What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Many Miles]

What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

Our organization’s policy regarding blood is to disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. On the other hand, we are not to disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.

ONE ASPECT OF THE POSITION

We have these two items of response and discussion:

Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’

Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”

The problem with these two items of response is that both are inconsistent with facts on the ground.

Regarding item one above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. This makes our position self-contradictory.

Regarding item two above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false.

If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

[Anna]

57 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

The premise is that fractions of the 4 major components of blood may be regarded as being no blood. So if someone accepts a transfusion of these fractions it is not regarded as a blood transfusion. 

On the other hand  having a transfusion of whole blood or it's 4 major components is considered as breaking God's law and therefore is deemed a disfellowshiping offense, unless the recipient of the transfusion has acted under duress and is repentant. 

[Srecko Sostar]

Biblical terminology uses the explanation that "blood represents life." Literal blood has symbolism and it's the same as saying "life flows in our veins", instead of the word blood. According to the Bible, life is priceless, precious and should be preserved even under the most difficult circumstances. That is why JWs do not look favorably on someone who is in severe pain or even has an incurable disease, who wants to resort to "suicide" as a way out of their condition.

If life is so important, then I would agree with the opinion that the symbol itself, which is represented by the concept of blood, should not have a higher place than what it represents, which is precisely life. Life is more important than a symbol.

Let's not get into the controversy of how people are ready to give their lives for ideals and symbols, as an argument for rejecting blood. Ideology is one thing, biology is another.

Finally, WTJWorg itself throughout its history has not demonstrated a clear understanding of the commandment to "abstain from eating blood." That is why JWs today have a loaded history/legacy of doctrinal errors.

How can the leading people in WTJWorg be trusted, on the issue of blood, when they are unable to clearly define the theology on many other issues?

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Anna said:

The premise is that fractions of the 4 major components of blood may be regarded as being no blood. So if someone accepts a transfusion of these fractions it is not regarded as a blood transfusion. 

On the other hand  having a transfusion of whole blood or it's 4 major components is considered as breaking God's law and therefore is deemed a disfellowshiping offense, unless the recipient of the transfusion has acted under duress and is repentant. 

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant

A accredited medical person must start the delivery and stay by their side taking all their observations every ten minutes for an hour…then every 15 minutes then every half hour …then hourly.

I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…

If everyone understood as to who gave their blood and the incredible amount of parasites and bacteria that are not screened for you wouldn’t ever want one.A Erica s should be especially wary of this, your screening is terrible as are your sources of blood.

Jehovah claims the blood and we need to respect the PRINCIPLE  behind it.

He is not fanatical..he knows we consume cooked blood in even the bled meat..but it is honoring him to pour it out onto the land thus giving it back to him,

It’s such a simple thing to understand …It’s the principle We need to observe……he even forgave those who did not follow his instructions as in King David’s account ….thus persons can and should be forgiven if they are sorry for having a transfusion.. 

 As to fractions..every vaccine and anti venom from snake bite etc has fractions in them.

JWs have the right understanding ..like it or not….as to wether it should be a conscience matter…well I considered that seriously for some time but then that would make fornication  and idol worship a conscience matter…so I had to step back from that reasoning…..

You all do as you want..no skin of my nose…

[Srecko Sostar]

Which "biblical rule", interpreted through the practice of WTJWorg, can cause more harm to JW members?
The "blood rule" or "two witnesses rule"?

I am not a supporter of blood transfusions for medical reasons. But on the other hand, every medicine or method of treatment has its own dangers.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Which "biblical rule", interpreted through the practice of WTJWorg, can cause more harm to JW members?
The "blood rule" or "two witnesses rule"?

I am not a supporter of blood transfusions for medical reasons. But on the other hand, every medicine or method of treatment has its own dangers.

Well the blood issue is a command..not a WT rule…..

the two witness thing was a rule and did cause great damage.It’s now been amended…but too late for so many …

Men did what you are talking about..men who had no right to…these sorts have always existed amongst Gods people….causing him great grief…and a mess he has to clean up.

[Many Miles]

12 hours ago, Anna said:

The premise is that fractions of the 4 major components of blood may be regarded as being no blood. So if someone accepts a transfusion of these fractions it is not regarded as a blood transfusion. 

That's not a premise. That's a doctrinal position. Why should products such as isolated white cells, or isolated red cells, or isolated platelets or isolated plasma "be regarded as being blood", yet other products rendered from blood not "be regarded as being blood"? Answer that question and you'll have a premise.

 

[Many Miles]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

It appears that we have ...

Georgie, you have unfinished business here:

After you take care of that business I'll wade through your comments on this discussion.

[Many Miles]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Biblical terminology uses the explanation that "blood represents life." Literal blood has symbolism and it's the same as saying "life flows in our veins", instead of the word blood. According to the Bible, life is priceless, precious and should be preserved even under the most difficult circumstances.

That's an interesting view. Let's take a closer look at it.

The society holds a religious position that we should "treat life and blood as sacred".

In logical form that looks like:

A = C

B = C

hence A = B

In mathematical form it would look like this, as an example:

2 + 3 = 5

1 + 4 = 5

Hence 2 + 3 = 1 + 4

In written form it looks like this:

Life equals sacred

Blood equals sacred

Hence life equals blood

From a theological perspective there's a huge problem with that notion in terms of our blood doctrine. Here's the problem:

Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends."

So humans have explicit permission to donate their own life to help safe the life of his friends.

If we have explicit permission to donate our life to save life, and if blood equals life, then we have explicit permission to donate our blood to save life.

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant

Yes. Transfusion of blood is an organ transplant.

Because JWs accept transfusion of product rendered from blood than JWs are exposed to all the dangers of transplantation.

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…

Scripturally the notion of "eating" is something done for nutrition. We can render several products from the donor blood supply.

Let's talk about a product from blood we are supposed to reject, the one called red cells. If you solely transfuse red cells in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get no nutritional benefit and the patient will die from starvation.

Now let's talk about a product from blood we can accept, the one called cryosupernatant plasma. If you solely transfuse cryosupernatant plasma in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get nutritional benefit and you have an opportunity to prevent a patient from starving to death.

Hence, in relation to "eating" we have the contradictory position where a product we are told to reject provides no nutritional benefit when administered intravenously where of a product we are told we can accept it does provide nutritional benefit.

 

[Many Miles]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How can the leading people in WTJWorg be trusted, on the issue of blood, when they are unable to clearly define the theology on many other issues?

Short answer: they can't.

Their position on transfusion of donor blood is demonstrably wrong. It is not scriptural. It is also internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

You still have unresolved matters, my dear opponent. However, I do not share the same burden. Unless you can provide tangible proof of humans consuming spoiled meat before the flood, given that your argument has transitioned from carrion to fat, and since you were unsuccessful in addressing the latter, there is no reason to engage in these ignorant mind games any further.

Here:

Now you have unfinished business here: