One can venture to state that the organization indirectly induces doubts by the publishing following thoughts about blood components:
Not only is blood being used in connection with modern medical practices, but it is reported that blood is now being used in a variety of products, such as adhesives for making plywood, particle board, hardboard, bottle crowns, furniture and musical instruments. Blood is also being used in polymerization of rubber compounds, insecticidal binder, settling compound for industrial waste treatment, clear water purification (paper industry), uranium purification, foaming agent for lightweight cellular concrete, fire foaming agent, wine clarifying agent, paper coatings and binders, paper flocculants and sizes, replacement of casein in latex emulsions, emulsified asphalt, cork composition, photoengraving platemaking solutions, leather-finishing operations, water-resistant binder of pigments for print dyeing on cotton cloth, fertilizers, animal foods, and amino acid production, such as histidine and histamine, for example. Perhaps additional uses of blood will come to light in the future. (The Watchtower November 15, 1964 p. 681).
Christian may feel that it would be fine if the Watch Tower Society would make up a list of all the food products and medical preparations that contain blood. But the Society has not done so for good reasons. There are many substances found in blood that are also found elsewhere. This is to be expected, since human and animal bodies are not the only creations produced from the earth. For example, while lecithin is found in blood, it is also derived from soybeans, which happen to be the common commercial source of most lecithin. If there is doubt about a product, it is up to the individual to investigate by inquiring of the manufacturer. He cannot expect a brother in the congregation to rule on the matter for him; the brother did not make the product and neither did the Society. The substance may have been derived from blood or it may not. He must bear his own load of responsibility. (The Watchtower February 15, 1963 pp. 123-124, emphasis added).
Below we list the most important questions that publishers have, along with the answers, all published in the Watchtower publications. Let’s note how this organization is toying with the biblical prohibitions about blood consumption in order to apply them to blood transfusion. They extend their interpretation to animals with the same ease.
Vitamins and nutrients
In view of God’s law prohibiting the eating of blood, is there any objection to using vitamins containing red bone marrow, desiccated liver and similar organic derivatives? (...) This makes it clear that there is no objection to using animal products, provided that God’s law respecting blood has been obeyed. If a person has any doubts about whether certain vitamins and other products are produced from animals that have not been properly bled, he would do well to investigate the matter personally by writing to the manufacturer of the items in question. (The Watchtower January 15, 1972 pp. 63-64).
Leeches
Would it be wrong for a Christian, under medical treatment, to allow leeches to be applied to him to draw off some blood? (...) However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible’s indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body. (The Watchtower June 15, 1982 p. 31).
Dead animals
Might the Bible’s prohibition about blood apply only to blood from a victim killed by man, not to unbled meat of an animal that died of itself or blood from a live animal or human? (...) Consequently, true worshipers today will not eat unbled meat, whether from an animal that some man killed or from a creature that died in another way. Nor will they sustain their lives by taking in blood from living creatures, animal or human. They recognize Jehovah as their Life-Giver and are determined to obey him in all respects. (The Watchtower April 15, 1983 pp. 30-31).
Blood substitutes. Artificial blood
Is there any Scriptural reason why Jehovah’s Witnesses should not accept blood substitutes or “artificial blood”? (...) However, Jehovah’s Witnesses have no religious objection to replacing lost blood with nonblood solutions. Some of these more commonly used are saline solution, Ringer’s lactate, dextran and Hespan. (...) In recent years there has been experimentation with a fluorinated blood substitute (so-called artificial blood) that seems to be able to transport oxygen to body cells. There is a calculated risk in using this until such time as it has been fully tested. But it is not made from blood and so its use would not conflict with a Christian’s Bible-trained conscience. (The Watchtower January 15, 1984 p. 31).
Placenta and umbilical cord
According to news reports, after a baby is delivered, some hospitals save the placenta and umbilical cord to extract things from their blood. Should this concern a Christian? (...) Christians who are hospitalized understand that biological products removed from them are disposed of, whether the products be body wastes, diseased tissue, or blood. Granted, a doctor might want certain tests to be done first, such as a urinalysis, a pathological examination of tumorous tissue, or tests on the blood. But thereafter, the products are disposed of in accord with local law. The hospital patient hardly needs to make special requests to this effect because it is both reasonable and medically prudent to discard such biological products. If a patient had valid reason to doubt that such a normal practice was going to be followed, he or she could mention it to the physician involved, stating that for religious reasons he or she wanted all such products disposed of. However, as mentioned, this is seldom a concern for the average patient because in many places such salvage and reuse of the afterbirth or other biological products is not even considered, much less practiced routinely. (The Watchtower February 1, 1997 p. 29).
Marrow
Could a Christian accept a bone-marrow transplant, since blood is made in the marrow? (...) Of course, marrow used in human marrow transplants is from live donors, and the withdrawn marrow may have some blood with it. Hence, the Christian would have to resolve for himself whether—to him—the bone-marrow graft would amount to simple flesh or would be unbled tissue. Additionally, since a marrow graft is a form of transplant, the Scriptural aspects of human organ transplants should be considered. See “Questions From Readers” in our issue of March 15, 1980. Finally, writing in Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (Update I, 1981, page 138), Dr. D. E. Thomas observes that “virtually all marrow transplant recipients will require platelet transfusions” and many are given “packed red blood cells.” So the Christian should consider what additional issues he would have to face if he submitted to a marrow transplant.—Proverbs 22:3. Though a personal decision has to be made on this matter, the Bible’s comments about blood and marrow should help the individual to decide. (The Watchtower May 15, 1984 p. 31).
Fish and insects
In view of the Bible command on abstinence from blood, how are fish and insects to be prepared in order to be acceptable for food? (...) Of course, the amount of blood contained in these creatures may be very small, so that it is impossible to pour out their blood; yet that is what was required to make the meat of a creature acceptable for food. (Lev. 17:13) It was not required that the meat be squeezed or that it be soaked; simply that the blood be poured out. If there is not enough blood to pour it out, Christians are not under obligation to take extreme measures to be sure that some blood is extracted. Of course, if, on cutting the creature open, an accumulation of blood is clearly in evidence, this can easily be removed, and it would be proper to do so. (The Watchtower November 1, 1961 p. 670).
Must fish be bled before they are eaten? (...) There being no Scriptural stipulation to squeeze or soak meat to remove blood, no one is under obligation to take extreme measures to extract blood from fish. Of course, the blood of every sort of creature represents its life and is therefore sacred. So, if, on cutting a fish open, a person sees an accumulation of blood, he should remove it. (The Watchtower April 1, 1973 p. 224).
Lecithin
Lecithin is found in blood. And many processed foods have lecithin as an ingredient. Is such lecithin obtained from blood? (...) The fact is, then, that commercial lecithin does not come from blood. So Christians need not be concerned about blood when they see “lecithin” listed on the label of some food product. (The Watchtower March 15, 1979 p. 31).
Blood transfusion for animals
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? (...) How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian. In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God. (The Watchtower February 15, 1964 p. 127).
Food with blood
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? (...) What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him. Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God. (The Watchtower February 15, 1964 pp. 127-128).
Fertilizers with blood
Also, is it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it? (...) But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it. (The Watchtower February 15, 1964 pp. 127-128).
Fertilizers and food for animals
How should a Christian view using blood as fertilizer, as animal food or in some other way that does not involve his eating it? (...) Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood. Of course, Christians cannot tell non-Christians that they must not use blood in making fertilizers or other commercial products. Hence, if most fertilizers on the market contained some blood, the Christian would have to decide for himself what to do. He could consider factors such as the Bible’s counsel to “abstain . . . from blood,” the availability of alternative products, the proddings of his Bible-trained conscience and the feelings of others.—Compare 1 Corinthians 8:10-13. Another situation that sometimes arises involves feeding blood to animals. It is true that at present many animals in the wild do not live on vegetation as the Bible says they did originally. (Gen. 1:30) Rather, they eat other creatures, blood and all. Nonetheless, would a Christian who knows God’s law on blood intentionally feed blood to animals under his care? Would that harmonize with what he knows about how blood was handled under the Law? Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. Nor was the Israelite deliberately killing an animal and leaving the blood in it because some persons liked the taste of unbled meat or so that the carcass would weigh more. Rather, he was simply disposing of a carcass that he could not use for food and that had to be removed. Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men. (The Watchtower October 15, 1981 pp. 30-31).
Draining the meat of blood, especially from poultry and rabbits
To what extent is a householder obligated to see to it that the meat he purchases is drained of blood? Should a guest, knowing it is the custom of the country not to drain the blood from certain meats, such as fowl and rabbit, keep silent and eat, or should he mention that the practice is unscriptural and refrain from eating? (...) In countries where it is the general practice to drain the blood from butchered animals it hardly seems necessary to make specific inquiry at the time of purchase, or when eating meat prepared in a home or restaurant of such lands. However, if it is the custom of a country not to drain the blood from certain meats, the purchaser would be aware of this and could hardly disclaim responsibility for eating the blood. A variety of excuses and flimsy reasonings may be offered in justification of eating things strangled or unbled, but none of them are valid in view of the explicit Bible ruling: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood [from things strangled, margin] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”—Acts 15:28, 29, NW. If you are a guest in a home where meat “from things strangled” is served, you should not eat it. If the host or hostess is not a witness of Jehovah you may not choose to state your reason, or you may, depending on circumstances known to you. However, if the one serving the meat is one of Jehovah’s witnesses it is proper to call the wrong practice to his attention, for his own spiritual welfare as well as in explanation of why you are not partaking. (The Watchtower February 1, 1956 p. 95).
Storage and transfusion of one’s own blood
Although it is unscriptural for a Christian to accept another person’s blood in transfusion, would it be allowable for a dedicated Christian to have some of his own blood removed and then put back into his body during an operation? (...) On the other hand, if the blood were stored, even for a brief period of time, this would be a violation of the Scriptures. The use of another person’s blood to “prime” any device employed in surgery is objectionable. In this case the blood would circulate through the system of the patient, becoming mixed with his own. Again, if one’s own blood would have to be withdrawn at intervals and stored until a sufficient amount had accumulated to set a machine in operation, this too would fall under Scriptural prohibition. The ones involved in the matter are in the best position to ascertain just how the blood would be handled and must bear responsibility before Jehovah for seeing that it is not handled unscripturally. (The Watchtower October 15, 1959 p. 640).
A doctor said that prior to surgery a patient could have some blood withdrawn and stored, in the event that a transfusion is needed during surgery. How should a Christian view such use of his own blood? (...) And he can refer to the pointed command that Christians ‘abstain from blood.’ In view of this, how could he allow his blood to be collected in a blood bank for later transfusion into himself or another person? (The Watchtower June 15, 1978 pp. 30-31).
Heart-lung and artificial kidney
What about a device such as a heart-lung pump or a dialysis (artificial kidney) machine? Might a Christian use such? (...) Some Christians have conscientiously reasoned that the blood is flowing continuously and that the external circuit might be viewed as an extension of the circulatory system. They have considered it comparable to a piece of tubing that might be implanted in the body to shunt blood around a blockage in a vessel. Of course, each Christian should weigh what is involved in the use of these and similar devices. He could consider whether he views the blood involved to be blood that clearly has left his body and so should be disposed of or as blood that, basically, is still part of his circulatory system. (Deut. 12:16) Then he can make a decision that will leave him with a clear conscience before God. (The Watchtower June 15, 1978 p. 30).
Serum
Are serum injections compatible with Christian belief? (...) Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God’s law; their conscience would permit such. (...) Others, though, feel conscientiously obliged to refuse serums because these contain blood, though only a tiny amount. Hence, we have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis. We urge each one to strive to have a clear conscience and to be responsive to God’s guidance found in His Word. (The Watchtower June 15, 1978 pp. 30-31).
Blood for analysis
Would it be wrong to submit to a blood test? Based on their knowledge of the Scriptures, most of Jehovah’s Witnesses, if not all, do not object to such tests. The small quantity of blood removed from the body is not eaten or injected into someone else. It is merely examined or tested before being disposed of.—Deut. 15:23. (The Watchtower June 15, 1978 p. 30.
Food with blood content or its components
How concerned should a Christian be about blood in food products? (...) But what about food products that may contain blood or some blood component, such as plasma protein? (...) What is the conscientious Christian to do in such cases? He could make inquiry of the butcher or the producer. It is reported that in response to such inquiries, some producers in one Scandinavian land readily gave assurance that blood is not an ingredient in their processed meats; they do not want to lose business. But, in some places, Witnesses who inquired of butchers or meat producers were given vague or questionable replies. It may be noted that, even if the law permits companies to add some blood without stating it, this does not necessarily mean that all or even most of them do so. Therefore, Christians, individually, must decide what to do. The consciences of some may move them to avoid anything about which they have serious questions or to make such inquiry as is needed to settle their consciences. (Rom. 14:23) In instances where it does not seem possible to get absolute information through reasonable inquiry, other Christians may conclude: ‘Where there is no substantial reason for me to think that blood is present or there is no definite way that I can determine it, I can with a clear conscience “keep eating.”’ They should, however, consider the conscientious feelings of others, even as Paul counseled. (...). True Christians ought not to be indifferent about blood. They should do what they can to avoid a clear violation of God’s law. A deep respect for that law is of central importance. By doing all that they reasonably can to “keep themselves . . . from blood,” God’s people manifest appreciation for the sanctity of life and of the blood representing it. (The Watchtower June 15, 1978 p. 31).
Blood leftovers in meat
How can one tell if meat purchased from a butcher or in some other market has been properly bled? Also, how can one tell if cold-meat loaves, pastry or preparations sold by druggists contain any blood or blood fractions? (...) If the bleeding of butchered animals is not the regular practice in your locality, or you are not sure what is the customary handling of the matter where you live, the best way to find out if meat has been properly bled is to make personal inquiry. In most cases, even if the one who sells the meat does not personally do the slaughtering, he is acquainted with the men with whom he does business and he knows their practices or at least the laws that govern them. If he is confident that the meat is properly prepared, the Christian may feel free to use it. However, if the one selling the meat does not know, simply ask: “Who can give me the information? It is important to me for religious reasons.” Then write a letter, if that is the only way to get in touch with the one who can answer your question. If for some reason one does not feel that he is being told the truth, he can always do business elsewhere, or he can buy live animals and arrange for the slaughtering himself, if he feels that is necessary. Simply the fact that meat appears to be very red or even has red fluid on the surface does not mean that it has not been bled. There may remain in the meat some very small amounts of blood even after proper bleeding has been done. Then, too, the fluid that runs out of the meat may simply be interstitial fluid. The important thing is that respect has been shown for the sanctity of blood, regard has been shown for the principle of the sacredness of life. (The Watchtower November 1, 1961 p. 669).
When meat is cut in the course of preparation for cooking, or when it is sliced after it has been cooked, a reddish fluid may run out of it. Is such meat suitable for eating by a Christian? (...) Of course, even the meat from properly bled animals may appear to be very red or may have red fluid on the surface. This is because bleeding does not remove every trace of blood from the animal. But God’s law does not require that every single drop of blood be removed. It simply states that the animal should be bled. Then, too, there is extravascular fluid in the meat. This fluid may mix with traces of blood and take on a red color. The extravascular fluid filling the spaces between the cells is known as interstitial fluid and resembles blood plasma. But it is not blood and therefore does not come under the prohibition respecting blood. Hence the presence of a reddish fluid does not in itself make meat unsuitable for food. As long as an animal has been properly bled, its meat may Scripturally be used for food. There may be times, however, when a Christian has reason to believe that an animal may not have been bled properly. If there is no way for him to get the facts, he may choose not to eat the meat and thus avoid disturbing his conscience. (The Watchtower September 1, 1972 p. 544).
Meat poorly drained of blood and vegetarianism
If a Christian learns that his butcher does not give attention to the draining of the blood, then he will look for another place to do business or even refrain from eating meat if nothing else is available. Likewise, a conscientious person will not eat meat in a restaurant if he knows that it is customary locally not to give attention to proper bleeding. Under such circumstances, a Christian who wants to eat meat may have to buy a live animal or bird and arrange to have the killing done himself. (The Watchtower September 15, 1961 p. 557).
Questions from English Watchtower
Below we list nine other questions Jehovah’s Witnesses had, published by The Watchtower on July 1, 1951 on pages 414-416 (we skip the answers):
What are the Scriptural grounds for objecting to blood transfusions? (p. 414).
Do not these prohibitions about blood apply only to animal blood, and not to human blood? (p. 414).
Since the blood donor does not die and no life is lost, why do the Scriptural prohibitions apply to transfusions? (p. 414).
Since Christians are not under the Law of Moses that emphasizes these restrictions on blood, why be bound by such ordinances? (p. 414).
Leviticus 3:17 states: “Eat neither fat nor blood.” So why shun blood while eating fat? (p. 415).
Why do not Jehovah’s witnesses refuse to eat meat, inasmuch as some blood remains therein even though the animal has been properly bled? (p. 415).
Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound? (p. 415).
If the transfusion does good, perhaps even saves a life, is it not a Christlike service rendered? Did not Jesus say, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”? (p. 415).
Then are we to conclude that Jehovah’s witnesses oppose the people’s use of transfusions? (p. 416).
Advice for meat traders and transfusion operators
Here we present some tips for Jehovah’s Witnesses related to the transfusion and trade of products including blood. The ones that relate the blood transfusion are directed to doctors, nurses and laboratory staff who are in contact with transfusion or its helpers (notice that doctors carrying out transfusions are compared to butchers!):
So whether a Christian who works in a store will dispose of blood goods, such as blood sausage, by selling such goods to persons of the world who are willing to pay for them is a matter of conscience. It is also a personal matter as to whether another Christian will sell blood items to worldly persons in a drugstore or will spread blood fertilizer on the field of a worldly employer at his request. Naturally, a Christian could not properly encourage persons to obtain blood goods rather than those free from blood and he could not advocate any misuse of blood. However, we must leave it up to the conscience of the individual Christian as to what he will do when it comes to matters of this nature in handling such products. (The Watchtower November 15, 1964 pp. 681-682).
Some doctors who are Jehovah’s witnesses have administered blood transfusions to persons of the world upon request. However, they do not do so in the case of one of Jehovah’s dedicated witnesses. In harmony with Deuteronomy 14:21, the administering of blood upon request to worldly persons is left to the Christian doctor’s own conscience. This is similar to the situation facing a Christian butcher or grocer who must decide whether he can conscientiously sell blood sausage to a worldly person. (The Watchtower November 15, 1964 pp. 682-683).
Some Christians working in hospitals have had to consider this factor of authority. A physician might have authority to order medications for or medical procedures on a patient. Even if a patient did not mind, how could a Christian doctor in authority order a blood transfusion or perform an abortion, knowing what the Bible says on such matters? In contrast, a nurse employed at the hospital might not have such authority. As she performs routine services, a doctor might direct her to perform a blood test for some purpose or to care for a patient who came for an abortion. In line with the example recorded at 2 Kings 5:17-19, she might conclude that since she is not the one with authority who orders a transfusion or performs an abortion, she could carry out human services for a patient. Of course, she still would have to consider her conscience, so as ‘to behave before God with a clear conscience.’ (The Watchtower April 15, 1999 p. 29).
Certain employment may be in a “gray area,” so to speak. And sometimes, while one’s basic work is unobjectionable, one may be asked occasionally to do something questionable. So conscience can be involved. For example, there are employment problems involving blood. (...) But what if, on your job you were asked to handle blood or blood products occasionally? Would your conscience permit that? A Witness in Colorado worked in a hospital as the chief medical technician running tests of various types on body tissue and fluid. Among the many things he was expected to test were blood samples. Sometimes it was simply to check a patient’s blood for the level of sugar or cholesterol. But at other times it was to cross match for transfusion purposes. Could he do that? This Christian gave careful thought to the matter. It could be seen that it would not be right for a Christian to work exclusively for a blood bank, where everything was devoted to an end that was in violation of God’s law. But that was not his situation; he ran tests of many kinds. Also, if one were a doctor responsible for the decision, one could not order a blood transfusion for a patient, any more than a Christian store owner could order and stock idols or cigarettes. However, this technician realized that in connection with blood he was merely running a test, even as a nurse might have taken the sample, a messenger might have delivered it to the laboratory and someone else might administer a transfusion or other medication on a doctor’s orders. He reflected on the principle at Deuteronomy 14:21. According to that text a Jew finding a carcass of an animal that died of itself could clear it away by selling it to a foreigner who was not under the Law’s restrictions about animal flesh not drained of its blood. So the technician’s conscience at that time allowed him to run blood tests, including those of blood for transfusions to patients who did not care about God’s law on blood. (The Watchtower April 1, 1975 pp. 215-216).
We can see from the above, that Jehovah’s Witnesses do have a lot of life problems related to blood. It seems that only when the Watchtower Society changes its doctrine, as in the case of vaccinations and transplants, they will be freed from their remorse and doubts.
|
|
