Development of procedures for dealing with blood transfusion
 |
 |
Changes in Jehovah’s Witnesses’ attitude towards blood transfusion.
Until 1944
The Watchtower Society admitted that until 1944, regarding the blood transfusion, Jehovah's Witnesses “they did not take this position” (i.e. the ban on such practice):
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, emphasis added).
Years 1944-1945
Nowadays the Watchtower Society lists two dates regarding the rejection of the treatment by blood transfusion: 1944 and 1945.
Earlier discussions of the sanctity of blood appeared in The Watch Tower of December 15, 1927, as well as The Watchtower of December 1, 1944, which specifically mentioned blood transfusions. (Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom 1993 p. 183).
So the sanctity of blood applies to all Christians, as shown in The Watchtower of July 1, 1945. That means not just refusing to eat animal blood, as in blood sausage, but also abstaining from human blood, as in the case of blood transfusions. (The Watchtower May 15, 1995 p. 23).
Not only as a descendant of Noah, but now also as one bound by God’s law to Israel which incorporated the everlasting covenant regarding the sanctity of life-sustaining blood, the stranger was forbidden to eat or drink blood, whether by transfusion or by the mouth. (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:10-14). (The Watchtower December 1, 1944 p. 362).
In the wake of World War II, during which it had become standard practice to treat wounded soldiers with blood transfusions, there was increased light on the sanctity of blood. The July 1, 1945, issue of The Watchtower encouraged “all worshipers of Jehovah who seek eternal life in his new world of righteousness to respect the sanctity of blood and to conform themselves to God’s righteous rulings concerning this vital matter.” (The Watchtower February 15, 2006 p. 29).
Year 1951
In 1951, probably for the first time, the Watchtower Society equated the blood transfusion with cannibalism (see the Watchtower July 1, 1951 p. 414). Since then, it has been called this way many times:
Are you one to whom disobeying God’s law is repulsive? Then the taking of blood is just as despicable to you as cannibalism. Think of eating of the flesh of another human creature! It is shocking! Is drinking human blood any different? Does bypassing the mouth and putting it directly into the veins change it? Not at all! (The Watchtower July 1, 1966 p. 401).
Year 1961
In 1961, the Watchtower Society tightened up its policy on blood transfusion, by introducing disfellowshipping from the congregation of those who would accept it. Interestingly, there was no such sanction in this organization before that:
Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom 1993 pp. 183-184).
However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. (…) Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. (The Watchtower August 1, 1958 p. 478).
Interestingly enough, in the same year in which they introduced disfellowshipping for receiving transfusion, they admitted that the original Christian church did not think of a “thing as the modern blood transfusion”:
Nevertheless, although the twelve apostles and their fellow members of the Jerusalem congregation may not have had such a thing as the modern blood transfusion in mind, yet the decree handed down by them included such a thing in its scope. (The Watchtower January 15, 1961 p. 63).
More recently the similar statement appeared:
Yet, would what the Bible says about blood rule out modern medical uses, such as transfusions, which clearly were not used in Noah’s day or in the apostles’ time? (The Watchtower June 15, 1991 p. 9, emphasis added).
Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles? (How Can Blood Save Your Life? 1990 p. 6, emphasis added).
1970’s
The Watchtower Society recalls that Jehovah’s Witnesses began to protect themselves against a possible unexpected and unwanted transfusion:
By the 1970’s, they made it a general practice to carry on their person a card to alert medical personnel to the fact that no blood was to be administered to them under any circumstances. (Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom 1993 p. 185).
Year 2000 (2010)
In the manual for the elders, issued in 2010, disfellowshipping for accepting blood transfusion, has been changed to “disassociation” which, however, has the same consequences for the culprit:
Actions that may indicate disassociation include the following: (...) Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. If someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual’s attitude. If he is repentant, the committee would provide spiritual assistance in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and Jude 22, 23. Since he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for special privileges for a period of time, and it may be necessary to remove certain basic privileges. Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: “The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance.” On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation. ( “Shepherd the Flock of God” – 1 Peter 5:2 2010 pp. 110, 111-112).
This arrangement (concerning “disassociation”) has been already in use since 2000 in an internal letter addressed to travelling overseers. It has probably been implemented tactically, to please the “world” and especially secular authorities, in order that nobody could tell that Jehovah’s Witnesses “throw away” (disfellowship) their members for receiving blood transfusion.
Here it is a quote from the letter dated April 26, 2000, that instructed to inform its congregational elders as follow:
If a baptized person willfully and unrepentantly takes blood, he shows that he rejects God’s standard. Thus he would have chosen to disassociate himself from the congregation. − Letter addressed to all travelling overseers.
The consequences of “disassociation” have been described in the Watchtower Society’s literature even much earlier:
In contrast, if a person who is a Christian chooses to disassociate himself, a brief announcement is made to inform the congregation, stating: “[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Such a person is treated in the same way as a disfellowshipped person. (Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will 2015 p. 142. See Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry 1983, 1989 p. 150, emphasis added).
A “disassociated” Jehovah’s Witness is in a much worse situation, and he has even less rights then the “disfellowshipped” one, because there is no way to appeal against the decision of congregational leaders.
|
|
