User talk:PoopShoot

From Iron Chariots Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Jehovah's Witnesses and postoperative re-transfusion of blood.

Preoperative extraction followed by postoperative re-transfusion of their own blood is also discouraged...

Are you sure? Postoperative re-transfusion of blood extracted before an operation was not a "matter of conscience" last I checked. It was disallowed outright, just like a regular whole blood transfusions.

If it's kosher now, boy, things change so easily. You'd think they were just making them up as they go ;)

--Jaban 22:46, 26 January 2009 (CST)

If you have something printed by the Watchtower Society that outright forbids it, by all means change it. When I was studying ~5 years ago, the elders told me that it wasn't forbidden, but that it was strongly discouraged because they felt that the blood was unsafe if stored. They had some kind of conspiracy theory that the doctors would swap it with someone else's so as to force you t sin. The Watchtower allows elders to disfellowship without disclosing the reasons, so they pretty much will vary from Kingdom Hall to Kingdom Hall. They use the magazines and a centralized system to claim homogeneity throughout, but the local elders definitely reign supreme (so long as they obey the big bosses).


The Watchtower, June 15, 1978, page 30:

So, if medical personnel suggest that a Christian permit some of his blood to be withdrawn and deposited in a blood bank for later transfusion purposes, the Christian is not without guidance from the Bible as to the proper course. He can mention that ancient Israelites were told that removed blood was to be 'poured out on the ground as water,' to show that it was for God and not to sustain the life of some earthly creature. (Deut 12:24) 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?

How Can Blood Save Your Life?, 1990, page 27:

Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them. However, many Witnesses permit the use of dialysis and heart-lung equipment (non-blood-prime) as well as intraoperative salvage where the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted; the physician should consult with the individual patient as to what his conscience dictates.2

2. The Watchtower 1978;99 (June 15):29-31.

These reflect what I remember from when I was a Witness. Extraction and re-transfusion is disallowed, but it is a matter of conscience if you consider a salvage/dialysis system to be an extension of your circulatory system (that is, only when the system extracting/re-injecting the blood is never 'disconnected' from your body).

We always watered things down when we were explaining it to people who were studying, because no one would listen to us otherwise. We somehow did not connect the need to do that with our interpretation being absurd.

--Jaban 20:12, 27 January 2009 (CST)

Interesting. They took that out of the updated blood brochure. My wife (a pioneer for several years) said that they changed how strongly they spoke about it a few times, but that an actual member would be disfellowshipped for it whether it was outright forbidden or just "discouraged". You're probably right, they only ever changed it for publicity.


Probably. I got that second quote from the respective pamphlet on their own website. They sometimes change things and simply redefine words to justify it. For example, "blood" was originally disallowed, no ifs ands or buts. Then it got split into components, some of which they defined as being blood and banned (e.g. "red cells" and "plasma") and some which they defined otherwise and left up to us (e.g. "hemoglobin" and "albumin", which is what they almost entirely consist of, respectively).
I haven't been one for a few years, so I don't know what they're doing that with nowadays.
This isn't a direct relation to blood transfusions, but I grew up in what I think was a fairly liberal area where most people considered "matters of conscience" to be things that were allowed but could technically be considered a gray area. But I've been to other congregations where people considered those things as taking a risk and therefore something you shouldn't do. Such local interpretation of even the Society's written opinions must surely affect how things are taught and viewed in different areas.
Off topic tip:
Reply to talk on the page it was written on, and sign your comments. There's a "signature" button at the top of the page, or you can just type two dashes and four tildes.
Normally you'd tab in responses by putting two colons in front of each line, like I did with this line. I didn't do it before because those "quote boxes" can't be tabbed in. I haven't figured out how to make those properly yet.
--Jaban 20:11, 28 January 2009 (CST)
Personal tools
wiki navigation