Blood transfusion: consumption or transplantation?
 |
 |
From the very beginning, when in 1944-1945 The Watchtower Society began to reject the transfusion, they started to even equate it with “eating” or “nutrition”. This trick supposed to advocate the biblical passages about abstaining from blood or drinking it, along with rejection of blood transfusions.
At the same time, the Watchtower Society teaches that blood transfusion is a “tissue graft”!
Either something is food or transplantation! How it can be both?
Below we have collected the most important fragments from the publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which clearly show their dual teaching about the blood transfusion.
Our text consists of two parts:
Blood transfusion: “food” and “nutrition”
Blood transfusion: “tissue graft”
Once again, can blood transfusion be one thing and the other at the same time?
From the very beginning, when the Watchtower Society began to criticize the transfusion, it associated it with blood “eating”. Here are the words they typically use to describe blood transfusion:
Eating, drinking, nutrition, feeding and consumption.
Below the reader can find the most characteristic fragments illustrating the above mentioned fact:
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).
Just because the blood is transfused directly into the donee’s blood stream instead of directly into his stomach to find its way eventually into his blood stream does not say it is not eating blood (...) It is eating another’s blood in order to replenish a depleted blood stream and to do so in a hurry. (The Watchtower December 1, 1949 p. 368).
Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound? A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method. (The Watchtower July 1, 1951 p. 415).
Blood Transfusion DEFINITION
Transferring blood from the veins or arteries of one person to another. As in intravenous feeding, it is a feeding upon blood. An unscriptural practice. (“Make Sure of All Things” 1953, 1957 p. 47).
Blood transfusion is the same as intravenous feeding; it is a feeding upon blood. (The Watchtower September 1, 1957 p. 532).
It has no bearing on the matter that the blood is not introduced to the body through the mouth but through the veins. Nor does the argument that it cannot be classed with intravenous feeding because its use in the body is different carry weight. The fact is that it provides nourishment to the body to sustain life. (Blood, Medicine and the Law of God 1961 p. 14).
The medical profession today admits that blood transfusion is a direct feeding of the blood vessels of the human body with blood from another person or other persons that the practitioner of blood transfusion says is necessary for the survival of the recipient. (The Watchtower January 15, 1961 pp. 63-64).
God’s law definitely says that the soul of man is in his blood. Hence the receiver of the blood transfusion is feeding upon a God-given soul as contained in the blood vehicle of a fellow man or of fellow men. (The Watchtower January 15, 1961 p. 64).
It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: “In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary—that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.” (The Watchtower September 15, 1961 p. 558).
Someone may argue with you that the Scriptures are referring to the “eating” of blood but that blood is not taken into the digestive system during a transfusion. True, but the fact is that by a direct route the blood serves the same purpose as food when taken into the stomach, namely, strengthening the body or sustaining life. (...) Blood is given to a weak or sick person to build him up, just as food is given to nourish him. (The Watchtower February 15, 1963 p. 124).
Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually “eating.” But is it not true that when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth, doctors often feed him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is administered? (The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life 1968, 1981 p. 167).
However, they do not accept therapy that conflicts with Bible requirements, such as a blood transfusion. The Bible specifically forbids the taking of blood to nourish the body. (The Watchtower July 1, 1975 p. 415).
Dr. Ruth Macklin is a philosopher at Albert Einstein College of Medicine (New York). (...) In response, Dr. Macklin said: “We may believe very strongly this man is making a mistake. But Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that to be transfused is to ‘eat blood’ and that eating blood [may] result in eternal damnation. We are trained to do risk-benefit analyses in medicine but if you weigh eternal damnation against remaining life on earth, the analysis assumes a different angle.”—The New York Times, January 23, 1984. (Awake! July 8, 1984 p. 14).
Let us take another example. Occasionally you may hear someone question whether the Scriptural prohibition against eating blood really applies to transfusions. But what is behind that reasoning? Is it fear—fear of possibly losing one’s present life or the life of a loved one? Is hope in the resurrection fading? Faithful Christians do not compromise on God’s law or look for ways to water it down. Abstaining from blood to nourish the body is just as necessary as abstaining from fornication and idolatry... (The Watchtower March 15, 1986 p. 18).
What, then, about taking a blood transfusion? Some persons may reason that getting a blood transfusion is not actually “eating.” But is it not true that when a patient is unable to take food through his mouth, the doctor often recommends feeding him by the same method in which a blood transfusion is given? The Bible tells us to “abstain from . . . blood.” (Acts 15:20, 29) What does this mean? If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that simply mean that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into your body at all. (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth 1982, 1989 p. 216).
Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?
In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins? (Reasoning From the Scriptures 1989 p. 73).
Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins. (What Does the Bible Really Teach? 2005, 2014 p. 130).
Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusions. This refusal is based on Bible commands, the earliest of which says: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Awake! No. 6, 2009 p. 30).
See What Can the Bible Teach Us? 2015 p. 140.
We see that the Watch Tower Society from its early days, when they started to criticize blood transfusions (and that continues nowadays), claim that such transfusion is either eating, drinking or nutrition according to their interpretation.
But if transfusion is a food, can it be a “tissue graft”?
Watchtower Society often changes its previous teaching to support new light on some matters. When they approved the vaccination, they called off its earlier argument that it was a “blood-feeding”:
Vaccination or Inoculation Not Feeding on Blood; Not Connected with Sex Relations (“Make Sure of All Things” 1953, 1957 p. 48).
Along with the teaching that transfusion is “eating”, “drinking” or “nutrition”, the Watchtower Society claims it is a “tissue graft”!
If they are right about the second claim, then they cannot be right at the same time about the first teaching.
Some of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ opinions on the above topic are as follows:
Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood. (Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood 1977 p. 111).
At that time there was some ‘logic’ and consistency in it, as the transplants and transfusions were “tissue grafts” and both practices were then considered a “cannibalism”:
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).
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. (The Watchtower November 15, 1967 p. 702).
However, in 1980, the Watchtower Society accepted transplants:
Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. (…) Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. (…) It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. (…) While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant. (The Watchtower March 15, 1980 p. 31).
The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other issue transplants must be made by the individual Witness. (Awake! June 22, 1982 p. 26).
See How Can Blood Save Your Life? 1990 p. 28.
It seemed that then there could be a breakthrough in the blood transfusion teaching, since simultaneously it was considered a “tissue graft”. Unfortunately, nothing has changed and transfusion, considered to be a tissue transplant, continued to be a forbidden medical treatment.
What’s more, transfusion is still recognized as tissue graft, so that there is certain inconsistency of the position presented by the organization:
When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient’s immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant. (How Can Blood Save Your Life? 1990 p. 8).
In an article on the risks of blood transfusion, the Clinical Excellence Commission, New South Wales (Australia) Health, states: “A blood transfusion is a living tissue transplant. With any transplant the human body is innately primed to react to something foreign. The safety implications of this are significant.” (Awake! No. 8, 2015 p. 15).
It is clear from the above examples how inconsistent and incoherent tactics the Watchtower Society applies to its medical “science”.
The Watchtower not only classifies the transfusion as “nutrition” with blood and “tissue graft”, but after accepting the practice of transplantation, they separate blood transfusion as tissue graft from the accepted treatment of transplantation!
|
|
