ANTI BLOOD DOCTRINE – NO CHANGE
Witnesses are to be allowed to accept blood transfusions after an
extraordinary U-turn by leaders of the controversial religion. Elders
have decreed that Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood transfusions
under life-or-death circumstances will no longer face excommunication
from their religion." (2000 June 14)
there is no
The article cited JW spokesman Paul Gillies who explained that anyone
who "regretted this decision" [to accept a transfusion] would get
"spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against
them." However if the blood recipient did not regret and repent:
"they…would be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the
"disassociates" himself gets treated the same as someone
excommunicated/disfellowshipped, the person is shunned, not even
greeted. "Disassociation" occurs when a JW declares, usually by
letter, that he is no longer a JW. The difference now, if he accepts
blood without regretting it, is that he's treated as if he prepared
such a letter when in fact he didn't. Alternatively he is treated
as if disfellowhsipped when in fact he's not.
letter in another
paper, Evening Standard, by Paul Gillies, public affairs
coordinator for JWs in Britain, confirmed:
individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than
the congregation initiating this step, which happened until recent
procedural changes. (2000 July 3)
did the Watchtower
Society make this change that isn't really a change?
as a religion in Bulgaria the WTS, in 1998, agreed with the Bulgarian
Government to allow JWs "freedom to choose…medical treatment…without
any control or sanction…" (See report in Investigator No. 61) This
agreement gave the impression that JWs now had different policies on
blood in different countries. This impression had to be ended because
the anti-blood doctrine is supposed to be from the Bible and the Bible
is the same in all countries.
"freedom to choose"
part of the agreement the WTS tackled by telling JWs that they all
choose to reject blood "as free moral agents". (The Watchtower 1998
March 15) Therefore every JW now claims to be against blood transfusion
not because his religion teaches this but because he sees this taught
in the Bible and freely follows it.
idea that JWs follow
the Bible on their own free initiative is, however, refuted because
during the 20th century the sect changed thousands of its doctrinal
interpretations. We would have to believe that thousands of people –
and later millions – simultaneously got the Bible wrong thousands of
times in identical ways without being under any pressure to do so!
articles it was suggested that the JW leaders will hang on to their
"bloody doctrine" in the hope that new medical technology will
eventually make blood transfusions unnecessary.
JWs keep dying
needlessly. The Times article mentioned a 33-year-old mother,
Beverley Matthews, who refused an emergency transfusion the previous
January and died. The article also mentioned Brent Bond of Nottingham
who changed his mind seconds before losing consciousness and was saved.