ANTI-BLOOD DOCTRINE: NO CHANGE
(Investigator 77,
2001
March)
The Times
of
England reported:
"Jehovah's
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)
Actually,
there is no
practical change. 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 religion."
Someone
who "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.
A letter
in another paper, Evening
Standard, by Paul Gillies public
affairs coordinator for JWs in Britain, confirmed:
The
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)
Why did
the Watchtower
Society make this change that isn't really a
change?
To
achieve registration 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.
The
"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.
The 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!
In
previous Investigator
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.
Meanwhile,
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.